Neutral point of view: Difference between revisions
mNo edit summary |
Brief description, some links |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[[Wikipedia]] has a strict '''neutral point of view''' (NPOV) policy, which basically states that its mission as an encyclopedia is best served not by advancing or detracting particular points of view on any given subject, but by trying to present a fair, neutral description of the facts -- among which are the facts that various interpretations and points of view exist. (Of course, there are limits to what POVs are considered worth mentioning, which can be an area of conflict.) |
|||
"Neutral point of view" should not be confused with "point of view espoused by an international body such as the United Nations"; writing in NPOV style requires recognising that even widely held or widely respected points of view are not necessarily all-encompassing. |
|||
While NPOV is an ultimate goal in writing a Wikipedia article, it's difficult to achieve immediately as a single writer, and is thus sometimes regarded as an iterative process (as is [[wiki]] writing in general), by which opposing viewpoints compromise on language and presentation to produce a neutral description acceptable to all. |
|||
This might be viewed as an [[adversarial system]], but hopefully a polite one. ;) One is expected to approximate NPOV to the best of one's ability and welcome improvements brought by others in good faith; a failure of the system can become an [[edit war]], in which two or more parties dig in and refuse to compromise, instead reverting each other's changes outright. |
|||
See also [[en:Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]], [[MeatBall:NeutralPointOfView]] |
|||
Revision as of 02:02, 17 March 2003
Wikipedia has a strict neutral point of view (NPOV) policy, which basically states that its mission as an encyclopedia is best served not by advancing or detracting particular points of view on any given subject, but by trying to present a fair, neutral description of the facts -- among which are the facts that various interpretations and points of view exist. (Of course, there are limits to what POVs are considered worth mentioning, which can be an area of conflict.)
"Neutral point of view" should not be confused with "point of view espoused by an international body such as the United Nations"; writing in NPOV style requires recognising that even widely held or widely respected points of view are not necessarily all-encompassing.
While NPOV is an ultimate goal in writing a Wikipedia article, it's difficult to achieve immediately as a single writer, and is thus sometimes regarded as an iterative process (as is wiki writing in general), by which opposing viewpoints compromise on language and presentation to produce a neutral description acceptable to all.
This might be viewed as an adversarial system, but hopefully a polite one. ;) One is expected to approximate NPOV to the best of one's ability and welcome improvements brought by others in good faith; a failure of the system can become an edit war, in which two or more parties dig in and refuse to compromise, instead reverting each other's changes outright.
See also en:Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, MeatBall:NeutralPointOfView