I have reason to know, as do many of you, that when the evidence on a controversial subject is fairly and calmly presented, the public recognizes it for what it is--an effort to illuminate rather than to agitate.
All articles are imperfect, get used to it. Some are very poor. In a collaboration of many people, with some more capable than others, it would be a near miracle if an article appeared fully formed, cited, well-written and error free. The beauty of a wiki is that eventually articles can reach this state after many iterations by many people.
Improve articles by building upon what is there. Even though there is a strong urge to delete something for being "wrong", it is very important to put effort into what can be salvaged and improved upon. This takes more work, but it has many positive side effects, the two most important being that the article gets better, and people collaborate more agreeably.
NPOV does not mean deciding which side in a debate is correct. In most POV disputes both sides are doing the same thing -- insisting that their view is correct. Energy should be put into finding citations for opinions and their refutations. The POVs of the Wikipedian writers and editors are irrelevant. If the POV of an article is to be challenged, it should be done by adding citations of counter claims. The discussions on the talk page should NOT be about which claim is correct, but about whether the article presents the claim and citation accurately, and in a well-balanced way.
People's agendas are irrelevant. It would be ridiculous to claim to be an editor who is totally without a personal agenda. Aware of it or not, everyone has an agenda. It is a waste of time, and counter-productive to discuss people's motivations -- all it will lead to is bad feelings and personal attacks. Instead of discussing the motivation of other editors, editors should look for ways of finding acceptable language for opinions they find distasteful.
Watch your emotions. If you cannot work on an article without getting charged up emotionally by the subject matter, or cannot stand to see distasteful views presented in an NPOV way, you should probably stay away from the article, and leave it to other editors.
Devote time to talking with others. Extra work put into discussions when there is a conflict or misunderstanding goes a very long way. This means making certain that you have stated your case clearly, you consider and address the concerns of other editors, no pronouns are ambiguous, etc... What is obvious to one editor can be totally misinterpreted by another.
Be nice. Rudeness and incivility only lead to an editor being ignored or banned. Even if an editor is 100% certain that their position is correct, it is no excuse for not being civil. We are all volunteers here. Nobody enjoys being yelled at. Don't yell back.
My name is Samuel Wantman. When I joined Wikipedia and was asked to pick a user name, I didn't know what to do. Should I remain anonymous? Should I create a fake identity? After a great deal of thought, I decided to use my actual name. I am not adding any other information about myself, but if you pore over my edits you'll probably be able to figure out quite a bit about me. If you do a web search you'll find some other information. I have an unusual name, so most of what you can find is me.
While I am using my real name, I don't want to say anything about my credentials or past experience. They do not matter. I believe that the edit is important, not the editor. If the edit can be verified, and it has been written in an NPOV way, then it is a good edit. It doesn't matter what the credentials of the editor are.
Why have I chosen not to be anonymous? It is to hopefully keep me honest. By using my real name, I am more cautious, careful, and hopefully more polite. I know from experience that a small lie can grow into a big one. I didn't want to start out by lying about who I am. I strive to be a trusted member of the community.
