POV

What the Prime Directive is to Star Trek, NPOV (neutral point of view) is to Wikipedia. The idea is every article should be accurate, yes, but also disinterested.

This isn't easy, especially on controversial issues. The temptation to make a point (or not to see the other side) is just too strong.

For instance, I was looking up Michael O'Hanlon, one of the writers of The New York Times editorial that's got everyone abuzz--the one suggesting there are very positive signs in Iraq. What caused the stir is that O'Hanlon and co-author Kenneth Pollack are of the left.

Needles to say, war supporters have grabbed onto this piece as a lifeline, while war opponents claim O'Hanlon and Pollack are not only longtime fans of the war, but are also being misleading when when they claim to have been strong critics of how it's been carried out.

Personally, I'd say while there's no doubt they're among the leftists who supported the war, it's also easy enough to look up previous articles where O'Hanlon has spoken out against the Bush administration's handling of the war.

Anyway, the most recent author of the Wikepedia entry on O'Hanlon (it may change yet again) discusses O'Hanlon's article, and then quotes Glenn Greenwald as an example of a critic who has questioned O'Hanlon's honesty. Greenwald says O'Hanlon has regularly supported the war and continually said things are going well.

I'm pretty sure that Greenwald's wrong, but that's not the point. By positing Greenwald as some sort of objective critic--he's desribed as an "attorney and columnist"--and not as the harsh critic of the Bush administartion that he is, the author of the entry is allowing Greenwald to do his arguing for him.

It's not hard to find people who agree with you and have gone on record. To quote them as objective sources, rather than partisan voices in a controversy, seems to me to be breaking the NPOV rule.