Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
It might help to consider an example of how Wikipedians have improved a biased text.
On the abortion page, early in 2001, some advocates had used the page to exchange barbs, being unable to agree about what arguments should be on the page and how the competing positions should be represented. What was needed—and what was added—was an in-depth discussion of the different positions about the moral and legal aspects of abortion at different times. This discussion of the positions was carefully crafted so as not to favor any one of the positions outlined. This made it easier to organize and understand the arguments surrounding the topic of abortion, which were then presented impartially, each with its strengths and weaknesses.
There are numerous other success stories of articles that began life as virtual partisan screeds but were nicely cleaned up by people who concerned themselves with representing all views clearly and impartially.
[
Common objections and clarifications
- See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ for answers and clarifications on the issues raised in this section
Common objections or concerns raised to Wikipedia's Neutral point of view policy include the following.
- There's no such thing as objectivity
Everybody with any philosophical sophistication knows that. So how can we take the "neutrality" policy seriously?
- Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete
The neutrality policy is used sometimes as an excuse to delete texts that are perceived as biased. Isn't this a problem?
- Making necessary assumptions
What about the case where, in order to write any of a long series of articles on some general subject, we must make some controversial assumptions? That's the case, e.g., in writing about evolution. Surely we won't have to hash out the evolution-vs.-creationism debate on every such page?
- Giving "equal validity"
I find the optimism about science vs. pseudoscience to be baseless. History has shown that pseudoscience can beat out facts, as those who rely on pseudoscience use lies, slander, innuendo and numerical majorities of followers to force their views on anyone they can. If this project gives equal validity to those who literally claim that the Earth is flat, or those who claim that the Holocaust never occurred, the result is that it will (inadvertently) legitimize and help promote that which only can be termed evil.
- Writing for the "enemy"
I'm not convinced by what you say about "writing for the enemy." I don't want to write for the enemy. Most of them rely on stating as fact many things which are demonstrably false. Are you saying that, to be neutral in writing an article, I must lie, in order to represent the view I disagree with?
- Religion
Disrespecting my religion or treating it like a human invention of some kind is religious discrimination, inaccurate, or wrong. And what about beliefs I feel are wrong, or against my religion, or outdated, or non-scientific?
- Morally offensive views
What about views that are morally offensive to most Westerners, such as racism, sexism, and Holocaust denial, that some people actually hold? Surely we are not to be neutral about them?
- Pseudoscience
How are we to write articles about pseudoscientific topics, about which majority scientific opinion is that the pseudoscientific opinion is not credible and doesn't even really deserve serious mention?
- Dealing with biased contributors
I agree with the non-bias policy but there are some here who seem completely, irremediably biased. I have to go around and clean up after them. What do I do?
- Avoiding constant disputes
How can we avoid constant and endless warfare over neutrality issues?
- Anglo-American focus
Wikipedia seems to have an Anglo-American focus. Is this contrary to the neutral point of view?
- Other objections
I have some other objection—where should I complain?
Since the neutral-point-of-view policy is often unfamiliar to newcomers—and is so central to Wikipedia's approach—many issues surrounding the neutrality policy have been covered before very extensively. If you have some new contribution to make to the debate, you could try Talk:Neutral point of view, or bring it up on the Wikipedia-l mailing list. Before asking it, please review the links below.
[
Notes
- ^ a b For more details, see the Undue Weight section in this policy.
- ^ Opinions involve both matters of fact and value; see fact-value distinction
- ^ a b (See also, Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words, Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms).
- ^ Note, however, that redirects may be used to address this technical limitation in situations where non-controversial synonyms and variations in word morphology exist.
- ^ (See also: Choosing among controversial names, Choosing geographic names, Wikipedia:Naming conflict, Wikipedia:Naming conventions).
- ^ Article sections devoted solely to criticism, or "pro and con" sections within articles are two commonly cited examples. There are varying views on whether and to what extent such kinds of article structure are appropriate. (See e.g., Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Article_structure, Wikipedia:Avoid thread mode, Wikipedia:Pro_&_con_lists, Wikipedia_talk:Pro_&_con_lists, Template:Criticism-section).
- ^ For example, some contributors advise against article sections devoted entirely to "criticism," although some assert that such sections are not always inappropriate. For more on this issue, see Formatting criticism.
- ^ (Commonly cited examples include articles that read too much like a "debate", and content structured like a "resume". See also, Wikipedia:Guide to layout, Wikipedia:Edit war, WP Cleanup Templates, Template:Lopsided).
- ^ Manchester, William A World Lit Only By Fire: The Medieval Mind and the Renaissance – Portrait of an Age Little, Brown and Company. 1992 pp. 60 – 62 ISBN 0-316-54556-2 (pb)
- ^ Roberts, J.M. A History of Europe Penguin Group. 1996 pp. 139 – 140 ISBN 0-7139-9204-2
[
Other resources
- NPOV tutorial
- Examples
- Examples Debate
- Understand Bias
- List of controversial issues
- Words to avoid
- Talk:Creationism and Larry's Big Reply
- Meta:Positive tone
- Guidelines for controversial articles
- Subject-object problem
- Consensus reality
- Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words
- Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ
- {{NPOV}} — message used to warn of problems
- {{NPOV-section}} — tags only a single section as disputed
- {{POV check}} — message used to mark articles that may be biased. ({{bias}} may be used for short)
- {{POV-title}} — when the article's title is questionable
- {{POV-statement}} — when only one sentence is questionable
- {{articleissues}} — When an article or section fails to abide by multiple Wikipedia content policies
- WikiProject Countering Systemic Bias
- One-sided argument
- Wikipedia Neutrality Project
- NPOV Disputes
- Wikipedia:Article size
[
External links
- On MeatballWiki:
- Blinded By Science: How ‘Balanced’ Coverage Lets the Scientific Fringe Hijack Reality — Chris Mooney, Columbia Journalism Review. A valuable warning to Wikipedians about how some methods used to balance coverage can lead to biased, inaccurate and misleading reporting.
- Multiple points of view: see religion-wiki: Multiple points of view
[
See also
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
For more information review our copyright contact and privacy policy.