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:
In large networked communities, found in super-concentrated online media with rapid feedback loops. The speed of network feedback is fuels cliques that insert opinion into all types of media.
A Theory of Creepy: Technology, Privacy, and Shifting Social Norms page
Online media makes money by inserting advertising into the emotional discourse and uses recommender engines to magnify love and hate, rather than using algorithms to foster consensus.
A new publishing system designed for editing your own version and slowly coming to consensus in smaller communities feels ripe to emerge out of the shit storm of adtech driven social media and the spill-over effect such as on Wikipedia warring page
Fedwiki provides a writing, sharing, editing tool without market incentives for social accelerant. Slower, smaller effects that help us move back toward a community-driven consensus. We can see this evolving in Birdwatch at Twitter page
Overall the best way online to arrive at NPV is to read and write (a lot) without social warring.
.
Also see
- Local practical problem solving
- Wikipedia’s censorship of Bitcoin page