Changes

What is chance of such a salubrious reform being enacted?  Absolute zero.  The reason for this simple enough: the “sole founder” and “God-King” of Wikipedia, Jimbo Wales, says so.  His 2001  pharaonic fiat reads [http://nostalgia.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jimbo_Wales/Statement_of_principles&oldid=75340 in pertinent part:]

What is chance of such a salubrious reform being enacted?  Absolute zero.  The reason for this simple enough: the “sole founder” and “God-King” of Wikipedia, Jimbo Wales, says so.  His 2001  pharaonic fiat reads [http://nostalgia.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jimbo_Wales/Statement_of_principles&oldid=75340 in pertinent part:]

[indent]"You can edit this page right now" is a core guiding check on everything that we do. We must respect this principle as sacred.[/indent]

[blockquote]"You can edit this page right now" is a core guiding check on everything that we do. We must respect this principle as sacred.[/blockquote]

Later, this “sacred” principle was made into the Third Pillar of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars The Five Pillars of Wikipedia], which “define the character of the project”.  In other words, instant editing is sacred; it is off the table for discussion; and any suggestion of such a reform of WP is wiki-heresy for which the offender shall be banned and consigned to “off-wiki” hell.  Never mind that the central administrative junta that largely runs WP (“The Cabal”) makes exceptions as to who constitutes the “anyone” that may edit WP (after all, certain individuals and IP ranges are unmutual and must be suppressed for the good of the wiki); the basic principle remains inviolable.

Later, this “sacred” principle was made into the Third Pillar of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars The Five Pillars of Wikipedia], which “define the character of the project”.  In other words, instant editing is sacred; it is off the table for discussion; and any suggestion of such a reform of WP is wiki-heresy for which the offender shall be banned and consigned to “off-wiki” hell.  Never mind that the central administrative junta that largely runs WP (“The Cabal”) makes exceptions as to who constitutes the “anyone” that may edit WP (after all, certain individuals and IP ranges are unmutual and must be suppressed for the good of the wiki); the basic principle remains inviolable.

“Neutral” in regular English (as opposed to English wikispeak) usually denotes nonalignment; taking none of any of the contending viewpoints as to a subject.  But on WP, as with so many other common words, “neutral” has a rather different meaning.  The [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ANeutral_point_of_view&diff=244018337&oldid=243690817 official policy] starts off the definition of “NPOV” as follows:

“Neutral” in regular English (as opposed to English wikispeak) usually denotes nonalignment; taking none of any of the contending viewpoints as to a subject.  But on WP, as with so many other common words, “neutral” has a rather different meaning.  The [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ANeutral_point_of_view&diff=244018337&oldid=243690817 official policy] starts off the definition of “NPOV” as follows:

[indent]The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given ''undue weight'' or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one.[/indent]

[blockquote]The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given ''undue weight'' or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one.[/blockquote]

So far, so good.  Then comes the kicker:

So far, so good.  Then comes the kicker:

[indent]'''As the name suggests, the neutral point of view ''is'' a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints.''' The neutral point of view policy is often misunderstood. '''The acronym NPOV does not mean "no points of view"'''. The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV". The neutral point of view is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject: it neither endorses nor discourages viewpoints. (My bolding).[/indent]

[blockquote]'''As the name suggests, the neutral point of view ''is'' a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints.''' The neutral point of view policy is often misunderstood. '''The acronym NPOV does not mean "no points of view"'''. The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV". The neutral point of view is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject: it neither endorses nor discourages viewpoints. (My bolding).[/blockquote]

So it would appear that ''the'' central policy of WP requires WP editors to ''construct'' a “neutral” viewpoint that somehow through some wiki-magic absorbs bits from the various contending viewpoints, giving no “undue weight” to any of the contending views, but still manages to be a viewpoint all its own.  This way madness lies.

So it would appear that ''the'' central policy of WP requires WP editors to ''construct'' a “neutral” viewpoint that somehow through some wiki-magic absorbs bits from the various contending viewpoints, giving no “undue weight” to any of the contending views, but still manages to be a viewpoint all its own.  This way madness lies.

WP does not have any explicit policy to discourage expert participation, but it might as well have.  In terms of determining content, WP focuses not so much on the actual merits of factual claims or contentions, but rather upon ''process'' and ''user behavior''.  Central to this view is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AConsensus&diff=245812716&oldid=245806625 WP’s official policy on consensus], which is founded directly upon The Jimbo’s peculiar definition of that word:

WP does not have any explicit policy to discourage expert participation, but it might as well have.  In terms of determining content, WP focuses not so much on the actual merits of factual claims or contentions, but rather upon ''process'' and ''user behavior''.  Central to this view is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AConsensus&diff=245812716&oldid=245806625 WP’s official policy on consensus], which is founded directly upon The Jimbo’s peculiar definition of that word:

[indent]Consensus is a partnership between interested parties working positively for a common goal.[/indent]

[blockquote]Consensus is a partnership between interested parties working positively for a common goal.[/blockquote]

Note that the emphasis is on process, not the normal definition of “consensus”, which is a general  agreement between a group as a whole.  “Consensus” is deemed to be “Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making”, and is also a chief part of the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars “Fourth Pillar”] of WP.  The clear emphasis on process is also shown by [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e2/CCC_Flowchart_6.jpg the flow chart] which appears on the policy page.

Note that the emphasis is on process, not the normal definition of “consensus”, which is a general  agreement between a group as a whole.  “Consensus” is deemed to be “Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making”, and is also a chief part of the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars “Fourth Pillar”] of WP.  The clear emphasis on process is also shown by [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e2/CCC_Flowchart_6.jpg the flow chart] which appears on the policy page.