Consumerium:Non-neutral point of view

From Consumerium development wiki R&D Wiki
(Redirected from NNPOV)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This article is representing the TPOV almost entirely after numerous edits to dispute it's content

This article is disputed as being absolute nonsense due to its stupid title.

For serious suggestion of POVs look into POVs.


The so-called "neutral point of view" is a state where all disputed statements have attribution. However, this is not "neutral" with respect to what is disputed, by who, or how often.

topdog view

This neutrality is defined by some set of arbitrators or controllers, in large public wikis this is typically a sysop power structure that uses the claim that something is "not neutral" to bolster their own power, and reinforce systemic bias. These topdog people would say that non-neutral points of view include:

underdog view

This "sympathetic versus critical" problem is not entirely solved by sysopism (claiming "neutrality" and claiming that whoever has IP block power, knows what it is). There is an underdog view: Trolls argue that non-neutral point of view itself is merely an invented mechanism used by others to define them as "wrong" - a God's Eye View.

Those who dispute the ability of anyone to tell "sympathetic" from "critical" or "opinion" from "research", would prefer that this article be from a very critical POV, and consider its title to be from a:

The troll rhetoric seems to arise naturally in reaction to sysopism and will probably flare up intensely any time someone makes an assumption of power. The power-driven model has led only to years of conflict at Wikipedia and has only moved to other levels by banning dissidents like the Wikipedia Red Faction.


A less painful way to express the above debate, and make wiki structure and titling less dependent on "which faction is in charge right now", is that Consumerium point of view is factionally defined, and that each faction has its own POV that it can agree on with others of that faction. Each Research Wiki page is effectively a battleground for duelling POV, and this conflict helps to bring out the truth - in an adversarial process such as is applied in court. Some things, like the process itself, or the existence of Wikimedia corruption may not be disputed, while others, like the role of "opinion in research", might be hotly disputed, yielding:

Articles might then be divided among a Green or Pink or Red point of view, depending on the factions, but are not reduced to "sympathetic/critical" or "consensual/multiple" as these are not axes that are derived from real values.

This factional model is politics as usual as in representative democracy. It has its problems, but, it's the only thing we agree to run the world on.


Governance by Kit-Kat McFlurry is yet another management paradigm when whoever has controll of the fast food syrup supply and freezer gets to do awful things to whoever they think are trolls using these mechanisms.

Actually McFlurries are not made of syrup, they consist of soft ice cream and crushed candy, spun with a fairly heavy, specially crafted plastic spoon --Juxo 21:48, 2 Jul 2004 (EEST)