 | 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. |
WP:NPOV is a non-negotiable principle of Wikipedia.
In many articles, the question of "source neutrality" has been raised, and this essay seeks to use a chemistry analogy to pH, the measurement of neutrality.
In chemistry, the pH of a neutral solution is 7, with acids having values under 7 and alkalis over 7.
If we look at sources which are unbalanced, the nature of the imbalance or bias of a source should be taken into account when determining whether "neutral point of view" is being attained. If a source which is virulently antithetical to the topic is used, its pH is going to be further from 7 than would a source which tries to present a topic in a neutral manner.
It is not practical to insist that all sources used on controversial topics be exactly evenly weighted 7s, but the use of sources which are figuratively strongly acidic or strongly basic makes achievement of a neutral result exceedingly difficult.
Many editors enjoy using sources with strong viewpoints, invariably mirroring their own Weltanschauung, but this essay proposes that this has a deleterious effect on article quality as well as on article neutrality. Sources which are too far from a neutral basis in themselves therefore, according to this essay, be avoided whether on a favourable or unfavourable bias to a topic. Where a strongly biased source is use, it is practically impossible to undo the damage done to the subject of the article, as readers tend to assign "equal weight" to each claim presented in a Wikipedia article.
The problem is frequently seen in biographical articles - where a source may seek to demonise or to laud a person excessively - each must be avoided, but the demonization is the worse of the two. WP:BLP is a strong policy, and clearly the sources which are highly acidic can easily do harm to the subject of such a biography.
This conflicts a bit with WP:RS which does not deal with clear biases in sources. It was intended to deal more with clear factual claims than with opinions, or with facts wrenched from the full context of a person's life.
The result is that this essay proposes that sources with especially strong points of view on a topic should be used very sparingly, especially when dealing with living persons. Just as adding concentrated sulfuric acid to a neutral solution tends to make that solution quite acidic quite rapidly, and usually generating a great deal of heat in the process.
| 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. |
WP:NPOV is a non-negotiable principle of Wikipedia.
In many articles, the question of "source neutrality" has been raised, and this essay seeks to use a chemistry analogy to pH, the measurement of neutrality.
In chemistry, the pH of a neutral solution is 7, with acids having values under 7 and alkalis over 7.
If we look at sources which are unbalanced, the nature of the imbalance or bias of a source should be taken into account when determining whether "neutral point of view" is being attained. If a source which is virulently antithetical to the topic is used, its pH is going to be further from 7 than would a source which tries to present a topic in a neutral manner.
It is not practical to insist that all sources used on controversial topics be exactly evenly weighted 7s, but the use of sources which are figuratively strongly acidic or strongly basic makes achievement of a neutral result exceedingly difficult.
Many editors enjoy using sources with strong viewpoints, invariably mirroring their own Weltanschauung, but this essay proposes that this has a deleterious effect on article quality as well as on article neutrality. Sources which are too far from a neutral basis in themselves therefore, according to this essay, be avoided whether on a favourable or unfavourable bias to a topic. Where a strongly biased source is use, it is practically impossible to undo the damage done to the subject of the article, as readers tend to assign "equal weight" to each claim presented in a Wikipedia article.
The problem is frequently seen in biographical articles - where a source may seek to demonise or to laud a person excessively - each must be avoided, but the demonization is the worse of the two. WP:BLP is a strong policy, and clearly the sources which are highly acidic can easily do harm to the subject of such a biography.
This conflicts a bit with WP:RS which does not deal with clear biases in sources. It was intended to deal more with clear factual claims than with opinions, or with facts wrenched from the full context of a person's life.
The result is that this essay proposes that sources with especially strong points of view on a topic should be used very sparingly, especially when dealing with living persons. Just as adding concentrated sulfuric acid to a neutral solution tends to make that solution quite acidic quite rapidly, and usually generating a great deal of heat in the process.