User:Vassyana/insanity/Neutral point of view x01

diff

This page in a nutshell: All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing significant views fairly, proportionately and without bias.

The neutral point of view (NPOV) represents fairly and without bias all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. Debates are clearly described and characterized within articles, without engaging in them as being better or worse than one another. Allow readers to form their own opinions.

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is one of Wikipedia's core content policies. The others are Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability. They should be interpreted in context with one another.

Explanation of the neutral point of view

The neutral point of view

Shortcut

WP:YESPOV

The neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. Wikipedia does not pass judgment on the subjects of its articles. Debates within topics are clearly represented and characterized. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular.

A simple formulation

Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. Here, a fact is a information that is not disputed, and a value (or opinion) is information that is. This is just a rough example, though. For instance: That Mars is a planet is a fact; that stealing is wrong is an opinion.

Shortcut

WP:ASF

When discussing an opinion attribute the opinion to someone and discuss the fact that they have an opinion. That The Beatles were the greatest band ever is an opinion. A study conducted showing that "most people from Liverpool believe the Beatles were were the greatest band" is a fact. "The Beatles were amazing" is an opinion; that they made the UK Singles Chart many times over is a fact.

That doesn't mean there isn't conflict: Some say the Beatles were the worst band in history (an opinion); that a study shows a large international cult dedicated to slandering them would be a fact. Granted, it wouldn't be a very significant opinion, and so wouldn't receive as much attention in the article about the Beatles.

Achieving neutrality

Fairness of tone

Present competing views with a fair and sensitive tone to characterize disputes neutrally. Many articles can end up as partisan commentary even while presenting both points 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 even (more subtly) how they're organized.

Due weight

Articles should represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, in proportion to their prominence. Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, a view of a distinct minority.

Shortcuts

To give undue weight to a minority view, or to include a tiny minority view, can mislead readers as to the shape of a dispute. Present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject or other concerned parties. This applies not only to article text, but to images, external links, and all other material as well.

Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject.

Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them. Though a particular view may be spelled out in great detail, it should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint, and shouldn't attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view.

In some cases the over-all presentation within an article may need attention to avoid these problems:

Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself.^[1]

Arrangements of formatting, headers, footnotes or other elements that appear to unduly favor a particular "side" of an issue.^[2]

Other structural or stylistic aspects that make it difficult for a neutral reader to fairly and equally assess the credibility of all relevant and related viewpoints.^[3]

Using sources

A potentially biased statement can be framed into an NPOV statement by attributing or substantiating it.

"John Doe is the best baseball player" is an expression of an opinion with bias. One way to make it neutral is to change it into a verifiable statement: "John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by baseball insiders such as Al Kaline and Joe Torre". This attributes the opinion to some subject-matter expert. To substantiate a statement, give factual details that back it up: "John Doe had the highest batting average in the major leagues from 2003 through 2006." This statement spells out a particular way in which Doe excels. This also avoids weasel words such as "some think that John Doe is the best baseball player", also called "mass attribution". Attribute a source to a claim to avoid the "who is some" debate.^[4]

Disagreements over whether something is approached neutrally can usually be avoided through the practice of good and unbiased research, based upon the most reputable authoritative sources available. Try the library for reputable books and journal articles, and look for the most reliable online resources.

However, verifiable statements from reliable sources can also be used in a biased way, such as using the text or tone from a source to muddy the waters, or selectively using sources to back a point of view up. Not good. Verifiability and neutral point of view live aside each other; they do not override each other.

Neutrality disputes and handling

Article name

A Wikipedia article must have one definitive name.^[5] If a naming controversy exists, then the controversy should be covered in the article text and substantiated with reliable sources.

Sometimes the article title itself may be a source of contention and polarization, like for titles that suggest a viewpoint either "for" or "against" any given issue. Therefore, encyclopedic article titles are expected to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality. The article might cover the same material but with less emotive words, or might cover broader material which helps ensure a neutral view (for example, renaming "Criticisms of drugs" to "Societal views on drugs"). Neutral titles encourage multiple viewpoints.

If proper nouns are in the title, disputes can arise over whether a particular name should be used. Generally, names for corporate entities (such as cities and states) are the names they use to describe themselves (or by the English-language equivalent). For inanimate entities (such as geographical features), the most common name used in English-language publications is usually used.

POV forks

A POV fork is an attempt to evade NPOV policy by creating a new article about a certain subject that is already discussed in another article, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints. This is usually considered unacceptable. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on a certain subject are treated in one article.

Let the facts speak for themselves

Karada offered the following advice in the context of the Saddam Hussein article:

You won't even need to say he was evil. That is why the article on Hitler does not start with "Hitler was a bad man"—we don't need to, his deeds convict him a thousand times over. We just list the facts of the Holocaust dispassionately, and the voices of the dead cry out afresh in a way that makes name-calling both pointless and unnecessary. Please do the same: list Saddam's crimes, and cite your sources.

Remember that readers will probably not take kindly to moralizing. If you do not allow the facts to speak for themselves you may alienate readers and turn them against your position.

Notes

^ 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).
^ Most sources will define exactly who "some" is, or avoid the word altogether. "Some say..." and variations is generally bad practice, and opens up a whole bunch of debates. See Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words for the full discussion.
^ Although redirects can be used to address this technical limitation in situations where non-controversial synonyms and variations in word morphology exist.

Other resources

External links

On MeatballWiki:
- AssumeGoodFaith
- NeutralPointOfView
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