User:Dominic Mayers/Please, explain the neutral point of view

This essay challenges the community to explain through examples how including information helps in not taking sides, i.e., achieving the neutral point of view. In other words, the examples should show how rejecting information (not describing debates, not providing arguments, not attributing opinions, etc.) can be against the neutral point of view. The essay explains the neutral point of view outside Wikipedia, then inside Wikipedia, where it is related to inclusion of information, and finally it presents the challenge. The objective is to improve the NPOV policy.

The neutral point of view outside Wikipedia

This section presents how "adopting the neutral point of view" or "not taking sides" is seen outside Wikipedia. The expression "not taking sides" is taken as a synonym of "adopting the neutral point of view", because there are books, series, movies, etc. with the title "Taking sides" and its negation, "not taking sides", is often used to describe proper ruling in court of law. The corresponding expression in other languages might not resonate as well with people. For example, there is no well known book in French with the title "Avoir un parti pris". The important is that concepts such as developing critical thinking, which are described in that section, are not specific to the English language.

We also consider the expression "due weight". because it is also used in Wikipedia to express a part of neutral point of view. The key point is that it refers to the level of attention given by a person to something. Though it is natural to expect that after having given due weight, the person will take the right decision, that is just the outcome of due weight, not what is meant by due weight. In the former case, the process is considered, whereas, in the latter case, only the outcome is considered. This distinction is important and will play a role in the next section.

Presenting views that are taking sides as a tool to develop critical thinking

McGraw-Hill says that each book in its series "Taking Sides" covers a controversial issue "in a debate-style forma designed to stimulate student interest and develop critical thinking skills". In each of these books, different clashing views are presented. In its review of one of the books, Taking Sides: Clashing views on African issues, Andrew Newsham wrote:

William Moseley, its editor, executes with aplomb the role of the helpful guide who introduces the protagonists in each controversy with respect and, by and large, with admirable impartiality. Having an editor who deliberately does not take sides nicely balances the yes/no structure, thereby also serving as a reminder to students (and academics) to understand opposing viewpoints before formulating their own opinions about them.

Alison McCartney, professor of Political Science at Towson University, says "these books are sometimes criticized for only offering either/or answers".

Not taking sides in court of law

Hanna Panreck of Fox News wrote "'Courts work because people trust judges. Taking sides in this way erodes that trust,' Ponsor, a senior judge on the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, continued, criticizing the Supreme Court."

The Nineteenth Judicial Circuit of Lake County Illinois says "A ruling by the judge does not mean he or she is taking sides."

The lawyer Russell Alexander wrote : "Unfortunately, this is a misguided presumption: As a broad legal principle all judges are duty-bound to remain impartial as between the litigants that appear before them. So a judge cannot give the appearance of taking sides or actively advocating on one party’s behalf." This one is interesting, because even the appearance of taking sides is condemned.

Not taking sides is used to describe proper ruling by a judge in many other sources.

Taking sides as do activists or by taking into account personal principles

This subsection, unlike the two previous ones, is about the opposite of the neutral point of view, but as a good thing, at the least as a human thing. It's about being an activist or taking into account our own personal principles, even our emotions. Because it is often seen positively, it leads to question whether Wikipedia should take sides.

Sherine Tadros, an Egyptian Coptic Christian, grew up comfortably in Britain after her parents prospered. She became an award-winning war correspondent and found fulfilment as an activist. The site GoodReads, in its review of her 2023 book "Taking Sides" wrote: "As a broadcast journalist for Sky News and Al Jazeera, Sherine Tadros was trained to tell only the facts, as dispassionately as possible. But how can you remain neutral when reporting from war zones, or witnessing brutal state repression?

The 2003 movie "Taking sides" directed by István Szabó is about americans taking sides against an alleged nasist in a court case. The synopsis of the movie says: "Maj. Steve Arnold (Harvey Keitel) is charged with making an example of Furtwangler due to his status as a high-profile cultural figure, and pulls no punches in questioning him about possible ties to the Hitler regime. However, as Arnold presses forward, his assumptions about Furtwangler don't necessarily hold up."

"Taking sides" by Gary Soto is a 1991 juvenile fiction telling the story of a Hispanic boy, Lincoln Mendoza, who moved to a white suburban neighborhood. His basketball team at his new school, in which rich and mostly white students are enrolled, faces his old team. The description of the publisher, Blackstone Audio, for the 1999 audio version says "How can Linc play his best when he's shooting against his former teammates? To find an answer, Linc will need to sort through a maze of emotions and some tricky moves on the court."

Due weight in social and environmental policies

Geoffrey Hammond, Director of the interdisciplinary International Centre for the Environment at the University of Bath, wrote a correspondence piece in Nature about the fact that "Carbon footprint" is not the correct expression, because "footprint" means it is measured in area units whereas what is meant by "Carbon footprint" is measured in weight unit. The title of his correspondence piece was "Time to give due weight to the ‘carbon footprint’ issue". He was, of course, playing with words: the expected result of giving due weight, in that case, is the use of "carbon weight" instead of "carbon footprint". But, putting asides this play with words, "give due weight" in the title means "give more attention".

Due weight in court of law

Article 12 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and Children’s Participatory Rights in Canada says "States Parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child."

Including and rejecting information vs not taking sides and due weight in Wikipedia

Not taking sides has been a part of Wikipedia since its early times. Wikipedia editors are not activists and leave their personal principles and emotions aside. Presenting the facts does not mean we are taking sides, just like a judge that applies the laws is not taking sides. Conversely, not presenting some facts could mean that we are taking sides. Not taking sides requires that we provide the relevant information.

Rejecting information does not mean that we are taking sides

In 2003, because the "include-info" aspect of not taking sides or neutral point of view policy could be misinterpreted and misused to include theories supported only by an extremely small minority, perhaps even nonsense theories, such as the flat earth theory, the no original research (NOR) policy was added to complement it. In 2005, the section "Undue and due weight ...", which is based on the 2003 statement of the NOR policy, was added to the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy. Just like a judge is not taking sides when he applies the laws, Wikipedia is not taking sides when it applies the NOR policy.

Including information as a way of not taking sides

Not all informations are to be rejected using NOR. We can say "the Earth is shaped into an ellipsoid with a circumference of about 40,000 km". Not saying it or relativising it because some say the earth is flat would be taking sides. In that context, including that statement is a way of not taking sides

Due weight outside Wikipedia and not taking sides

The due weight notion used outside Wikipedia, say in court of law, goes well along the not taking sides principle. It means that the editors must give due weight, i.e., the required attention, to all pertinent view points in sources. As in the case of not taking sides, it is as much about including information as it is about excluding information. A lesson to be learned from the analogy with a legal context is that editors must simply read the sources carefully, giving them all the necessary attention in order to determine the proper place of each point of view.

The second meaning of due weight inside Wikipedia and its significance

Of course, english editors understand the usual meaning of "give due weight" and if they read "give due weight to all view points in sources", they understand that they must give proper attention to them, but in Wikipedia there is an automatic extension of the meaning to the outcome in the article: the editors also understand that the space given to the view points in the article must correspond to the importance of the view points in the sources. This is similar to what happened when Geoffrey Hammond played with the meaning of "weight" in his title (see above). In one meaning, the usual one, it refers to the attention given to the issue. In another meaning, it refers to the weight of the carbon. In Wikipedia, the second meaning is the space given to the viewpoint in the article. However, Wikipedia is not playing with words, because the second meaning is dominant in the explanation of the policy, whereas the usual meaning, the attention given to the view points, is only there in the background. Undue weight does not mean that not enough attention has been given to the view point. It means that two much space was given to the view point in the article.

The dominance of the second meaning is highly significant. It makes a big difference, because the usual meaning refers to the attention given to view points in the editorial process, whereas the Wikipedia meaning refers to the final outcome in the article. In particular, because undue weight means too much space and due weight does not mean too little space, these expressions are only about rejection of information. In practice, in the text of the policy, they say nothing about the editorial process, which, of course, is primarily about including information: the purpose of an encyclopedia is to provide information.

A focus on the inclusion of information

The reject-info principles are well known. They are the no original research (NOR) policy, the verifiability (V) policy and the reliable sources (RS) guidelines. We can add the requirement that what is included must be pertinent in its context, though this is implicit in the fact that the reliable sources depend on that context. These have been added between 2003 and 2006. There has been no attention on the include-info principle since 2003. Except for "attributing opinions", the include-info principle "describing debates instead of engaging them" has received little attention and in fact some examples and explanations have been removed.

Editors of Wikipedia are all interested in including information, because it is the goal of an encyclopedia. In that context, how is it that all the attention has been on rejecting info and on explaining how important this is for the neutral point of view ? Not that it is incorrect. Of course, in most cases, we want to totally reject theories that are held by an extremely small minority only. But how come there is not a similar interest in the include-info principle, which seems to be equally important ? We let the readers figure out the answer to that last question. We focus on the inclusion principle, because it has been neglected.

Two factors affecting the balance between inclusion and rejection of information

This subsection examines two factors that affect our choices about whether or not to explain the inclusion or rejection of information in the NPOV text. One factor is the complexity of the addition or rejection process. In the case of rejection, it is simple: a statement is proposed for inclusion (or already seen in the article) and the editor uses NOR, V and RS to determine if it must be rejected. If the statement is not part of a normal understanding of sources of quality, it must be rejected. The correct way to add information is more complicated. To achieve the neutral point of view, perhaps except for the attribution of opinions, it is not obvious what information needs to be added. The text of NPOV says or used to say that we should provide the arguments, explain what is at stake, etc., but doing this well in a neutral way is not easy. For example, providing factual information about a point of view can respect the neutral point of view, even if this additional information calls the point of view into question. Even the way to attribute opinions without taking sides is not obvious. Some have argued that explanations could be misinterpreted and used to include theories that have no place in Wikipedia. Explanations have been removed. Currently, we have almost no such explanations in the NPOV text. This last consideration was one of the motivations for writing this essay.

Complexity becomes a much more important factor when combined with another factor: the editor's goal. If the editor's goal is to include minority view points in Wikipedia, he will tend to like rules for inclusion and dislike rules for rejection. It will be the opposite for an editor that wish mainly to remove theories that have no place in Wikipedia. The viewpoints of a majority are not much affected by inclusion or rejection rules, so they were ignored. This last consideration is why one should not focalize on one aspect, rejection of unacceptable theories or inclusion of view points of minorities, and, as a result, see opposition between rejection and inclusion. One should see instead that inclusion and rejection of information are working together toward a same goal. In this way, a balanced explanation of the role of adding and rejecting information will make its way in the policy. It is possible that some editors, due to their situation in their personal lives and on Wikipedia, will always maintain as their sole objective to reject unacceptable theories, which is entirely laudable, but unfortunately, too absorbed in this sole objective, will oppose a rational approach in which all relevant points of view have their rightful place and are presented in a factual manner without omitting the information necessary for their proper understanding. This essay is aimed at other editors.

The challenge: examples that explain the include-info principle

The challenge is that the include-info principle "describing debates instead of engaging them" is not clearly explained. Examples are needed to illustrate how this include-info principle help achieving the neutral point of view. The "not taking sides" and the "due weight" principles are too abstract and they are as much about rejecting info as they are about including info. The examples must cover as many kinds of information as possible: attribution, arguments, historical context, what is at stake, etc. Adopting the neutral point of view may require thinking out of the box rather than simply deciding to include or reject a fixed statement.