Changes

Pretty much any subject you search Google for – let's say 'Neurolinguistic programming', the article about it in Wikipedia comes first in the ranking.  That makes Wikipedia an attractive target for determined groups of individuals who want to present their idea or product in a global market, free of charge.  Join the encylopedia that anyone can edit, write an article about, let's say, [[Directory:The Wikipedia Point of View/Neurolinguistic programming | Neurolinguistic programming]], and you have as much free advertising as you want.   

Pretty much any subject you search Google for – let's say 'Neurolinguistic programming', the article about it in Wikipedia comes first in the ranking.  That makes Wikipedia an attractive target for determined groups of individuals who want to present their idea or product in a global market, free of charge.  Join the encylopedia that anyone can edit, write an article about, let's say, [[Directory:The Wikipedia Point of View/Neurolinguistic programming | Neurolinguistic programming]], and you have as much free advertising as you want.   

Now Wikipedia has a [[Directory:The Wikipedia Point of View/Neutral Point of View | Neutral Point of View]] policy.  This requires you to write not what you believe to be true – not even if you know it to be true, in the philosopher's justified true belief sense - but only what is ''verifiable''.  The theory is that any overtly biased article on NLP, crystal healing, or whatever, will be overwritten by someone else who will come along and edit the article to a more 'neutral point of view'.  He, or she who can cite reputable, authoritative peer-reviewed research against the many strange and idiosyncratic views we encounter in real life, in quack medicine, from proponents of 'alternative sexuality' viewpoints, and so on.

Wikipedia has a [[Directory:The Wikipedia Point of View/Neutral Point of View | Neutral Point of View]] policy.  This requires you to write not what you believe to be true – not even if you know it to be true, in the philosopher's justified true belief sense - but only what is ''verifiable''.  The theory is that any overtly biased article on NLP, crystal healing, or whatever, will be overwritten by someone else who will come along and edit the article to a more 'neutral point of view'.  He, or she who can cite reputable, authoritative peer-reviewed research against the many strange and idiosyncratic views we encounter in real life, in quack medicine, from proponents of 'alternative sexuality' viewpoints, and so on.

But it has become apparent that the NPOV policy has failed Wikipedia in many areas.  This has happened for many reasons, which will be documented in '''The Wikipedia Point of View'''.

But it has become apparent that the NPOV policy has failed Wikipedia in many areas.  This has happened for many reasons, which will be documented in '''The Wikipedia Point of View'''.