 | This is an
essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of
Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been
thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
In debates on Wikipedia, certain users, especially newcomers, frequently raise the claim that the project's neutral point of view (NPOV) policy entails that all possible viewpoints on a given subject must be presented on Wikipedia, or that the policy somehow is an across-the-board entitlement for them to have their favored viewpoint included in an article if they request it.
This claim is patently false. No such requirement or entitlement of any kind exists or is implied by the NPOV policy. In fact, a number of policies and guidelines, including the NPOV policy itself, directly refute it.
Giving "equal validity" can create a false balance
While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity.
Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship.
We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it, and otherwise describe these ideas in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world.
Due and undue weight
Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight mean that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects.
Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views.
In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space. However, these pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view. In addition, the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained.
Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserves as much attention overall as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as Flat Earth).
Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public.
If you can prove a theory that few or none currently believe, Wikipedia is not the place to present such a proof. Once it has been presented and discussed in reliable sources, it may be appropriately included. See "No original research" and "Verifiability".
Fringe theories and pseudoscience
Pseudoscientific theories are presented by proponents as science, but characteristically fail to adhere to scientific standards and methods. Conversely, by its very nature, scientific consensus is the majority viewpoint of scientists towards a topic. Thus, when talking about pseudoscientific topics, we should not describe these two opposing viewpoints as being equal to each other.
While pseudoscience may in some cases be significant to an article, it should not obfuscate the description of the mainstream views of the scientific community. Any inclusion of pseudoscientific views should not give them undue weight. The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such. An explanation of how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories should be prominently included.
Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion
While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.
Neutrality
Even when information is cited to reliable sources, you must present it with a neutral point of view (NPOV).
Tiny-minority views need not be included, except in articles devoted to them.
Exceptional claims require exceptional sources
Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. Red flags that should prompt extra caution include:
- surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources;
- challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest;
- reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, or against an interest they had previously defended;
- claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living people. This is especially true when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them.
Using sources
If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it. If you discover something new, Wikipedia is not the place to announce such a discovery.
Verifiability
Wikipedia's content is determined by previously published information rather than by the personal beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it.
Neutral point of view
The inclusion of a view that is held only by a tiny minority may constitute original research.
Wikipedia summarizes significant opinions, with representation in proportion to their prominence. A Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is.
If discussed in an article about a mainstream idea, a theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight, and reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner.
The index contained in the box below enumerates each of the highlighted points in the quotations listed in the sections above:
Index of passages of policy and guidance that refute relativism
|
|---|
|
The actual meaning of Wikipedia's NPOV policy is carefully described in Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and that is always the page you should refer to over your own conceptions of what you would like neutrality to mean. But, in short, the policy can be summarized as:
- Views must only be described to the extent, to the degree, and in the sense they are covered in reliable sources, and only in a neutral and impartial tone.
If an article only describes one or some of the pertinent views described in relevant reliable sources, consensus should be reached to include appropriate descriptions of the remaining views.
| This is an
essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of
Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been
thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
In debates on Wikipedia, certain users, especially newcomers, frequently raise the claim that the project's neutral point of view (NPOV) policy entails that all possible viewpoints on a given subject must be presented on Wikipedia, or that the policy somehow is an across-the-board entitlement for them to have their favored viewpoint included in an article if they request it.
This claim is patently false. No such requirement or entitlement of any kind exists or is implied by the NPOV policy. In fact, a number of policies and guidelines, including the NPOV policy itself, directly refute it.
Giving "equal validity" can create a false balance
While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity.
Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship.
We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it, and otherwise describe these ideas in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world.
Due and undue weight
Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight mean that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects.
Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views.
In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space. However, these pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view. In addition, the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained.
Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserves as much attention overall as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as Flat Earth).
Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public.
If you can prove a theory that few or none currently believe, Wikipedia is not the place to present such a proof. Once it has been presented and discussed in reliable sources, it may be appropriately included. See "No original research" and "Verifiability".
Fringe theories and pseudoscience
Pseudoscientific theories are presented by proponents as science, but characteristically fail to adhere to scientific standards and methods. Conversely, by its very nature, scientific consensus is the majority viewpoint of scientists towards a topic. Thus, when talking about pseudoscientific topics, we should not describe these two opposing viewpoints as being equal to each other.
While pseudoscience may in some cases be significant to an article, it should not obfuscate the description of the mainstream views of the scientific community. Any inclusion of pseudoscientific views should not give them undue weight. The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such. An explanation of how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories should be prominently included.
Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion
While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.
Neutrality
Even when information is cited to reliable sources, you must present it with a neutral point of view (NPOV).
Tiny-minority views need not be included, except in articles devoted to them.
Exceptional claims require exceptional sources
Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. Red flags that should prompt extra caution include:
- surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources;
- challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest;
- reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, or against an interest they had previously defended;
- claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living people. This is especially true when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them.
Using sources
If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it. If you discover something new, Wikipedia is not the place to announce such a discovery.
Verifiability
Wikipedia's content is determined by previously published information rather than by the personal beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it.
Neutral point of view
The inclusion of a view that is held only by a tiny minority may constitute original research.
Wikipedia summarizes significant opinions, with representation in proportion to their prominence. A Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is.
If discussed in an article about a mainstream idea, a theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight, and reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner.
The index contained in the box below enumerates each of the highlighted points in the quotations listed in the sections above:
Index of passages of policy and guidance that refute relativism
|
|---|
|
The actual meaning of Wikipedia's NPOV policy is carefully described in Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and that is always the page you should refer to over your own conceptions of what you would like neutrality to mean. But, in short, the policy can be summarized as:
- Views must only be described to the extent, to the degree, and in the sense they are covered in reliable sources, and only in a neutral and impartial tone.
If an article only describes one or some of the pertinent views described in relevant reliable sources, consensus should be reached to include appropriate descriptions of the remaining views.