Thread by @lsanger

From the last version of "Neutral point of view" policy I wrote before leaving #Wikipedia in 2002:

"There is another reason to commit ourselves to a nonbias policy. Namely, when it is clear to readers that we do not expect them to adopt any particular opinion, ...

... this is conducive to our readers’ feeling free to make up their own minds for themselves, and thus to encourage in them intellectual independence. So totalitarian governments and dogmatic institutions everywhere might find reason to be opposed to Wikipedia, ...

... if we succeed in adhering to our nonbias policy: the presentation of many competing theories on a wide variety of subjects suggests that we, the creators of Wikipedia, trust readers’ competence to form their own opinions themselves."

Wikipedia DESPISES this view today.

It goes on: "Texts that present the merits of multiple viewpoints fairly, without demanding that the reader accept any one of them, are liberating. Neutrality subverts dogmatism. This is something that nearly everyone working on Wikipedia can agree is a good thing."

Further down: "according to our understanding, when one writes neutrally, one is very careful not to state (or imply or insinuate or carefully but subtly massage the reader into believing) that any particular view at all is correct."

Compare with Wikipedia's current practice.