Wikipedia:Words to avoid
Separating all the controversial aspects of a topic into a single section results in a tortured form of writing, especially a back-and-forth dialogue between "proponents" and "opponents". It also creates a hierarchy of fact—the main passage is "true" and "undisputed", whereas the rest are "controversial" and therefore more likely to be false, an implication that may often be inappropriate.
Since many of the topics in an encyclopedia will inevitably encounter controversy, editors should write in a manner that folds debates into the narrative rather than "distilling" them out into separate sections that ignore each other.
From Wikipedia:Neutral point of view:
Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization.
We should write articles with the tone that all positions presented are at least plausible, bearing in mind the important qualification about extreme minority views. We should present all significant, competing views sympathetically. We can write with the attitude that such-and-such is a good idea, except that, in the view of some detractors, the supporters of said view overlooked such-and-such a detail.
See also: Wikipedia:Criticism, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Article_structure and Wikipedia:Pro & con lists
[
Words whose meaning may degrade with time
Unless used in specific contexts, or quotes, the meaning of some words will change with time. Be careful when using, for instance:
- yesterday, today, tomorrow
- last/this/next week/month/year
- recent(ly), current(ly), eventual(ly), imminent(ly)/soon
- now
- is
- will/may be
This list is not exhaustive. Note that the use of these terms is acceptable in some cases. The sun will exist tomorrow. In situations where attributable facts are unlikely to change with time, the use of time-sensitive words is permissible.
When reporting time-sensitive facts, qualifying that information with a reference to a date will often prevent the meaning from degrading over time. For example, instead of writing "Person A is still in prison," consider writing "As of January 1, 2007, Person A is still in prison." This is especially important when attributing facts about living persons. Defamatory facts may expire and become false, but editors may not notice those changes. Editors are far more likely to notice an old date.
Consider how your page will read if no one updates it.
[
See also
- Wikipedia:Manual of Style especially Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers).
- Wikipedia:Avoid statements that will date quickly
- Wikipedia:Elements of Style improvement project
- Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms
- Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms
[
Notes
- ^ Passive Voice. Retrieved on 2007-07-13.
- ^ FBI Targets "Right Wing". Retrieved on 2007-05-10.
For more information review our copyright contact and privacy policy.