User:K13060

Hi. I'm a college instructor with two Master's degrees and pretty extensive social science knowledge.

I've become interested in NPOV issues, although it's clear that two people can easily differ as to what, in fact, constitutes a NPOV. In general, I try to be sure that my side isn't being treated unfairly, although I've been involved in cleaning up POV in areas I'm ambivalent or indifferent about as well, especially when I see a page about anything-- be it a game, a person, or whatever-- that looks more like a public relations article than a NPOV article.

When I have a strong POV on an issue, and believe an article is slanted against it, I'll try to fix it and make it NPOV from my perspective. If those whose personal POV is opposite disagree, I try to work towards compromise language that it's hard for anyone to disagree with. This likely leads to the "most" NPOV possible.

I also tend to believe in inclusion: I don't like to see articles about noteworthy things deleted. The ideal Wikipedia in my view would have an article about anything a reasonable number of people might want to know about. That ideal can never be achieved, but a "when in doubt, don't delete information" policy is best to come as close as possible.

Recently I've waded into editing political articles, despite that I'd avoided it because I knew it would bring significant stress. Contrary to what some may think now, I'm not far left (even by American standards), nor am I conservative, which someone might think due to some edit I make later. I'm a moderately liberal Democrat. I can seem left wing because I hate George W. Bush with a passion, or conservative because I hate the true far left-- and political correctness-- almost as much; but average me out and I'm somewhat, but not extremely, liberal.