We (including myself) have gone back and forth on how we diverge from Wikipedia guidelines. I believe that the recent addition of Blogs allows us to adopt a standard Wikipedia position on NPOV. Given our historiographical orientation towards serious, documented genealogy, I think we need to take the same approach as Wikipedia. This is contrary to our currently stated position at NPOV, Template:POV-check and Template:POV. A wikipedia practice that these early positions did not take into consideration was that an NPOV article actually allows a clear and full description of all competing points of view. Some contributors will not agree on the weight given to alternate points of view. Ancestry.com allows POV trees so if people want to do that, then there is a place for it. In contrast, Familypedia is the place for high quality collaboration with single, not multiple articles on individuals. We need to position ourselves as the high quality location to deposit research that anyone may access for free, virtually in perpetuity.
If everyone is amenable, I suggest we adopt the WP standard NPOV stance for the body of the article, but that each article allow a Blog list in the article so that personal accounts, advocacy of competing POVs, and undocumented reminiscences may be included.
- Sounds good -- Fred Bergman 08:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)