User:Mark in wiki

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hi there!

One of the central problems with Wikipedia, I believe, is the fact that fans change the articles on the subjects they're fans of. There's also experts changing the articles of the subjects they're experts on. In Wikipedia there's a thin line between the two, although by definition a fan is something wholly different from an expert. Fans changing articles leaves us with sentences like: "this musician sold out every show he ever performed" and words like "hugely influential" or "seminal rock-band."

I just don't believe that a thing like NPOV exists. Maybe we shouldn't try so hard. Every opinion is a personal opinion. Only mathematical axioms (like 1+1=2) are fairly neutral. Why wouldn't it be possible to make an encyclopedia without the NPOV, that is to say: without the illusion that anything might be "neutral"?

I can hardly understand that so many people believe in objectivity or semi-objectivity or neutrality, so much even that they think an encyclopedia can be built upon that idea. Many of the articles that write about the few subjects I know something about are full of nonsense, with no sense of objectivity, nuance or the possibility to check at all. I am not so much talking about factual nonsense, as I am talking about nonsense in the general thought behind a certain article.

Above that, articles get changed by people who have big mouths. The timid ones will think twice before changing something. But at the same time it's the timid people that are the more intelligent people on this planet. It's certainly not the ones with large mouths! And I would think the quality of Wikipedia will depend on intelligence, not on insolence. Only insolent people disagree with that, I guess. :-)

Are there any users out there who think about those things?

Greetings.