User:FT2/NPOV

A proposed draft approach to cleaning up WP:NPOV. This has been discussed significantly on Talk:NPOV. It is an identifiable and significant problem because over time the NPOV policy page has become full of discussion rather than crisp, clear and to-the-point policy.

Wikipedia policy is that articles should be written from a neutral point of view ("NPOV"), representing all majority and significant-minority views fairly and without bias. This is often an unfamiliar viewpoint to those new to wikipedia, and new editors are recommended to read carefully and ask questions if they do not understand it. NPOV misunderstandings account for many cases of troubled editing, so it is especially important to understand Wikipedia's basic approach when working with controversial or disputed articles.

The policy doesn't assume that writing an article from a single, unbiased, objective point of view is possible. Instead it says to fairly represent all sides of a dispute by not making articles state, imply, or insinuate that only one side is correct. Crucially, a great merit of Wikipedia is that Wikipedians work together to make articles unbiased.

Writing unbiased text requires practice. Contributors who have mastered the art of NPOV are invited to help develop the neutrality tutorial, which is a useful guide for those seeking to learn more.

According to Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable". [1]

How NPOV works

The meaning of wikipedia's term "NPOV"

Wikipedia is a neutral and unbiased compilation of notable, verifiable facts. ABOUT

Articles should be written without bias, representing all majority and significant minority views fairly. This is the neutral point of view policy. The policy of having a neutral point of view is not to hide different points of view, but to show the full diversity of viewpoints and debate.

Rather than advocate one view or another, we characterize the debate by describing, documenting and summarizing the nature of the debate and the significant facts and views put forward within it.

Major principles to help achieve NPOV are:

Multiple views: Multiple views can be reported side by side without competing.
Dispassionate: Wikipedia does not support or detract from any view. It summarizes the facts pertaining to each view, and counter-criticisms, and lets them speak for themselves.
Respectful description: All views can be treated respectfully and valued - even wrong, unpopular or minority ones. They are all capable of being described "best foot forward", in a respectful manner.
Notability: The criteria for deciding whether and how to mention a view is notability, not "correctness". Informally, this means wikipedia looks at the usefulness of representing a view, rather than judging the view itself.
Bias not acceptable: The credibility given to different viewpoints can best be demonstrated by noting in an unbiased manner, the standing of those who hold the view and the supporting citations that underpin it, rather than by biased editing or suppression.
Non-hostility: Wikipedia may include a view or not, or summarize it, but it is graceful in doing so. Wikipedia is not hostile to any viewpoint, or to any editor raising a controversial or less popular viewpoint.

In summary, NPOV does not mean that one view is reported and another ignored or ridiculed. It means that (allowing for fair use of space) each view can be represented fairly and to the best of its proponents ability, ie "best foot forward" without suppression, and that enough information is separately given to allow an uninformed reader to judge why some views are viewed as they are by various people, and their strengths, weaknesses, criticisms and respective counter-criticisms. A simple accumulation of cited facts is rarely neutral.

For guidance on how to make an article conform to the neutral point of view (NPOV), see the NPOV tutorial.

Notability

Rather than judge views as right or wrong, Wikipedia judges the value of representing a view. This is the concept that some views are more notable (or noteworthy) than others. It is a fundamental principle in understanding how wikipedia judges and balances viewpoints.

A "notable" view is one that is "worthy of notice". It is of interest or value, or believed or referenced by many people. It is not necessarily right or wrong, and may not always be popular. But it is noteworthy that the view exists in that form. So notability is a utilitarian view, not a moral judgement.

More notable views are often characterized as being more widespread, plausible, accepted by science, advocated by credible sources, interesting (for historical reasons or otherwise), valued or referenced.
Less notable views tend by contrast to be interesting only to few people, less widely accepted by credible sources, of little or no interest historically, not valued by or held by many people, not widely referenced, or scientifically implausible or fantastical (as opposed to discredited)

Unpopularity and lack of credibility are not important criteria except insofar as they help us establish whether a view is noteworthy and should be given space. Beyond that, we document the views of Nazis, Scientists, NAMBLA, Water diviners, and suicide bombers and why they believe they are right, as readily as why others believe they are wrong. A view may be "wrong" (according to many people) but very noteworthy, in which case it will still get substantial space if needed.

Bias

At Wikipedia, the terms "unbiased" and "neutral point of view" are used in a precise way that is different from the common understanding. Articles without bias describe debates fairly instead of advocating any side of the debate. Since all articles are edited by people, this is difficult, as people are inherently biased.

Bias need not be conscious. For example, beginners in a field often fail to realize that what sounds like common sense is actually biased in favor of one particular view, and experts in a field often fail to realise that neutrality means documenting and respecting views even if unsupported or strong evidence exists to disprove them.

"Geographical" bias also exists, when a subject is discussed based upon values and perspectives in one group of people, without realising that it may be viewed quite differently by another group of people whose viewpoint is being excluded.

In almost all cases, neutrality is better served by adding information or reworking and summarizing existing material, in a neutral manner, rather than suppressing undesired views.

Writing neutrally

Main article: NPOV tutorial

What we mean by "neutral" isn't obvious, and is easily misunderstood. There are many other valid interpretations of "unbiased" and "neutral", such as promoting some actual point of view that is "neutral" or "intermediate" among the different positions. Our use of the term is different from these. The notion of "unbiased writing" that informs Wikipedia's policy is "presenting conflicting views without asserting them".

As such, the neutral point of view is not a point of view at all. According to our understanding, when one writes neutrally, one is being very careful not to state (or imply or insinuate or subtly massage the reader into believing) that any particular view at all is "the correct view".

Presenting all points of view says, more or less, that p-ists believe that p, and q-ists believe that q, and that's where the debate stands at present. Ideally, presenting all points of view also gives a great deal of background on who believes that p and q and why, and which view is more popular (being careful not to associate popularity with correctness). Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of the p-ists and the q-ists, allowing each side to give its "best shot" at presenting its case and at identifying doubts with the other, but studiously refraining from saying who won the exchange.

Characterize rather than advocate

Writing unbiasedly can be conceived very well as describing disputes, characterizing them, rather than engaging in them or advocating views within a debate. One can think of unbiased writing as the cold, fair, analytical description of debates.

Wrong: "Adolph Hitler is regarded as one of the most evil men who ever lived." (this would be considered POV unless it was one of a balanced set of views and rephrased to make clear it was an opinion from a cited source such as a survey or notable writer)
Right: "Adolph Hitler was the leader of the German Nazi Party. His policies, and support for the eradication of Jews, Slavs, homosexuals and others he viewed as subhuman led directly to the state-sponsored internment and death of between 9 and 26 million people." (this is factual and verifiable)

Of course, one might well doubt that this can be done at all without somehow subtly implying or insinuating that one position is correct. But experienced academics, polemical writers and rhetoricians are well-attuned to bias, both their own and others', so that they can usually spot a description of a debate that tends to favor one side. If they so choose, with some creativity, they can usually remove that bias.

Incorporate both sides

Most articles do not conclude in favor of a specific given view. In fact most articles should avoid doing so if there is any noteworthy alternate view or criticisms. A wikipedia article summarizes in a structured manner, the background, issues, and various perspectives on a subject, and supporting citations, criticisms and counter-criticisms. It shows the nature of the debate, giving both sides a fair honest hearing.

Even a person who fervently believes in one view and wishes to represent it in wikipedia, when they actually edit, they edit as though they are an outsider, reporting both sides and describing to colleagues how each side sees it, where they differ, and the various perspectives how the matter stands. This is sometimes known as "writing for the enemy", and takes some experience to achieve.

Wrong: "Science has conclusively proved flying saucers do not exist, and that believers are fantasizing."
Wrong: "Flying saucers have been seen by many people over many years, and are known to be a genuine phenomenon."
Right: "Belief in flying saucers is widespread, and believers cite the large number of eye-witness reports they say appear credible, including military sources [CITE SOURCE]. Scientists as a whole tend to disagree, since no formal evidence has ever been accepted following proper peer review, and alternative explanations exist for most cases. [CITE SOURCE]"

In summary, we are not afraid to show views we do not believe in. We are not averse to simply leaving a subject open to debate or further information, even if many people feel the matter is already decided. A good encyclopedia article informs -- but does not coerce.

Facts v. opinions

We sometimes give an alternative formulation of the non-bias policy: assert facts, including facts about opinions — but don't assert opinions themselves. Certainly, there are bound to be borderline cases where a fact is disputed but we're not sure if we should take the dispute seriously, or where the distinction between fact and value will itself necessarily be in dispute.

Where we might want to state an opinion, we often convert that opinion into a fact by attributing the opinion to someone. This is commonly called the "X states Y" format. Facts are quantifiable, specific and evidenced.

Facts:

The Magna Carta was signed by an English king and nobles .... NASA says there is a planet called Mars .... Plato was a philosopher .... George Bush says that Al Qaeda is evil .... Al Qaeda says that George Bush is evil.

These are all facts. No one seriously disputes any of these things are accurate statements.

Opinions and uncited views:
- Stealing is wrong .... The Beatles was the greatest band ever .... The United States was wrong to drop the atomic bomb over Hiroshima and Nagasaki .... Paranormal phenomenae are pseudoscience.

These are all values and opinions. Different people may not entirely agree.

Giving an opinion as a fact:
- Public attitude surveys consistently show that most people believe stealing is wrong ....
- According to a recent NME report the Beatles were the greatest band ever ....
- Moral philosopher Jo Smith of the University of Trent writes that the United States was wrong to drop the atomic bombs on Japan.

These are all opinions converted to statements of fact, describing what specific people have said or written. If other people have said otherwise, that will be another fact.

There is a subtle point here. To take a possibly offensive example: When we say "Professor Kinsey found that most men and women masturbate" is factual and cannot be doubted, we do not mean everyone agrees with Kinsey. We are not saying whether people agree or not. We mean, this is an accurate statement of Kinsey's view. It is not saying that Kinsey was right, when he said it, or passing a moral judgement on whether masturbation is right or wrong. If we then wished to discuss whether most people agree with him, this would require its own separate supporting evidence.

Sometimes, it will be necessary to qualify the description of an opinion or to present several formulations, simply to arrive at a solution that fairly represents all the notable views of the situation. It is important also to assert facts about competing opinions, and to do so without implying that any one of these opinions is correct. It's also generally important to give the facts about the reasons behind the views, and to make it clear who holds them and the reason these people are credible, and also who holds opposing views and the reasons they are credible too.

Making assumptions neutrally

There are virtually no topics that could proceed without making some assumptions that someone would find controversial, nor subjects without some assumptions where different groups disagree strongly. It is difficult to draw up general principles on which to rule in specific cases, but the following might help:

Assumptions can be made less biased if it is made clear who assumes them, and the basis of that assumption, and then also made clear what other sets of assumptions are held by other notable viewpoints, which are also stated in their context.
There is probably little need to discuss an assumption on a given page if it is given fuller consideration neutrally and in more depth on some other more specific page. usually a brief and unobtrusive link would be appropriate though.
If there is a notable debate over some particular point it might be given a section of its own, linked to another article, or (if significant and notable topic on its own account) even perhaps a page of its own.

For example, in an article about the evolutionary development of horses, we might have a sentence to the effect that some creationists do not believe that horses (or any other animals) underwent any evolution, and direct the reader to the relevant article on creationism for fuller details of that viewpoint.

Avoid unsupported weasel words and exaggerations

It's important to note that the wikipedia "X says Y" format is different from the "some people believe ..." formulation popular in political debates. "Some people" is a weasel term, because it asserts there is a population without saying how or where to verify it. Wikipedia references usually require an identifiable and subjectively quantifiable population or, better still, a specific name/s. If a generalization such as "some, all, most, a few, all credible" is used, it must be capable of substantiation.

One might also have to be careful that the argument is not circular. A circular argument would be to claim that only people who believed X were "informed" and use this to prove that most informed people believe X.

Examples:

To claim "all people believe X", one must show that it is a fact that not one person does not believe X.
To claim "most people believe X", means also being able to show by citation that there is no doubt the number is a clear and substantial majority.

Sometimes hard evidence does not exist, but none the less something is commonly believed by knowledgable people in a field. If no other source exists, then it may be appropriate to state that "Anecdotally, X is believed or stated to be true". Anecdotes in this context are "pointers" rather than evidence, and are a lesser degree of evidence; they suggest that the matter is believed or self-reported by some vague group of people and gives the impression of being plausible, but has not been formally checked. It might be relevant if the source is something like online weblogs, "general opinion" lacking prominent citable sources within a poorly documented or illicit group, or similar impressions. For example, "Anecdotally many people refuse to vote due to dissatisfaction with the candidates", or "Anecdotally extracts of the banana root are said by tribesmen to cure headache".

Avoid terms implying a viewpoint ("POV terms")

Terms such as "fundamentalist", "terrorist", "pseudoscience", "sexist" can all be perjorative, implying a chosen viewpoint is preferred by Wikipedia. As a neutral source, phrasing that implies one view is preferred should be avoided where possible.

Acceptable: "X says Y is a terrorist" ... "a significant number of researchers such as P,Q,R, consider Y pseudoscience because..."
Not acceptable: "Y is a terrorist" ... "Y is a pseudoscience".
Acceptable only if formally held without significant dissent: Some perjorative terms are acceptable if it is a matter of formal record and no noteworthy view disagrees. For example a person may neutrally be described as a fraudster or psychotic if a court or clinician has declared it so, and a person may be described as a pornographer or fascist if they distribute pornography or are an active member of a fascist group, provided that no noteworthy view disagrees. If there is plausible disagreement, even if just from one credible source, then both views or an alternative wording are normally best.

Terms such as "conspiracy theory" or "alleged" are used on wikipedia, but as a non-perjorative term and only in a non-perjorative manner (eg "9/11 conspiracy theories" or "alleged election fraud in the 2004 presidential election"). Again, the key is that each view expressed is treated seriously and with respect. The term "Alternative theories" might be preferred as being more neutral.

Example:

The USA calls Al-Qaeda "terrorists". So we can say "Al-Qaeda is listed as a terrorist organisation by the US government". What we cannot do is ourselves call them that, or start an article "Al-Qaeda is a terrorist organisation", because that is to judge the US characterization is right and those who think otherwise are wrong. Wikipedia tries to avoid terms that imply a preferred view.

A viewpoint should not be described as "discredited" or "pseudoscientific" or any judgemental term, unless either this is a viewpoint that is noteworthy and ascribed to a source, it is a formal fact (eg a convicted criminal described as a fraudster), or that there are no sources of any significance holding otherwise. Even so respectful neutral characterization of such views is paramount.

Maintain a fair and sympathetic tone

If we're going to characterize disputes fairly, we need to present competing views with a consistently positive, sympathetic tone. Many articles 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 more subtly their organization. Common things to avoid:

Refuting opposing views as one goes along makes them look a lot worse than collecting them in an opinions-of-opponents section.
Words like "claims", "allege","proven" can be used in a way that subtlely implies a given view is unfounded. Even if it is, it should be allowed to describe itself positively. Any critical facts will speak for themselves.
Undue repetition, both of negative views, and positive views. Once per point is usually enough.

We should write articles with the tone that all positions presented are at least plausible, bearing in mind the important qualification about extreme minority views. Let's present all significant, competing views sympathetically. We can write with the attitude that such-and-such is a good idea, except that, in the view of some detractors, the supporters of said view overlooked such-and-such a detail. At worst, we can say that such-and-such is an idea held by these people, but considered discredited by those people for these (cited) reasons.

Handling fringe, discredited and unpopular views

Wikipedia does not judge, per se, between views. It only judges which views are worth representing. All views are treated with equal respect. The sole consession made is that in balancing an article, less noteworthy views often need less space than more noteworthy ones. Very minor views may be omitted, since wikipedia is not intended to be a compliation of every fact in existance. A view may be wrong but very noteworthy, in which case it will still get substantial space if needed.

From Jimbo Wales, September 2003, on the mailing list:

If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

Common situations and solutions

Some common ways that articles lose a neutral view, and the appropriate remedies.

POV forking

Problem: An article has distinct points of view, and because editors cannot agree on one overall presentation, they want to create two or more articles, giving the case from different viewpoints. Such articles are often referred to as "POV forks". The flaw is that they seek to balance one biased article by adding a second biased article. Parallel articles which both seek to describe the same subject with different biases, each ignoring the other, are a sign of poor editorship.
Solution: Please do not do this. An article should usually cover and contrast all the significant viewpoints in one article, and not avoid the issue by having different parallel versions describing different points of view. Consider joining discussion (or requesting comments) on the biased article to make it represent all sides fairly.
Observations: There may be a good case for sub-articles describing individual viewpoints in more detail, if the viewpoint is substantial enough to merit such articles. But these expand on the main article, rather than paralleling or contradicting it. The main article itself should cover the notable views and criticisms of the subject, in a neutral manner.

POV forks are not the same as content forks, where an article is split in order to handle separate sub-topics in more detail.

POV warfare

Problem: Some editor (or group of editors) tries to make an article showcase the viewpoint they favor. Minority views are judged rather than summarized, and often held to scorn, minimized, or excluded. They may be doing this honestly and for the best reasons, and their viewpoint may be "right" according to some people, but it is still unacceptable practice to do this.
Solution: This falls under two rules as well as NPOV: Do not disrupt wikipedia to prove a point, and information suppression. POV warfare is a serious breach of NPOV. Instead, act gracefully and civily, and allow both views their space. If criticism exists then usually an "arguments for and against" section will suffice, or (provided it is not used excessively), "for and against" views in a section may work too. But these should not be used as a means to avoid neutrality in representing both views.
Observations:
- NPOV does not mean that one view is reported and another ignored or ridiculed. It means that (allowing for fair use of space) each view is represented fairly and to the best of its proponents ability, ie "best foot forward", and that enough information is then given to allow an uninformed reader to judge why some views are viewed as they are, and their strengths, weaknesses and respective criticisms.
- If a view can be criticized, then the facts of that criticism will stand for themselves, they do not need to disrupt its fair presentation.

Deletion, reversion and constant disputes

Problem: An article should contain, and describe in a graceful manner, all noteworthy views, including more often than not a range of minority views. If a point of view is disputed, editors can often end up deleting material added by one side in preference for material they feel better describes the subject.
Solution:
- In general, disputes are better resolved by adding material to characterize, explain and evidence different views, than by deleting unfavored ones. This can be done without hostility or argument, if all views are treated with respect. If deletion is appropriate, then any noteworthy information not being directly disputed should usually be kept within the article in some way.
- If it is unclear whether some claim is true or useful, it's a good idea to raise objections on a talk page; if one has some reason to believe that the author of the biased material will not be induced to change it, it may be necessary to remove the text to the talk page itself for discussion (but not deleting it entirely). This is more or less a last resort, and should never be used to punish people who have written something biased.
Observation:
- Abuses of NPOV, such as hostile editing, excessive "viewpoint-bashing", or other breaches of policy are not "material that characterizes, explains and evidences" in the sense of this section. Such material may be removed or reverted but with a major condition: any factual information of note that is not already characterized in the article may need to be carefully retained, and a good and supported explanation of the delete/revert given. The person proposing to delete or revert, is responsible for checking and ensuring that their deletion does not throw valid notable information out when reverting invalid or non-notable information.
- A disputed section should normally be considered on the talk page, and a way to capture both views fairly found, if it becomes a source of controversy.

Nested criticisms

Problem: Editors find fault with each others sources, and cite sources to support a view of them, which in turn become target for the same treatment back, giving rise to excessively nested and complex criticisms and counter-criticisms.
Example: (taken from WP_talk:NPOV) "The American Values Coalition, which the political commentator John Doe, who is accused of supporting fascism, calls a "cabal of scoundrels," says that....."
Solution:
- If it's controversial, say so, and say why, but separate the views out, one per sentence, citing sources for each, using the generic "X says Y" format.
- In the above example, "This is a controversial issue. The American Values Coalition states X [CITE SOURCE]. An opposing view is provided by the political commentator John Doe, who describes the AVC as Y [CITE SOURCE]. John Doe is himself described in return as partisan and "a fascist" by the AVC because of Z. [CITE SOURCE]"
Observation:
- Nesting criticisms alone does not make a sentence biased. But it creates the impression of doubt and makes an article read like a conflict between advocates rather than a characterization of a debate. It is this resulting confusion within the issue, and uncertainty who is saying what about whom, that makes nested criticisms a neutrality issue.
- A single or minor nesting may not be as confusing - use judgement, and if in doubt be prudent.

Undue emphasis on minority views

Problem: A minor view is disproportionately over-represented in an article.
Solution: If the view is genuinely minor, and there are not a large number of proponents, then it is appropriate to allocate it a smaller space, or even just note it in passing. But within that space it should be fairly represented as best its proponents can honestly do. The article overall should be balanced allocating more space for views that are likely to be valuable or of interest to more people.
Observations:
- It may not always be easy to determine how well supported or popular a view is. This may be a good time to make a request for comment.
- Even though a view is minor or needs to be pruned down, it is treated with respect, its core arguments are kept faithfully, and POV warfare remains inappropriate.
- To give unqualified weight to a significant-minority view, or to include at length a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute.

Promotion of "wrong" or offensive views

Problem: Giving more space to some viewpoints may be seen as endorsing (or "promoting") them. Subjects such as Nazism, Scientology, Holocaust denial, Suicide, Abortion, Terrorism, Pedophilia, often have viewpoints not considered valid or acceptable, and attempts to represent the views of their proponents as they see them may be met with hostility.
Solution: Wikipedia is not a platform for advocacy. It is an encyclopedia of knowledge. Insofar as views exist and are substantive, they are likely to be valuable to document neutrally as well as the relevant objections, even though they are considered "wrong" or "unacceptable" by some people. NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable" on wikipedia, and descriptions of significant points of view have a place on Wikipedia even if they are considered offensive or discredited.
Observation: If there is citable evidence that a view is commonly viewed as wrong, then that is what the article should draw upon and make clear, rather than simply excluding or watering down the unwanted view. Karada offered the following advice in the context of the Saddam Hussein article:

"You won't even need to say he was evil. That's 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."

"Inherently POV" subjects

Problem: Some subjects and topics are seen as inherently biased. How can one represent such topics in a "neutral" manner?
Example: (taken from WP_talk:NPOV) How can an article like "Criticism of Christianity" have a neutral point of view? The article is suppose to be about arguments put forth by critics attacking the teaching of Christianity. Surely such arguments must bias against Christianity? Surely such arguments are the point of view of the critic(s).
Solution:
- The article title is itself perhaps not neutral. Try considering a rename to something like "Non-Christians views of Christianity" or "Critical views of Christianity" and making it more general.
- Then, within the article, characterize who says what, and how involved parties such as Christians (including different churches), critical scholars, skeptics, historians, other religions, see those same issues. Thats how you make it neutral.
Observation: An inherently non-neutral title can make an article hard to balance.

Categorization that specifies a viewpoint

.....

Discussion

The original formulation of NPOV

"A general purpose encyclopedia is a collection of synthesized knowledge presented from a neutral point of view. To whatever extent possible, encyclopedic writing should steer clear of taking any particular stance other than the stance of the neutral point of view."

"The neutral point of view attempts to present ideas and facts in such a fashion that both supporters and opponents can agree. Of course, 100% agreement is not possible; there are ideologues in the world who will not concede to any presentation other than a forceful statement of their own point of view. We can only seek a type of writing that is agreeable to essentially rational people who may differ on particular points."

"Some examples may help to drive home the point I am trying to make:

An encyclopedic article should not argue that corporations are criminals, even if the author believes it to be so. It should instead present the fact that some people believe it, and what their reasons are, and then as well it should present what the other side says.
An encyclopedia article should not argue that laissez-faire capitalism is the best social system. [...] It should instead present the arguments of the advocates of that point of view, and the arguments of the people who disagree with that point of view."

"Perhaps the easiest way to make your writing more encyclopedic is to write about what people believe, rather than what is so. If this strikes you as somehow subjectivist or collectivist or imperialist, then ask me about it, because I think that you are just mistaken. What people believe is a matter of objective fact, and we can present that quite easily from the neutral point of view."

Jimbo Wales, Wikipedia founder

Why Wikipedia should be unbiased

Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, which means it is a representation of human knowledge at some level of generality. But human beings disagree; for any topic on which there are competing views, each view represents a different idea of what the truth is, and insofar as that view contradicts other views, its adherents believe that the other views are false and therefore not knowledge. Where there is disagreement about what is true, there's disagreement about what constitutes knowledge. So, whilst collaborating, how can we solve the problem of endless "edit wars" in which one person asserts that p, whereupon the next person changes the text so that it asserts not-p?

A solution is that we accept, for the purposes of working on Wikipedia, that "human knowledge" includes all different significant theories on all different topics. So we're committed to the goal of representing human knowledge in that sense. Something like this is surely a well-established sense of the word "knowledge"; in this sense, what is "known" changes constantly with the passage of time, and when we use the word "know", we often use so-called scare quotes. Europeans in the Middle Ages "knew" that demons caused diseases. We now "know" otherwise.

There are four main reasons why Wikipedia is intended to be this neutral and unbiased even if the subject is "proven" or "discredited":

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a compilation of noteworthy human views and knowledge. In many cases, we cannot expect people to agree on what constitutes knowledge in a strict sense, or which views are "true", but we can adopt a broader perspective on "human knowledge" according to which the full range of conflicting theories constitute what we call "knowledge," and attempt to document that dispassionately. We should, both individually and collectively, make an effort to present these conflicting views fairly, without advocating any one of them, with the qualification that views held only by a tiny minority of people should be represented to a smaller degree or sometimes not at all.
When it is clear to readers that we do not expect them to adopt any particular opinion, this leaves them free to make up their minds for themselves, thus encouraging intellectual independence. Totalitarian governments and dogmatic institutions everywhere often find reasons to justify opposing open and comprehensive sources of information. If we remove some views, then in future such a policty could be used to remove views for more ominous reasons. If we retain all views but allow some to be described with hostility rather than sympathy, then in future this could also be used to manipulate opinion. But if we retain all noteworthy views describing them fully and sympathetically, then the knowledge retained in Wikipedia is not as likely to be able to be manipulated, and it will come to be seen as a trustworthy source in the long term.
The presentation of many competing theories on a wide variety of subjects suggests that we, the creators of Wikipedia, trust readers' competence to form their own opinions themselves. Texts that present multiple viewpoints fairly, without demanding that the reader accept any one of them, are liberating. Neutrality subverts dogmatism, and nearly everyone working on Wikipedia can agree this is a good thing.
Even discredited or out-of-favor views are often of interest to some people, and deleting a viewpoint is less academically interesting than describing it as its proponents see (or saw) it, and then adding further neutral references, explaining that this is not the way other people see it and giving cited reasons to support this. In this way, we place them in their actual context, knowledge is increased and people interested in ideas can gain valuably, by seeing what has gone before in the past, and how it was received. Similarly, theories are frequently re-studied or reviewed again in later times, or used as a basis for historical research and perspective, or new light is shed on them. So it is often important not to understate less preferred views or disputed theories while that information could still be interesting to someone.

Writing about views we feel are wrong

"Writing for the enemy" causes some concern to people unfamiliar with it. Some feel it would be a betrayal, asking a Christian to present a view supporting Satan, a scientist to write a view supporting pseudoscience.

In fact this is a misunderstanding. Wikipedia does not advocate sides, so there is no issue about "supporting" them. Writing for the enemy is about being careful to describe what different people might believe, how they see it, and why they believe it, and let it speak for itself, resisting the urge to add a judgement to it. It is not about saying we believe it, but about saying as a neutral fact, that certain others who do not believe the same as us, do.

This is critical to neutrality. It is a very important academic and philosophical principle. A good paper will always recount the field, and will consider how others might critique one's preferred view, and describe other views that other people may have held. They do this because bias is a problem to scientists too, and they look to those authoring papers to inform them of potential weaknesses in their views as well as reasons to believe them. Even in everyday life, good negotiators consider "stepping into the others shoes" to understand their view as they see it.

Even in modern science, only one field ever declared it knew "all there was to know" in its field, and that was optics. And this view was supported by many many eminent scientists. And they were wrong.

"Equal validity" and "undue weight"

This is often misunderstood and misquoted - sometimes willfully so.

Not all views are equally notable, or agreed upon. But all notable views - even 'wrong', 'offensive', 'dangerous' and 'discredited' ones - can be treated with equal respect and given equal rights to showcase their "side of a debate". In this sense there is always equal validity to all views in Wikipedia. All views are:

Equally respected as viewpoints, and treated with respect (even if unpopular)
Equally fairly represented if they have a place
Equally honestly put forward as their proponents see them.
Equally subject to verifiable criticism, and to discussion of the critical views and counter-views.
Equally subject to all Wikipedia policies and guidelines concerning articles and sources.

The space restrictions within Wikipedia, and the fact that often more people will want to look up some views than others ("notability"), may influence the space each view uses to make its case.

However, by contrast, to give unqualified weight to a significant-minority view, or to include at length a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. This is not to say that minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can possibly give them where relevant, but even on such pages, though a view is spelled out possibly in great detail, we still make sure that no one view is preferentially singled out and represented as the absolute truth. It is more likely the case that certain people (who can be named or cited) believe it is the truth.

Conflicting sources

Sometimes sources of comparable reputability might contradict. In that case the core of the NPOV policy is to let competing approaches of the same topic exist on the same page: work for balance, by describing the opposing viewpoints and sources, and the reasons they differ.

A special case is the expression of aesthetic opinions. Wikipedia articles about art, artists, and other creative topics (e.g., musicians, actors, books, etc.) have tended toward the effusive. This is out of place in an encyclopedia. We might not all agree that so-and-so is the greatest guitar player in history, but it may be important to describe how some artist or some work has been received by the general public or by prominent experts. Providing an overview of the common interpretations of a creative work, preferably with citations or references to notable individuals holding that interpretation, is more appropriate than opinion.

For instance, that Shakespeare is widely acknowledged as one of the greatest playwrights of the English language is a bit of knowledge that one should learn from an encyclopedia. However, in the interests of neutrality, one should also learn that a number of reputable scholars argue that there is a strong case to make that the author of much of the work still attributed to Shakespeare was his contemporary Christopher Marlowe. Notice that determining how some artist or work has been received publicly or critically might require research — but once determined, a clear statement of that reception (unlike an idiosyncratic opinion by a Wikipedia article writer) is an opinion that really matters.

Example: Abortion

It might help to consider an example of a biased text and how Wikipedians have rendered it at least relatively unbiased.

On the abortion page, early in 2001, some advocates had used the page to exchange barbs, being unable to agree about what arguments should be on the page and how the competing positions should be represented. What was needed — and what was added — was an in-depth discussion of the different positions about the moral and legal aspects of abortion at different times. This discussion of the positions was carefully crafted so as not to favor any one of the positions outlined. This made it easier to organize and understand the arguments surrounding the topic of abortion, which were then presented sympathetically, each with its strengths and weaknesses.

There are numerous other success stories of articles that began life as virtual partisan screeds but were nicely cleaned up by people who concerned themselves with representing all views clearly and sympathetically.

Common questions and objections

Common objections raised by newcomers to Wikipedia include the following:

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.
Pseudoscience
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?
Religion, science and belief
Some views are not in accordance with God's word or other (scientific, political, philosophical) beliefs, and should be described as we know them to be from religion (science, politics, philosophy)
Unproven information
Some information isn't proven but it's common knowledge and shouldn't be dismissed or ignored just because it doesn't meet someone elses self-selected standard for "proof"
All views aren't equal
History has shown that pseudo-science and revisionist history can beat out facts, as those who rely on them 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 or ignorant.
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?
Anglo-American focus
Wikipedia seems to have an Anglo-American focus. Is this contrary to the neutral point of view?

These are not strictly part of the policy, but are commonly asked, and are discussed at length under /FAQ.

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/FAQ, Talk:Neutral point of view, or bring it up on the Wikipedia-l mailing list. Before asking it, please review the links below.