Wikipedia - the 'net's biggest POV pusher? Options

[TheKartingWikipedian]

Here's a thought (sorry, it Ireland/Britain related again). If Wikipedia supports a position on some matter or other - and it does - then it's pushing POV, and given the site receives more hits than just about any other website, Wikipedia is the web's biggest POV pusher; right?

Take this example. There's controversy and ill feeling about the naming of Londonderry in Northern Ireland. The official name is Londonderry, but the Irish pov pushers are in there and have managed to get an Ireland Manual of Style ruling that the name should be Derry throughout the 'pedia; see here. We then have gits like this who take no prisoners in their quest to change every instance of Londonderry to Derry. So my point is - Wikipedia is, to all intents and purposes, promoting the use of Derry as opposed to Londonderry, so the dirty bastards are POV pushing, simple as that. Anyone who reads Wikipedia will conclude that Derry is right and Londonderry is wrong.

Surely the non-pov way would be to accept either version and defer to the choice of the first major editor of an article, and only change following agreement (see the BC/AD versus CE/BCE ruling for how this can work).

So there you have it. I bet this sort of thing is happening throughtout the 'pedia, so despite all the shit from the likes of Jimbo regarding some pillars or other, Wikipedia must be the world's biggest pov pusher.


Note: for the county of Londonderry as opposed to the city, the IMOS states Londonderry must be used - POV pushing again.

[thekohser]

Surely the non-pov way would be to accept either version and defer to the choice of the first major editor of an article, and only change following agreement (see the BC/AD versus CE/BCE ruling for how this can work).

I believe "first major editor" is a horrible way to decide naming conventions. What would be more useful, I think, is that where there are social contentions about names of things, if the article in which the name appears is mostly about the country or culture or system where one name is used, then go with that country/culture/system name, with the other contentious name in parenthesis after it. So, throughout Wikipedia, on "Irish" articles, it might say "Derry (or, Londonderry in British terminology)"; and on "British" articles, it might say "Londonderry (or, Derry in Irish terminology)".

I'm obviously not an expert on this or other matters of nomenclature, but my path seems to be a more constructive solution than a "first major editor wins" solution.

[Larry Sanger]

I believe "first major editor" is a horrible way to decide naming conventions. What would be more useful, I think, is that where there are social contentions about names of things, if the article in which the name appears is mostly about the country or culture or system where one name is used, then go with that country/culture/system name, with the other contentious name in parenthesis after it. So, throughout Wikipedia, on "Irish" articles, it might say "Derry (or, Londonderry in British terminology)"; and on "British" articles, it might say "Londonderry (or, Derry in Irish terminology)".

I'm obviously not an expert on this or other matters of nomenclature, but my path seems to be a more constructive solution than a "first major editor wins" solution.

That (follow the most common convention) was the main naming convention rule as I recall it--I believe I formulated it originally that way.