Tue 31st March 2009, 1:04am
QUOTE(emesee @ Mon 30th March 2009, 8:21pm)
"Explain how the constant contest for WP:BOO leads to Wikipedia's Fundamentally Uncivil Culture (WP:FUC)."
As you seem to imply, it seems, in this version of "NPOV", whoever has the most power in the system, can say that "I am the most NPOV", and then enforce their view/NPOVness. This seems to be done to a point of not just, "I am human too, I do have biases that may unconsciously affect my actions" but to the point, of where it really becomes sort of gross, for lack of a better word.
So he may be fundamentally OK with incivility among the bureaucracy, he doesn't care, or else he just doesn't know how to stop it.
It may be that he ultimately feels/believes that he is the most NPOV. He has enforced it since the beginning through the mechanisms that exist, and filtered the same attitude down through the chosen/semi-elected leadership.
That seems to be a big part of it.
I was mulling this over while I sampled the threads on Animal Rites and CiteBorgs and several others that I forget already, and I find myself asking over and over — What keeps Wikipediots from researching and writing articles the way normal scholars do?
I mean, really, what's so confounded complicated about writing things like "A
", and "B
", and "C
's argument-evidence-experiment is regarded among demographic-discipline D
as showing that Z
Why are Wikipediots so desperate to arrogate, not just the ex cathedra
seal of approval for their personal points of view, but the illusion of an authority that cannot be questioned — if only because they hide the agenda and the audit trail behind a screen of blue smoke and mirrors?