Misplaced Pages

:Neutral point of view/FAQ: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 08:41, 27 June 2006 editFrancis Schonken (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users68,468 edits policy tag, per suggestion at Misplaced Pages talk:Neutral point of view#FAQ answers moved to /FAQ page← Previous edit Latest revision as of 21:42, 22 December 2024 edit undoRemsense (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Template editors59,381 edits Reverting edit(s) by Fluyt (talk) to rev. 1244778787 by 174.89.12.36: Non-constructive edit (UV 0.1.6)Tags: Ultraviolet Undo 
(517 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|Explanatory essay about the neutral point of view policy}}
{{policy}}
{{supplement|pages=] policy|WP:NPOVFAQ}}

]
These are some '''Frequently Asked Questions''' about Misplaced Pages's ] policy. These are some '''Frequently Asked Questions''' about Misplaced Pages's ] policy.


==Common questions== ==Common questions==
===Being neutral===
=== There's no such thing as objectivity ===
===="There's no such thing as objectivity"<span class="anchor" id="There's no such thing as objectivity"></span>====
''Everybody with any philosophical sophistication knows that. So how can we take the "neutrality" policy seriously? Neutrality, lack of bias, isn't possible.''
{{shortcut|WP:NOOBJECTIVITY}}
''Everybody with any philosophical sophistication knows we all have biases. So, how can we take the NPOV policy seriously?''


This is probably the most common objection to the neutrality policy. It also reflects the most common ''misunderstanding'' of the policy. The misunderstanding is that the policy would have said something about the possibility of ''objectivity.'' It simply does not. In particular, the policy does ''not'' say that there even ''is'' such a thing as ], a "view from nowhere" (in ]'s phrase)&mdash;such that articles written from ''that'' point of view are consequently objectively true. That isn't the policy and it is not our aim! Rather, we employ a different understanding of "neutral" and "unbiased" than many might be used to. The policy is simply that we should characterize disputes rather than engage in them. To say ''this'' is not to say anything contentious, from a philosophical point of view; indeed, this is something that philosophers are doing all the time. Sophisticated relativists will immediately recognize that the policy is perfectly consistent with their relativism. This most common objection to the neutrality policy also reflects the most common ''misunderstanding'' of the policy. The NPOV policy says nothing about objectivity. In particular, the policy does ''not'' say that there is such a thing as ]—a "view from nowhere" (to use ]'s phrase), such that articles written from that viewpoint are consequently objectively true. That is not the policy, and it is not our aim! Rather, to be neutral is to describe debates rather than engage in them. In other words, when discussing a subject, we should report ''what people have said about it'' rather than ''what is so''. This is not to say anything philosophically contentious; indeed, philosophers describe debates all the time. Even sophisticated ] will immediately recognize that "neutrality", in this sense, is perfectly consistent with their philosophy.


If there's ''anything'' possibly contentious about the policy along these lines, it is the implication that it is ''possible'' to characterize disputes fairly, so that all the major participants will be able to look at the resulting text, agreeing that their views are presented sympathetically and as completely as possible (within the context of the discussion). It is an empirical question, not a philosophical one, whether this is possible; and that such a thing ''is'' indeed possible is evident simply by observing that such texts are being written daily by the most capable academics, encyclopedists, textbook writers, and journalists. Now, '' is it possible'' to characterize disputes fairly? This is an empirical issue, not a philosophical one: can we edit articles so that all the major participants will be able to look at the resulting text, and agree that their views are presented accurately and as completely as the context permits? It may not be possible to describe all disputes with perfect objectivity, but it is an aim that thousands of editors strive towards every day.


====Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete====
This should not be construed to mean that there can be no objective truth in an encyclopedia, in the sense that easily obtainable documents should be quoted or referenced correctly when first-hand sources are available, even if there are second-hand sources which quote them incorrectly. Neutrality does not compel us to introduce inaccuracy when something can be directly verified. Neutrality dictates that there can be multiple prominent interpretations to the meaning or validity of a work, but often the contents can be objectively verified, especially in the case of modern documents.
{{shortcut|WP:POVDELETION}}
''The NPOV policy is used sometimes as an excuse to delete texts that are perceived as biased. Isn't this a problem?''


Editors have different ideas about how Misplaced Pages should look "today". Some want it to be as fault-free as possible, even if that means cutting mediocre content; others think that all but the most serious flaws should be allowed to stand so they can be improved.
=== Pseudoscience ===
''How are we to write articles about ], about which majority scientific opinion is that the ] opinion is not credible and doesn't even really deserve serious mention?''


While the ] of establishing ] and ] rests on those who are challenged about it, there is usually no need to immediately delete text that can instead be rewritten as necessary over time. Obvious exceptions are articles about ] or clear ], but generally there is no need for text to meet the highest standards of neutrality ''today'' if there's a reasonable chance of getting there.
If we're going to represent the sum total of human knowledge, then we must concede that we will be describing views repugnant to us without asserting that they are false. Things are not, however, as bad as that sounds. The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to '''represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view'''; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of ''describing a dispute fairly.''


Also, determining whether a claim is true or useful, particularly when few people know about the topic, often requires a more involved process to get the opinions of other editors. It's a good idea to raise objections on a ] or at a relevant ]. Discussing contentious claims helps editors to evaluate their accuracy and often leads to better sourcing and clearer phrasing.
Pseudoscience can be seen as a social phenomenon and therefore significant. However, pseudoscience should not obfuscate the description of the main views, and any mention should be proportional to the rest of the article.


Especially contentious text can be removed to the talk page if necessary, but only as a last resort, and never just deleted.
A minority of Wikipedians feels so strongly about this problem that they believe Misplaced Pages should adopt a "]" rather than a "neutral point of view." However, it has not been established that there is really a need for such a policy, given that the scientists' view of pseudoscience can be clearly, fully, and fairly explained to believers of pseudoscience.


It is a frequent misunderstanding of the NPOV policy, often expressed by newbies, visitors, and outside critics, that articles must not contain ''any'' form of bias, hence their efforts to remove statements they perceive as biased. The NPOV policy does forbid the inclusion of ''editorial'' bias, but does not forbid ''properly sourced'' bias. Without the inclusion and documentation of bias in the real world, many of our articles would fail to document the sum total of human knowledge, and would be rather "blah" reading, devoid of much meaningful and interesting content.
=== Religion ===
NPOV policy often means presenting multiple points of view. This means providing not only the points of view of different groups today, but also different groups in the past.


====Assert facts, not opinions====
Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia. One important task for encyclopedias is to explain things. In the case of human beliefs and practices, explanation encompasses not only what motivates individuals who hold these beliefs and practices, but an account of how such beliefs and practices came to be and took shape. Misplaced Pages articles on history and religion draw from a religion's sacred texts. But Misplaced Pages articles on history and religion also draw from modern archaeological, historical and scientific sources.
{{shortcut|WP:ASSERT|WP:ASF}}
{{redirect|WP:ASSERT|words to watch|WP:SAID}}
{{see also|WP:YESPOV}}
''What is the difference between asserting a fact and asserting an opinion?''


The text of Misplaced Pages articles should assert ]s, but not assert ]s as fact.
Some adherents of a religion might object to a critical historical treatment of their own faith, claiming that this somehow discriminates against their religious beliefs. They might prefer that the articles describe their faith as they see it, which might be from a non-historical perspective (e.g. the way things are is the way things have always been; any differences are from heretical sects that don't represent the real religion.) Their point of view must be mentioned, yet note that there is no contradiction. NPOV policy means that Misplaced Pages editors ought to say something like this: ''Many adherents of this faith believe X, which they believe that members of this group have always believed; however, due to the acceptance of some findings (say which) by modern historians and archaeologists (say which), other adherents (say which) of this faith now believe Z.''


*When a statement is a '''fact''' (e.g., information that is accepted as true and about which there is no serious dispute), it should be asserted using Misplaced Pages's own voice without ]. Thus we write: "Mars is a planet" or "Plato was a philosopher". We do not write: "According to the ''Daily Telegraph'', the capital of France is Paris" because doing so would create the impression of doubt or disagreement where there is none. It is good practice, however, to include an ] to a ] to allow the reader to ] any fact that is not widely known.
'''An important note on using the term "fundamentalism":''' In studies of religion, this word has a very specific meaning. Please see the article on ] for the technical definition of this term. Misplaced Pages articles about religion should only use this word in one of its technical senses.
*When a statement is an '''opinion''' (e.g., a matter which is subject to serious dispute or commonly considered to be subjective), it should be attributed in the text to the ] who holds the opinion. Thus we might write: "John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by baseball insiders such as Al Kaline and Joe Torre.{{dummy ref|1}}". We do not write: "John Doe is the best baseball player". The inclusion of opinions is subject to ], and they should be ] with an inline citation to a reliable source that verifies both the opinion and who holds it.


A simple formulation is to ''assert facts, including facts about opinions, but don't assert opinions themselves.''
When using this word, Wikipedians should take care to explain ''what is meant by this term'' in order to avoid causing unnecessary offense or misleading the reader. Misplaced Pages articles should not use it to mean "strongly-held belief", "opposition to science", or "religious conservatism", as it is often used in the popular press. As religion is a controversial topic, Misplaced Pages editors should be prepared to see some of these articles edited due to what may seem minor quibbles.


====Making necessary assumptions====
=== Morally offensive views ===
{{shortcut|WP:NECESSARY}}
''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''?''
''When writing a long series of articles on some general subject, e.g., in writing about evolution, do we have to hash out the evolution-vs.-creationism debate on every page?''


No, surely not. There are virtually no topics that could proceed without making some assumptions that ''someone'' would find controversial. This is true not only in evolutionary biology, but also in philosophy, history, physics, ''etc''.
We can maintain a healthy, consistent support for the neutral point of view by attributing emotional charged views to prominent representatives or to a group of people. Those who harbor attitudes of racism, sexism, etc., will not be convinced to change their views based on a biased article, which only puts them on the defensive; on the other hand, if we make a concerted effort to apply our non-bias policy consistently, we might give those who we consider to have morally repugnant beliefs opposite to our own an insight that could change their views.


It is difficult to draw up general principles on which to rule in specific cases, but the following might help: there is probably not a good reason to discuss some assumption on a given page if an assumption is best discussed in depth on some ''other'' page.
=== Giving "equal validity" ===
''But wait. I find the optimism about science vs. pseudo-science to be baseless. History has shown that pseudo-science can beat out facts, as those who rely on pseudo-science 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.''


===Balancing different views===
Please be clear on one thing: the Misplaced Pages neutrality policy certainly ''does not'' state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views. It does state that we must not take a stand on them as encyclopedia writers; but that does not stop us from describing the majority views ''as such''; from fairly explaining the strong arguments against the pseudoscientific theory; from describing the strong moral repugnance that many people feel toward some morally repugnant views; and so forth.
====Giving "equal validity"====
''History has shown that pseudoscience can beat out facts, by relying on lies, slander, innuendo and numerical majorities to force their views on others. 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 promote baseless and/or evil ideas.''


Misplaced Pages's neutrality policy certainly ''does not'' state, or imply, that we should or must "give equal validity" to minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) views. It does state that we must not take a stand on them as encyclopedia writers, but that does not stop us from describing the majority views ''as such'' and using the words of ] to present strong criticisms. Fairly explaining the arguments against a pseudoscientific theory or verifiably describing the moral repugnance that people feel toward a notion is fully permitted by NPOV.
See this of the "equal validity" issue.


====Writing for the opponent====
=== Anglo-American focus ===
:''See also: ] (])''
''Misplaced Pages seems to have an Anglo-American focus. Is this contrary to the neutral point of view?''
''I'm not convinced by what you say about "writing for the opponent". I don't want to write for the opponents. Most of them rely on stating as fact many statements that 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?''


The great thing about NPOV is that ''you'' aren't claiming anything, except to say, "So-and-so argues that ____________, and therefore, ___________." This can be done with a straight face, with no moral compunctions, because you are attributing the claim to ''someone else.'' Even in the most contentious debates, when scholars are trying to prove a point, they include counter-arguments, at the least so that they can explain why the counter-arguments fail.
Yes, it is, especially when dealing with articles that require an international perspective. The presence of articles written from a United States or British perspective is simply a reflection of the fact that there are many U.S. and British people working on the project, which in turn is a reflection of the fact that so many of them are online. This is an ongoing problem that should be corrected by active collaboration from people from other countries. But rather than introducing their own cultural bias, they should seek to improve articles by removing any examples of cultural bias that they encounter, or making readers '''aware''' of them. A special ] has been set up to deal with this problem. This is not only a problem in the English Misplaced Pages. The ] may reflect a French bias, the ] may reflect a Japanese bias, and so on.


Also, people can honestly fail to see the bias inherent in a popular term or point of view, simply because it's the one commonly used or familiar to them. But English Misplaced Pages is a highly diverse and international project, and its editors reflect many different points of view. Maintaining objectivity about the most personal or contentious subjects is new to most people, and many disputes over the terminology and phrasing can be resolved by simply balancing points of view (in proportion to their significance, of course).
=== 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?''


====Religion====
In many cases, yes. Many of us believe that the fact that some text is biased is not enough, in itself, to delete it outright. If it contains valid information, the text should simply be edited accordingly.
''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?''


NPOV policy means presenting all significant points of view. This means providing not only the points of view of different groups today, but also different groups in the past, and not only points of view you share, but also points of view with which you disagree.
There's sometimes trouble determining whether some claim is true or useful, particularly when there are few people on board who know about the topic. In such a case, it's a good idea to raise objections on a ]; if one has some reason to believe that the author of the biased material will not be induced to change it, we have sometimes taken to removing the text to the talk page itself (but not deleting it entirely). But the latter should be done more or less as a last resort, never as a way of punishing people who have written something biased.


Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia. One important task for encyclopedias is to explain things. In the case of human beliefs and practices, explanation encompasses not only what motivates individuals who hold these beliefs and practices, but an account of how such beliefs and practices came to be and took shape. Misplaced Pages articles on history and religion draw from a religion's sacred texts. But Misplaced Pages articles on history and religion also draw from modern archaeological, historical, and scientific sources.
=== 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?''


Some adherents of a religion might object to a critical historical treatment of their faith, claiming that this somehow discriminates against their religious beliefs. They might prefer that the articles describe their faith as they see it. NPOV policy means that Misplaced Pages editors ought to say something like this: ''Many adherents of this faith believe X, which they believe that members of this group have always believed; however, due to the acceptance of some findings (say which) by modern historians and archaeologists (say which), other adherents (say which) of this faith now believe Z.'' This way, views are presented without being criticized or endorsed.
Unless the case is really egregious, maybe the best thing is to call attention to the problem publicly, pointing the perpetrators to this page (but ] — one gets more flies with honey than with vinegar) and asking others to help. See ] for more ideas. There must surely be a point beyond which our very strong interest in being a ''completely'' open project is trumped by the interest the vast majority of our writers have, in being able to get work done without constantly having to fix the intrusions of people who do not respect our policy.


'''An important note on using the term "fundamentalism":''' In studies of religion, this word has a very specific meaning. Misplaced Pages articles about religion should use this word only in its technical sense, not "strongly-held belief", "opposition to science", or "religious conservatism", as it is often used in the popular press. Take care to explain ''what is meant by this term'' in order to avoid causing unnecessary offense or misleading the reader. As religion is an emotional and controversial topic, Misplaced Pages editors should be prepared to see some articles edited due to seemingly minor quibbles. Stay civil and try not to take discussions too personally.
=== Avoiding constant disputes ===
''How can we avoid constant and endless warfare over neutrality issues?''


====Morally offensive views====
The best way to avoid warfare over bias is to remember that most of us are reasonably intelligent, articulate people here, or we wouldn't be working on this and caring so much about it. We have to make it our goal to understand each others' perspectives and to work hard to make sure that those other perspectives are fairly represented.
{{shortcut|WP:OUTRAGE}}
''What about views that are morally offensive to most readers, such as Holocaust denial, which some people actually hold? Surely we are not to be neutral about ''them''?''


We can maintain a healthy, consistent support for the neutral point of view by attributing emotionally charged views to prominent representatives or to a group of people. Those who harbor attitudes of racism etc., will not be convinced to change their views based on a biased article, which only puts them on the defensive; on the other hand, if we make a concerted effort to apply our non-bias policy consistently, those whom we consider to have morally repugnant beliefs opposite to our own may consider an insight that could change their views.
When any dispute arises as to what the article should say, or what is true, we must not adopt an adversarial stance; we must do our best to step back and ask ourselves, "How can this dispute be fairly characterized?" This has to be asked repeatedly as each new controversial point is stated. It is not our job to edit Misplaced Pages so that it reflects our own idiosyncratic views and then defend those edits against all-comers; it is our job to work together, mainly adding or improving content, but also, when necessary, coming to a compromise about how a controversy should be described, so that it is fair to all sides.


The fact that an idea or topic is morally outrageous is not a reason to leave it out of Misplaced Pages. If a morally outrageous idea or practice has received notable coverage from independent sources (not just its originator), we provide a valuable service by describing it ''as well as'' the criticisms and opposition it has received. Remember, we only have to be neutral in the tone and content what we write; we have no responsibility for how neutral content we write is generally perceived. If someone reads a neutral, factual article on a morally offensive topic and comes away with a changed opinion based on the facts and evidence, that is a completely reasonable outcome.
=== 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?''


====Pseudoscience====
No, surely not. There are virtually no topics that could proceed without making some assumptions that ''someone'' would find controversial. This is true not only in evolutionary biology, but also in philosophy, history, physics, etc.
''How are we to write articles about ], which claim to be scientific but which majority scientific opinion is that the claim is not credible and doesn't even really deserve serious mention?''


If we're going to represent the sum total of encyclopedic knowledge, then we must cover positions that have no scientific credence. This is not, however, as bad as it sounds. The task before us is not to present ] claims as if they were on par with good science; rather, the task is to '''represent the majority view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view''', and to explain how scientists have received or criticized pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of ''describing a dispute fairly.'' Pseudoscience may be significant as a social phenomenon, but it should not obfuscate the description of mainstream scientific views. Any mention of pseudoscientific views should be proportionate to the rest of the article.
It is difficult to draw up general principles on which to rule in specific cases, but the following might help: there is probably not a good reason to discuss some assumption on a given page, if an assumption is best discussed in depth on some ''other'' page. Some brief, unobtrusive pointer might be apropos, however. E.g., in an article about the evolutionary development of horses, we might have one brief sentence to the effect that some creationists do not believe that horses (or any other animals) underwent any evolution, and point the reader to the relevant article. If there is much specific argument over some particular point, it might be placed on a special page of its own.


With regard to characterizing topics as pseudoscience, the Misplaced Pages ] ruled as follows (at ]):
=== Writing for the "enemy" ===
: ''See also: ] (])''
''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?''


*'''Obvious pseudoscience''': Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification.
This is a misunderstanding of what the neutrality policy says. ''You'' aren't claiming anything, except to say, "So-and-so argues that ____________, and therefore, ___________." This can be done with a straight face, with no moral compunctions, because you are attributing the claim to ''someone else.'' It's worth observing that scholars are trained so that, even when trying to prove a point, counter-arguments are included, so that they can explain why the counter-arguments fail.
*'''Generally considered pseudoscience''': Theories which have a following, such as ], but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.
*'''Questionable science''': Theories which have a substantial following, such as ], but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized.
*'''Alternative theoretical formulations''': Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.


It may be easier to achieve both neutrality and consensus by using precise terms. For example, a belief in ghosts is more accurately described as a ] belief than a pseudoscientific one, an ancient attempt to explain the physical world is a ], and a religious belief is ]. These beliefs do not claim to involve the scientific process, whereas pseudoscience does.
This can be a particularly touchy subject, and a large number of people can honestly fail to see the bias inherent in a popular term, simply because it's the one commonly used. But it shouldn't take long to understand that the English Misplaced Pages is a ''highly international project'', and its editors reflect many different points of view. It's important to note that this level of objectivity is rather new to most people, and disputes over the proper terms may simply depend on the balance of points of view.


=== Other objections === ===Editor disputes===
====Dealing with biased contributors====
''I have some other objection - where should I complain?''
''I agree with the nonbias 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?''


Unless the case is really egregious, maybe the best thing is to call attention to the problem publicly, pointing the perpetrators to this page (but ] — one gets more flies with honey than with vinegar) and asking others to help. See ] for more ideas. There is a point beyond which our interest in being a ''completely'' open project is trumped by our interest in being able to get work done without constantly having to fix the intrusions of people who do not respect our policies.
Before asking it, please review the links below. Many issues surrounding the neutrality policy have been covered before very extensively and good answers exist in other places.


====Avoiding constant disputes====
==Other resources==
''How can we avoid constant and endless warfare over neutrality issues?''
Because the neutral point of view policy is often unfamiliar to newcomers, and is so central to Misplaced Pages'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 ], ], or bring it up on the ] mailing list. Before asking it, please review the links below.


The best way to avoid warfare over bias is to remember that ] are reasonably intelligent, articulate people here, or we wouldn't be working on this and caring so much about it. We have to make it our goal to understand each other's perspectives and to work hard to make sure that those other perspectives are fairly represented.
==Notes==

<references />
When any dispute arises as to what the article should say, or what is true, we must not adopt an adversarial stance; we must do our best to step back and ask ourselves, "How can this dispute be fairly characterized?" This has to be asked repeatedly as each new controversial point is stated. It is not our job to edit Misplaced Pages so that it reflects our own idiosyncratic views and then defend those edits against all-comers; it is our job to work together, mainly adding or improving content, but also, when necessary, coming to a compromise about how a controversy should be described, so that it is fair to all sides. Consensus is not always possible, but it should be your goal.

===Other objections===
====Anglo-American focus====
''English Misplaced Pages seems to have an Anglo-American focus. Is this contrary to NPOV?''

Yes, it is, especially when dealing with articles that require an international perspective. The presence of articles written from a United States or European Anglophone perspective is simply a reflection of the fact that there are many U.S. and European Anglophone people working on the project. This is an ongoing problem that should be corrected by active collaboration between Anglo-Americans and people from other countries. But rather than introducing their own cultural bias, they should seek to improve articles by removing any examples of cultural bias that they encounter, or making readers '''aware''' of them. A special ] has been set up to deal with this problem. This is not only a problem in the English Misplaced Pages. The ] reflects a French bias, the ] reflects a Japanese bias, and so on.

====Not answered here====
''I have some other objection—where should I complain?''

Before asking it, please review the links below. Many issues surrounding the neutrality policy have been covered before very extensively and good answers exist in other places.

==Other NPOV resources==
Because the neutral point of view policy is often unfamiliar to newcomers yet central to Misplaced Pages's approach, many issues surrounding the neutrality policy have been covered extensively before. If you have some new contribution to make to the debate, you could try ], or bring it up on the ]. Before asking, please review the links below:


== Other resources ==
* ''']''' * ''']'''
* ] * ]
* ]
* ]
* ] * ]
* ] * ]
* ] * ]
* ] * ]
* ] * ]
* ]
* ] * ]
* ] * ]
* {{tl|NPOV}} - message used to warn of problems * {{tl|NPOV}} – message used to solicit additional editors' viewpoints to resolve content disputes
* {{tl|NPOV-section}} - tags only a single section as disputed * {{tl|NPOV-section}} – tags only a single section as disputed
* {{tl|POV check}} - message used to mark articles that may be biased. ({{tl|bias}} may be used for short) * {{tl|Unbalanced}} – message used to mark articles that may be biased.
* {{tl|POV-statement}} - when only one sentence is questionable * {{tl|POV-statement}} – when only one sentence is questionable
* ] * ]
* ] * ]
* ] * ]
* ]



== External links ==
* - 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 ]


] ]
] ]
]

<!-- Interwiki -->

Latest revision as of 21:42, 22 December 2024

Explanatory essay about the neutral point of view policy
This is an explanatory essay about the Neutral point of view (NPOV) policy.
This page provides additional information about concepts in the page(s) it supplements. This page is not one of Misplaced Pages's policies or guidelines as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community.		Shortcut
Explanatory essay about the Neutral point of view (NPOV) policy

These are some Frequently Asked Questions about Misplaced Pages's Neutral point of view policy.

Common questions

Being neutral

"There's no such thing as objectivity"

Shortcut

Everybody with any philosophical sophistication knows we all have biases. So, how can we take the NPOV policy seriously?

This most common objection to the neutrality policy also reflects the most common misunderstanding of the policy. The NPOV policy says nothing about objectivity. In particular, the policy does not say that there is such a thing as objectivity in a philosophical sense—a "view from nowhere" (to use Thomas Nagel's phrase), such that articles written from that viewpoint are consequently objectively true. That is not the policy, and it is not our aim! Rather, to be neutral is to describe debates rather than engage in them. In other words, when discussing a subject, we should report what people have said about it rather than what is so. This is not to say anything philosophically contentious; indeed, philosophers describe debates all the time. Even sophisticated relativists will immediately recognize that "neutrality", in this sense, is perfectly consistent with their philosophy.

Now, is it possible to characterize disputes fairly? This is an empirical issue, not a philosophical one: can we edit articles so that all the major participants will be able to look at the resulting text, and agree that their views are presented accurately and as completely as the context permits? It may not be possible to describe all disputes with perfect objectivity, but it is an aim that thousands of editors strive towards every day.

Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete

Shortcut

The NPOV policy is used sometimes as an excuse to delete texts that are perceived as biased. Isn't this a problem?

Editors have different ideas about how Misplaced Pages should look "today". Some want it to be as fault-free as possible, even if that means cutting mediocre content; others think that all but the most serious flaws should be allowed to stand so they can be improved.

While the burden of establishing verifiability and reliability rests on those who are challenged about it, there is usually no need to immediately delete text that can instead be rewritten as necessary over time. Obvious exceptions are articles about living people or clear vandalism, but generally there is no need for text to meet the highest standards of neutrality today if there's a reasonable chance of getting there.

Also, determining whether a claim is true or useful, particularly when few people know about the topic, often requires a more involved process to get the opinions of other editors. It's a good idea to raise objections on a talk page or at a relevant WikiProject. Discussing contentious claims helps editors to evaluate their accuracy and often leads to better sourcing and clearer phrasing.

Especially contentious text can be removed to the talk page if necessary, but only as a last resort, and never just deleted.

It is a frequent misunderstanding of the NPOV policy, often expressed by newbies, visitors, and outside critics, that articles must not contain any form of bias, hence their efforts to remove statements they perceive as biased. The NPOV policy does forbid the inclusion of editorial bias, but does not forbid properly sourced bias. Without the inclusion and documentation of bias in the real world, many of our articles would fail to document the sum total of human knowledge, and would be rather "blah" reading, devoid of much meaningful and interesting content.

Assert facts, not opinions

Shortcuts "WP:ASSERT" redirects here. For words to watch, see WP:SAID. See also: WP:YESPOV

What is the difference between asserting a fact and asserting an opinion?

The text of Misplaced Pages articles should assert facts, but not assert opinions as fact.

  • When a statement is a fact (e.g., information that is accepted as true and about which there is no serious dispute), it should be asserted using Misplaced Pages's own voice without in-text attribution. Thus we write: "Mars is a planet" or "Plato was a philosopher". We do not write: "According to the Daily Telegraph, the capital of France is Paris" because doing so would create the impression of doubt or disagreement where there is none. It is good practice, however, to include an inline citation to a reliable source to allow the reader to verify any fact that is not widely known.
  • When a statement is an opinion (e.g., a matter which is subject to serious dispute or commonly considered to be subjective), it should be attributed in the text to the person or group who holds the opinion. Thus we might write: "John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by baseball insiders such as Al Kaline and Joe Torre.". We do not write: "John Doe is the best baseball player". The inclusion of opinions is subject to weight policy, and they should be backed up with an inline citation to a reliable source that verifies both the opinion and who holds it.

A simple formulation is to assert facts, including facts about opinions, but don't assert opinions themselves.

Making necessary assumptions

Shortcut

When writing a long series of articles on some general subject, e.g., in writing about evolution, do we have to hash out the evolution-vs.-creationism debate on every page?

No, surely not. There are virtually no topics that could proceed without making some assumptions that someone would find controversial. This is true not only in evolutionary biology, but also in philosophy, history, physics, etc.

It is difficult to draw up general principles on which to rule in specific cases, but the following might help: there is probably not a good reason to discuss some assumption on a given page if an assumption is best discussed in depth on some other page.

Balancing different views

Giving "equal validity"

History has shown that pseudoscience can beat out facts, by relying on lies, slander, innuendo and numerical majorities to force their views on others. 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 promote baseless and/or evil ideas.

Misplaced Pages's neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we should or must "give equal validity" to minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) views. It does state that we must not take a stand on them as encyclopedia writers, but that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such and using the words of reliable sources to present strong criticisms. Fairly explaining the arguments against a pseudoscientific theory or verifiably describing the moral repugnance that people feel toward a notion is fully permitted by NPOV.

Writing for the opponent

See also: Misplaced Pages:Writing for the opponent (essay)

I'm not convinced by what you say about "writing for the opponent". I don't want to write for the opponents. Most of them rely on stating as fact many statements that 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?

The great thing about NPOV is that you aren't claiming anything, except to say, "So-and-so argues that ____________, and therefore, ___________." This can be done with a straight face, with no moral compunctions, because you are attributing the claim to someone else. Even in the most contentious debates, when scholars are trying to prove a point, they include counter-arguments, at the least so that they can explain why the counter-arguments fail.

Also, people can honestly fail to see the bias inherent in a popular term or point of view, simply because it's the one commonly used or familiar to them. But English Misplaced Pages is a highly diverse and international project, and its editors reflect many different points of view. Maintaining objectivity about the most personal or contentious subjects is new to most people, and many disputes over the terminology and phrasing can be resolved by simply balancing points of view (in proportion to their significance, of course).

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?

NPOV policy means presenting all significant points of view. This means providing not only the points of view of different groups today, but also different groups in the past, and not only points of view you share, but also points of view with which you disagree.

Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia. One important task for encyclopedias is to explain things. In the case of human beliefs and practices, explanation encompasses not only what motivates individuals who hold these beliefs and practices, but an account of how such beliefs and practices came to be and took shape. Misplaced Pages articles on history and religion draw from a religion's sacred texts. But Misplaced Pages articles on history and religion also draw from modern archaeological, historical, and scientific sources.

Some adherents of a religion might object to a critical historical treatment of their faith, claiming that this somehow discriminates against their religious beliefs. They might prefer that the articles describe their faith as they see it. NPOV policy means that Misplaced Pages editors ought to say something like this: Many adherents of this faith believe X, which they believe that members of this group have always believed; however, due to the acceptance of some findings (say which) by modern historians and archaeologists (say which), other adherents (say which) of this faith now believe Z. This way, views are presented without being criticized or endorsed.

An important note on using the term "fundamentalism": In studies of religion, this word has a very specific meaning. Misplaced Pages articles about religion should use this word only in its technical sense, not "strongly-held belief", "opposition to science", or "religious conservatism", as it is often used in the popular press. Take care to explain what is meant by this term in order to avoid causing unnecessary offense or misleading the reader. As religion is an emotional and controversial topic, Misplaced Pages editors should be prepared to see some articles edited due to seemingly minor quibbles. Stay civil and try not to take discussions too personally.

Morally offensive views

Shortcut

What about views that are morally offensive to most readers, such as Holocaust denial, which some people actually hold? Surely we are not to be neutral about them?

We can maintain a healthy, consistent support for the neutral point of view by attributing emotionally charged views to prominent representatives or to a group of people. Those who harbor attitudes of racism etc., will not be convinced to change their views based on a biased article, which only puts them on the defensive; on the other hand, if we make a concerted effort to apply our non-bias policy consistently, those whom we consider to have morally repugnant beliefs opposite to our own may consider an insight that could change their views.

The fact that an idea or topic is morally outrageous is not a reason to leave it out of Misplaced Pages. If a morally outrageous idea or practice has received notable coverage from independent sources (not just its originator), we provide a valuable service by describing it as well as the criticisms and opposition it has received. Remember, we only have to be neutral in the tone and content what we write; we have no responsibility for how neutral content we write is generally perceived. If someone reads a neutral, factual article on a morally offensive topic and comes away with a changed opinion based on the facts and evidence, that is a completely reasonable outcome.

Pseudoscience

How are we to write articles about pseudoscientific topics, which claim to be scientific but which majority scientific opinion is that the claim is not credible and doesn't even really deserve serious mention?

If we're going to represent the sum total of encyclopedic knowledge, then we must cover positions that have no scientific credence. This is not, however, as bad as it sounds. The task before us is not to present pseudoscientific claims as if they were on par with good science; rather, the task is to represent the majority view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view, and to explain how scientists have received or criticized pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly. Pseudoscience may be significant as a social phenomenon, but it should not obfuscate the description of mainstream scientific views. Any mention of pseudoscientific views should be proportionate to the rest of the article.

With regard to characterizing topics as pseudoscience, the Misplaced Pages Arbitration Committee ruled as follows (at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience):

  • Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification.
  • Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.
  • Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized.
  • Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.

It may be easier to achieve both neutrality and consensus by using precise terms. For example, a belief in ghosts is more accurately described as a paranormal belief than a pseudoscientific one, an ancient attempt to explain the physical world is a protoscience, and a religious belief is non-scientific. These beliefs do not claim to involve the scientific process, whereas pseudoscience does.

Editor disputes

Dealing with biased contributors

I agree with the nonbias 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?

Unless the case is really egregious, maybe the best thing is to call attention to the problem publicly, pointing the perpetrators to this page (but politely — one gets more flies with honey than with vinegar) and asking others to help. See Dispute resolution for more ideas. There is a point beyond which our interest in being a completely open project is trumped by our interest in being able to get work done without constantly having to fix the intrusions of people who do not respect our policies.

Avoiding constant disputes

How can we avoid constant and endless warfare over neutrality issues?

The best way to avoid warfare over bias is to remember that most of us are reasonably intelligent, articulate people here, or we wouldn't be working on this and caring so much about it. We have to make it our goal to understand each other's perspectives and to work hard to make sure that those other perspectives are fairly represented.

When any dispute arises as to what the article should say, or what is true, we must not adopt an adversarial stance; we must do our best to step back and ask ourselves, "How can this dispute be fairly characterized?" This has to be asked repeatedly as each new controversial point is stated. It is not our job to edit Misplaced Pages so that it reflects our own idiosyncratic views and then defend those edits against all-comers; it is our job to work together, mainly adding or improving content, but also, when necessary, coming to a compromise about how a controversy should be described, so that it is fair to all sides. Consensus is not always possible, but it should be your goal.

Other objections

Anglo-American focus

English Misplaced Pages seems to have an Anglo-American focus. Is this contrary to NPOV?

Yes, it is, especially when dealing with articles that require an international perspective. The presence of articles written from a United States or European Anglophone perspective is simply a reflection of the fact that there are many U.S. and European Anglophone people working on the project. This is an ongoing problem that should be corrected by active collaboration between Anglo-Americans and people from other countries. But rather than introducing their own cultural bias, they should seek to improve articles by removing any examples of cultural bias that they encounter, or making readers aware of them. A special WikiProject for Countering systemic bias has been set up to deal with this problem. This is not only a problem in the English Misplaced Pages. The French Language Misplaced Pages reflects a French bias, the Japanese Misplaced Pages reflects a Japanese bias, and so on.

Not answered here

I have some other objection—where should I complain?

Before asking it, please review the links below. Many issues surrounding the neutrality policy have been covered before very extensively and good answers exist in other places.

Other NPOV resources

Because the neutral point of view policy is often unfamiliar to newcomers yet central to Misplaced Pages's approach, many issues surrounding the neutrality policy have been covered extensively before. 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 Misplaced Pages mailing list. Before asking, please review the links below:


Categories: