Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ

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

Common questions

Being neutral

There's no such thing as objectivity

Everybody with any philosophical sophistication knows that. So how can we take the "neutrality" policy seriously? Neutrality, lack of bias, isn't possible.

This is probably the most common objection to the neutrality policy, as well as the most common misunderstanding of it. The policy makes no epistemological judgments as to the existence of an ultimate objectivity in writing: a "view from nowhere" to use Thomas Nagel's phrase. Rather, the policy is simply that we should describe disputes, not engage in them.

If there is anything possibly contentious about the policy along these lines, it is the implication that it is possible to describe disputes in such a way that material from all reliable sources is presented comprehensively and neutrally. Whether this is possible is an empirical question, not a philosophical one.

Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete

The neutrality policy is used sometimes as an excuse to remove text that is perceived as biased. Isn't this a problem?

Occasionally, yes. Many editors believe that bias is not in itself reason to remove text, because in some articles all additions are likely to express bias. Instead, material that balances the bias should be added, and sources should be found per WP:V. Material that violates WP:NOR should be removed.

However, there are legitimate reasons for removing text because of bias: As per our undue weight policy, large sections of text expressing a minority or fringe point of view could hinder our primary purpose as an encyclopaedia by leaving the reader confused as to what the academic consensus on a subject might be. Likewise, Wikipedia is not intended for advocacy, so text which simply advocates a point of view, but offers no information should be deleted.

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?

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. Some brief, unobtrusive pointer might be appropriate, however.

Balancing different views

Giving "equal validity"

But wait. I find the optimism about science vs. pseudo-science to be baseless. History has shown that pseudo-science can't 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 batty or evil respectively.

Please be clear on one thing: the Wikipedia 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.

Writing for the "enemy"

See also: Wikipedia:Writing for the enemy (essay)

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?

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.

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 Wikipedia 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.

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 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.

Wikipedia 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 evolved. Wikipedia articles on history and religion draw from a religion's sacred texts. But Wikipedia 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 own faith because it discriminates against their religious beliefs. They might prefer that the articles describe their faith as they see it, which might be from an a 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 if it can be documented by notable, reliable sources, yet note that there is no contradiction. NPOV policy means that Wikipedia editors ought to try to write sentences like this: "Certain adherents of this faith (say which) believe X, and also believe that they have always believed X; however, due to the findings (say which) of modern historians and archaeologists (say which), other adherents (say which) of this faith now believe Z."

Regarding the term "fundamentalism": In studies of religion, this word has a very specific meaning. Wikipedia articles about religion should use this word only in one of its technical senses. Editors should take care to explain what is meant by the term in order to avoid causing unnecessary offense or misleading the reader. Wikipedia 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.

Morally offensive views

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?

We report views that have been published by reliable sources. We do not report views that are held by tiny minorities, or views that reliable sources do not write about. Beyond that, we make no judgements. No view is omitted because someone might see it as prejudiced; if it is omitted from Wikipedia, it is because reliable sources have omitted it.

Pseudoscience

Further information: WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE

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

The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science. Pseudoscience is a social phenomenon and therefore may be significant, but it should not obfuscate the description of the main views, and any mention should be proportionate; and, moreover, should explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific ideas and concepts. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly.

In an Arbitration Committee case, which can be read in full here, the committee created distinctions among the following:

• Obvious pseudoscience: "Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, 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."

The ArbCom ruled that the following should generally not be characterized 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."

Editorship disputes

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?

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. Try getting outside help from the NPOV noticeboard. 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 others' 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 Wikipedia 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

Anglo-American focus and systematic bias

Wikipedia seems to have an Anglo-American focus. Is this contrary to the neutral point of view?

The Anglo-American focus is in part a reflection of there being so many U.S. and European Anglophone people working on the project, which in turn is a reflection of the fact that so many of them have access to the Internet. It is also because this is the English-language Wikipedia and therefore the published sources we rely on tend to be in English and reflect the concerns of the English-speaking world. Similarly, the French Language Wikipedia may reflect a Francophone bias, and the Japanese Wikipedia a Japanese bias. Some editors see this as a problem, and some do not. A special WikiProject has been set up to discuss the issue.

So systematic bias is not related to NPOV then?

Systematic bias is not in itself an NPOV issue, however it can lead to NPOV issues in certain instances. Consider the following examples:

1. The statement "academia in Africa is inferior to academia in Western Europe" violates NPOV, but is not really a systemic bias issue. It's an issue of one person presenting his or her opinion as fact, and such cases may come from the minority group as well.
2. The fact that only about 30 of 1480 featured articles (2%) are about topics related to Africa, a continent that accounts for 14% of the world population and 20% of its land area, is an indication of systemic bias, but is not directly a neutrality issue.
3. An article on the effects of globalisation that notes the views of European academics, but does not note the views of African academics, when their views differ substantially from those of their European counterparts, suffers from a POV problem that is rooted in systemic bias.
4. An article on the effects of Hurricane Ivan that notes the economic damages and loss of human life but fails to note or gives little attention to the impact on the environment or on animals may suffer from systemic bias (it depends on the extent of coverage available) but is not really an NPOV issue as there are no conflicting views involved. The issue is not that someone's opinion has been left out or that a personal opinion has been presented as fact, but rather that there are gaps in the coverage of the subject.

Other objections

I have some other objection - where should I complain?

Because the neutral point of view policy is often unfamiliar to newcomers and is so central to Wikipedia'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 Talk:Neutral point of view, or bring it up on the Wikipedia mailing list. Before asking your question, please review the links below.

Other resources

• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
• NPOV tutorial
• NPOV noticeboard.
• Understand Bias
• List of controversial issues
• Words to avoid
• Meta:Positive tone
• Guidelines for controversial articles
• God's Eye View
• Consensus reality
• Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words
• {{NPOV}} - message used to warn of problems
• {{NPOV-section}} - tags only a single section as disputed
• {{POV check}} - message used to mark articles that may be biased. ({{bias}} may be used for short)
• {{POV-statement}} - when only one sentence is questionable
• WikiProject Countering Systemic Bias
• One-sided argument
• Wikipedia:Criticism

External links

• 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