(Posted at Wikipedia_talk:Neutrality Project, responding to a question, what NPOV is and whether one should always present an opposing view.)
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.
No personal attacks - do not disparage, insult, or attack others in any form.
Be civil - even if not an attack, talk nicely, respectfully. Being nice does not contradict being effective (if they cause a problem)
Assume good faith - ask if there seems to be a problem, don't assume.
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.
As of October 2009, I stepped down from some roles. I'm still round though. In 2009-10 I served on the Foundation's 5 year strategy taskforce, in 2010 I was asked to visit and contribute at the Foundation's offices, in 2011 I was invited onto the WMF Communications Committee. In 2012 I was active in the SOPA community decision, primarily co-ordinating and reviewing our messages, posts, and information flow. I was also heavily involved in the 2011 - 2012 review of the site's legal Terms of Use and urged in 2009 and again in 2010 the creation of the 'Draft:' namespace, eventually created in 2013.
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.
Fixing messes and problems that get in the way of editors - I help experienced users with difficult article wordings, input into difficult discussions, difficult neutrality cases, 2nd opinion, admin problem, email responses, and sensitive problems.
Improving editorial processes and guidance - I work on policy wordings and process updates that help readers and volunteers to contribute and improve the project in turn. If one process or policy is cleaned up, or one poor wording is fixed, a thousand editors benefit from it and will save their time, stress and frustration. I love this aspect. One of my mainspace articles on Wikipedia has been cited at length in a 2012 UtahCourt of Appealsruling as evidence covering Wikipedia's self-regulation and quality control.
I also have a "real" life, and balancing the two's important. But I'm free to choose my work hours. It helps :)
I'll update this at some point. Right now the old version's just a little out of date.
Recent article activity (occasionally brought up to date)
Rework article to be more science based and provide primarily a clinical/biology approach (the core knowledge of the topic is not its social nicknames!)
High profile media abortion case currently at trial - article had survived deletion but was in an awful condition and was also getting extensive attention and scrutiny from media and activist groups.
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.
Prompted by a verdict after 17 years on one of Britain's highest profile racial crimes of all time, this one case changed the social and cultural world of a country and its police force.
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.
DDR4 is the newest up-and-coming memory type for desktop computers. First test samples were produced in Q1 2011 - expect to see this hitting the market in 2012 and going mainstream around 2014-2015.
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.
.svg){kind=small}
