As an editor, I maintain that it is important for all Wikipedia editors to do their best to ensure articles have a neutral point of view. However, while I do think it's important to strive for a neutral point of view, I subscribe to the idea that it's an unattainable absolute and that, essentially, all articles will have some form of bias dependent upon the agreed consensus of the editors. Moreover, Wikipedia's editing process tends to lend itself to a certain kind of proposed objectivity where, rather than having an objective or unbiased point of view, two or more contradicting statements and sources are presented alongside each other which has the effect of a back-and-forth-type appearance as opposed to pure objectivity. I believe that this is inevitable and completely unavoidable, but that it creates a danger with polarized or partisan articles because they can be incredibly biased if the editors all agree to a certain partisan stance rather than recognizing the other viewpoints that are necessary for Wikipedia's type of objectivity. Following logically from this, I also consider myself an inclusionist, since I believe that Wikipedia fundamentally and necessarily lends itself towards objectivity the more information or viewpoints are added to it. Notability as a criteria for article creation is unnecessarily restrictive, in my view, and deeply damages the overall encyclopedic style of Wikipedia because the less articles there are about different subjects, the less objective Wikipedia will become as a whole. As an editor I also believe that Wikipedia's hierarchy can be overly-bureaucratic at times and that serious reforms are needed in order to address the issues of groupthink, mob rule, and tyranny of the majority without proper protections for less popular (but still valid/professional) views in terms of which sources should be used and whether an article is biased or not.
.jpg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
