Wikipedia articles are not required to invent or embellish an opposing point of view if there isn't one. We are reporting upon a subject, whatever the article topic may be. Within that, some facts (or their interpretations) will be contested, others will be mostly accepted, others again will be almost universally accepted. We are obligated to ensure that when the article is complete, it mirrors and characterises, without re-enacting, the subject to which it refers. The presence of opposing views in the article is purely a function of whether there were significant opposing views in the subject itself.
The acid test if NPOV is achieved, is the map-territory relation -- the extent to which the article can be used as a "map" to guide a lay-person through the "territory" of the subject, including its relevant detours, conflicts and highways. Like a map, no article perfectly mirrors a subject, nor is this expected; if it did it would have to re-enact and be as large as the subject itself. There is a "cutoff" of detail, called "notability" (or sometimes, "salience") in Wikipedia, and a good map must have enough detail, but not too much as to be unwieldy and unhelpful in navigating ones way.
Seek dispute resolution -- if you can't reason with them, and their actions need intervention, don't do it all yourself. Stay calm, and allow time for dispute resolution. It's a lot easier for others to sort out one person acting up than two.
Don't be a fanatic - extremes help nobody. This is a collaborative project, it is never wrong to ask another uninvolved person to handle it, or check it, or tell you what they think. It's by far the most trouble-free option.
Make mistakes gracefully - we all do. When it happens to you, learn from it, understand it, and let it go. The reasons people have trouble is they can't learn, or can't let go.
Writing for Wikipedia
Writing for an encyclopedia is not the same as writing for a newspaper, or even an academic paper. In a way, it's more like writing the bibliography for an academic paper. In a way, we aren't even trying to decide (as experts would) what is "true" and what isn't, because that's not what this is. We are summarizing a field, creating a balanced collation of multiple perspectives and views. Theres few decisions to make, few opinions to form, other than to observe which views seem to be more or less relevant views of note, and to understand each (and its sources) well enough to document.
We care that we document each view carefully and with understanding. That is the "truth" we work to here. That, and that alone. Our truth is the truth of the bibliography, and the measure is, have we represented collectively in summary the multiple verifiable sources of note. Drawing editorial conclusions from all of them is the end-use of an encyclopedia, not the work of encyclopedists.
I started editing in 2004, wrote over a hundred articles, became an administrator, then appointed to the email response team ('OTRS') and shortly afterwards the Arbitration Committee in December 2007. In these roles, I have dealt with content writing, content policy, editorial disputes, community matters, privacy and sensitive issues, and a large number of fairly nasty editors and inappropriately-behaving admins. We're here as volunteers to write a reference work, which means fair handling is important. As of 2012 I'm still writing articles.
I lean towards community approaches and a level field. I pushed for communal input in the Checkuser/Oversight appointment process, provided the first on-wiki analysis of Checkuser tool use, and a load of others. At Arbcom itself I fought hard for better process, a formal structure for proposals to be examined and voted on, and better collaboration/workflow.
Areas of interest:
Writing content - I've written over a hundred articles and substantively contributed to many more. I have a wide interest; my contributions include physics and legal rulings, film plots and clinical science, technology and religion.
Expansion and reorganization of new + high profile topic
Media uproar over 'legitimate rape' and pregnancy comments by US politician Todd Akin led to other users creating (and AFD'ing) this article. Although a clear AFD "keep", it was of inadequate quality for a now-prominent topic, aspects such as rape and pregnancy in war and statutory rape contexts were clearly missing, along with research cite data on these, and the article was also in need of cleanup and reorganizing, partly due to likely high viewing level.
The Higgs Boson hit the news hard in December, but our article didn't explain much about this crucial area of cutting edge physics, nor the linked areas behind it. When the July 2012 discovery was announced, the article and related articles gained from considerable research and many new sections to both make explanations clearer and add new more exact technical and history information.
Along with Drowning (cleaned up) a crucial article. This one article is one of those I value most. This article isn't about mere information. Wikipedia will directly over time save many lives. It's humbling.