I'm Elvira Cardigan. I worry about NPOV and what it's evolving to mean. I thought it meant a Neutral Point of View, but apparently not. Not here on Wikipedia. Here on Wikipedia NPOV (according to some) means we have to employ an editorial bias towards what are described as 'reliable sources'. In other words, we have to suppress opinions and facts that might be seen to undermine received opinion.
I'm left wondering what kind of encyclopedia is more interested in telling people what to think than informing them? I'm wondering why we can't just offer up the facts - all of them - without censorship, and let people make up their own minds? I thought that was what Wikipedia was all about? Open access. Freedom of thought.
But no. Apparently not. Not any more. Now our business is censorship. Of science, of history, of current affairs. We're not interested in being fair any more. We're interested in presenting what is currently considered by 'reliable' people to be true.
Who are the 'reliable' people? Who gets to decide?
Ah. Good question. But don't expect an answer.
Do you think it disturbs these guys to know that if Wiki had been around in the 17th C its 'reliable' people would have been burning heretics? Imagine the Wiki entry for Copernicus there would have been back then - "Conspiracy-theorist who has claimed the earth may not be the center of the universe. Orthodox opinion is united against this view, and Copernicus has been described as a 'dangerous madman' with no evidence at his disposal'.
So, following in a great tradition of free thought there guys.