Wikipedia:POV creep
 | This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
One of the most important core content polices of Wikipedia is WP:NPOV. It is the only core content policy that states: ’’This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus.’’
Editors are expected to exercise good editorial judgment without editorial bias, and that includes how we choose sources and summarize the material we include, making sure that it is presented fairly, proportionately and in proper context. POV creep occurs when one or more of the aforementioned fails, and an editor either refuses or is unable to recognize that their POV is a major influence in their editing decisions. Such influences may involve choosing sources that consistently align with one's POV, or it is possible the editor has inadvertently developed a blind spot that has led them to represent something unfairly or engage in tendentious editing.
POV creep customarily involves WP:UNDUE, whitewashing, scrubbing, or overindulging in the inclusion of controversial material (everything but the kitchen sink). POV creep refers to situations that are either (1) void of scrutiny, (2) short on opposing views, or there is (3) a group of editors with the same POV dominating an article, or what has been referred to as the hegemony of the asshole consensus. Some editors may not be aware of their own POV creep whereas some may simply not care because their purpose is to WP:RGW, or advocate for a particular cause and in doing so, they are being noncompliant with WP:PAG, such as WP:NOTADVOCACY, WP:SOAPBOX, and WP:NPOV.