Larry Sanger, the co-founder of Wikipedia, published a blog post this month declaring that the online encyclopedia’s “neutral point of view” (NPV) policy is “dead” due to the rampant left-wing bias of the site page .
Generally, I agree that the NPV is dead-on political pages. I think an inability to agree is facts without inserting opinion, is why Federated Wiki is taking root. We can begin to see the transition in online investigative and political news sites in how the social commenting systems are ranked by an algorithm. Giving rise to harder editorial opinions to satisfy readers seen also in contentious pages on Wikipedia. Here's an example.
Wikipedia editors discourage (stop) Criticism section of Critical Theory. See 'page talk' the article lacks a Criticism section... page
Not only Wikipedia.
For half of my adult life, I subscribed to the Financial Times, I now find the editorial and other opinion pages have turned away from a neutral point of view. There used to be counter-opinions. Also, the FT's online commenting system also used to highlight the best alternative or neutral POV, akin to letters to the editor, alas this is also no longer the case. Instead, comments made by the readership are ranked and presented by attention.
If we try to find out what has happened here, in large networked communities, found in super-concentrated online media i.e. MSNBC, CNN, Twitter with rapid feedback loops. The speed of network feedback effects of likes is fueling harder opinions.
I do think a new publishing system designed for editing your own version will emerge to capture the zeitgeist and reestablish an NPV (federated content may be ranked by transparent machine algorithm).
Fedwiki provides a writing, sharing, editing tool without market incentives and social accelerant effects helping us move back toward a community-driven NPV. Overall the best way online to arrive at NPV is to read and write (a lot). Less Wikipedia and more Wiki's.