This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Don't repress minority viewpoints!

NPOV has an (extremely bizarre!) pseudo-democratic conception of fairness ("undue weight") which can easily be shown by the court analogy to be extremely (!!!!) unfair and biased. If we are to be genuinely fair, Each point of view should be given the same, exact, space for arguing its reasons, regardless of how popular it is. (Another approach is to give each viewpoint the same space on the main article, but allow it as much space as it needs on a different article, for example by using a Viewpoint: namespace)

Often we hear the opposite claim: some people want to enforce what they claim to be the "scientific viewpoint", but which in practice is a minority suppression tool of groups who pull the strings. They think that Wikipedia should give no or almost no space to minority point of views. In practice, the current NPOV policy is a workable compromise by avoiding complete indoctrination without allowing Wikipedia's articles being overwhelmed by cranky views. Harald88 18:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

See formulation below -- 80.230.233.101 09:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

This section is entirely wrong. Viewpoints *must* be weighted by popularity and acceptance. We don't give flat-earthers space on shape-of-the-earth articles; we don't give creationists space on the scientific discussion of evolution (in which context the appropriate test is scientific acceptance, not popularity in the general population of any one country...); we don't give global warming skeptics equal weight on global warming. William M. Connolley 12:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC).

And for a more pointed example, we don't give race supremecists equal weight on the American Civil Rights Movement article. KillerChihuahua ^?!? 12:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

But most unfairly, we don't give FSMers equal space anywhere! Seriously though, why don't we give global warming skeptics equal weight on global warming? This isn't holocaust revisionism, this a scientific matter with scientists on both sides. Stevage 18:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

See formulation and comments below -- 80.230.233.101 20:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

A viewpoint's quantification simply doesn't matter!

On many fields (e.g. science!), appropriately informed experts comprise a tiny minority of the population. Viewpoints should be primarily presented and judged by their arguments and logic, not their popularity!

ANd how should we organise the judging process, do you think?... Harald88 17:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

judged - means judged by the reader, sorry for not being clear -- 80.230.233.101 21:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstand: us editors need to be able to judge what should be included long before the readers can judge what to believe. How should we do this?  —  Saxifrage |  ☎ 23:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and that should be discussed separately. But remember that "fringe" views in very abstract fields (ie philosophy) or difficult (physics) are bound to stay "minority" within the general population. Using "minority view" as euphemism for "a view that doesn't sound reasonable to wikipedia's editors" is very misleading and dishonest on the policy level. (see also my response above) -- 84.228.107.148 17:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Expository writing, not persuasive writing

An important point brought up is that the current style policy deals mainly with factually presenting opinions. Thus mocks Wikipedia's claim for being primarily an educational "encyclopedia" rather than a populist "culture blog" which deals with popular opinions.

-- 80.230.233.101 12:35, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Like Taxman said, it seems as though you are trying to complain about as much as you can just for the sake of it. Try to precisely state your single biggest concern and maybe we can find a solution. Bensaccount 15:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Please look at the example formulation below -- 80.230.233.101 09:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia's editorial policy

(Note: this is only a short example!)

A general principle: As an encyclopedia, wikipedia's purpose is to educate and convey knowledge. Articles should be written in an expository manner and present verifiable and referenced facts.

An article in wikipedia is comprised of two distinct conceptual parts:

1. Illustration: In this part, the subject should be defined, presented, and elaborated, with an informative and uncritical language. Concepts and assumptions that are native and essential for its exposition are presented from the subject's perspective.

For example: An article about "quark" should adopt a scientific perspective which is useful for the understanding of quarks. "Reincarnation" should be written from a religious or spiritual perspective that allows understanding the subject and its concepts within its proper context.

2. Interpretation: An important part of human knowledge is the interpretation and evaluation of ideas. Wikipedia aims for fairness in its presentation of viewpoints, allowing competing viewpoints an equal space; An article may also contain relevant viewpoints, with accordance to the following requirements:

Relevant: viewpoints should be specifically relevant to the subject and provide an additional outlook on it.

Informed, rather than stated: viewpoints should be informed about, rather than stated, with an appropriate reference to a more comprehensive treatment.

[community decided filter here]

[An article which is already written in this manner (which is IMO excellent) is Myers-Briggs Type Indicator: note the useful, uncritical, perspective, and the informative "Skeptical view" section in its bottom.] -- 80.230.233.101 09:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Some clarifications: by "specificaly relevant" it is meant that the viewpoint does not actually refer to a larger issue. For example: a viewpoint about "Global warming" that is based on nonscientific reasoning, actually refers to the scientific method, this is not made clear in the example, I know. -- 80.230.233.101 20:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Articles are composed of two parts, but those aren't them. They are Wikipedia:define and describe. And after that, dichotomize. Try making some edits to other articles and you will get the hang of it. Bensaccount 17:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

This is wikinfos article policy. Please edit there. Kim Bruning 19:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with wikinfo's policy. This is not about "sympathetic viewpoint", it's about being informative and noncritical - both positively and negatively, in the illustration part, and being critical at the interpretation part. It's not that simplistic. -- 80.230.233.101 21:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Consider the following section [1]. As far as I can see, in this section people keep indenting until it makes no sense to continue. As a consequence, the decision to go back to the margin seems unrelated to the logical content. This section would not require so many indents, if indents were only used for comments that break the normal flow. Moreover, in this example, the readers cannot easily distinguish the comments that have been indented because they break the normal flow from other comments. I would like to know where in WP this kind of issues should be pointed out. I put it here because it does apply to this talk page, but would like to mention this small technical point in a more appropriate location, and only keep a wikilink here. -- Lumiere 16:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I have an example of suppression of information and I am not sure how the NPOV policy applies to this example. It is a genuine question about the NPOV policy, not a way to replace a Rfc. However, I think one must look at the case Talk:Natasha Demkina before one can answer the question. It is about an experiment/TV show to evaluate whether or not a young girl, Demkina, has an X-ray vision to see inside human bodies. She had a score in the test that could only be obtained with probability 1/50, but this was not enough to "pass the test". There is one side that says that the experiment was not well designed and the arguments, I believe, were originally presented by a Cambridge physicist Brian Josephson in his web site. There is the other side which is represented by two skeptic organizations that regroup respected scientists. The current article suppresses the original article by Brian Josephson and replaces it by an article by a journalist in some independent magazine. This article presents some of the points of Brian Josephson, but it first discredits him as being "scorned by his colleague for his enthousiasm for the paranormal" and only have nice words for the other side such as "key member", "respected", etc.

Is this a valid suppression of information? This is a genuine question about the NPOV policy because there is the fact that Brian Josephson has only posted his article in some Cambridge his personal website without any refeering process. Note that there was no refeering process at all for the whole thing. The experiment itself was published in a non peer-reviewed magazine that belongs to one of the skeptic organizations. So none of the sides has sent anything to an independent peer-review process. -- Lumiere 01:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I now have no time to look into this, but it may be useful to compare it with the proposed examples of POV Wikipedia:information_suppression. -- Harald88 10:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I already read the main page, this entire talk page (not the archives) and followed most links, including the one you just suggested, but did not find the answer to my question. The problem is that NPOV does not discuss much its connection with WP:verifiability, which states that personal web page are not acceptable. -- Lumiere 20:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I think something which needs to be emphasised somewhere here is that NPOV should *not* (IMHO anyway) translate into "exclusively positive," as that itself is POV. There are some topics where the inclusion of critical information is not only appropriate, but intrinsic to any factual discussion of the topic. (The Church of Scientology is probably the single best example I can think of here) Too often though the rule here seems to be that "if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all." I can agree that in some situations that is appropriate...but in order to maintain genuine NPOV, there are occasionally topics where as I said, critical information is highly relevant.

Did you perhaps miss reading the paragraph that explains that NPOV is not "sympathetic point of view"? Harald88 15:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Harald88, I would like to advocate for the importance of WP:NOR#What_counts_as_a_reputable_publication? in this case. My understanding is that you refer to the section WP:NPOV#The neutral point of view that says that we should attempt to present all viewpoints that are held by a significant minority of people, including the viewpoints that are not sympathetical. We can add that, in accordance with the section WP:NPOV#Fairness and sympathetic tone, when we describe the Scientology viewpoint, we should have a sympathetic tone. The idea is this should create no problem as long as it is clear from the context that it is the Scientology viewpoint.

One key ingredient here is that, in accordance with WP:NOR#What_counts_as_a_reputable_publication?, the Scientology viewpoint should not be presented under the umbrella of science, except what is supported in some reputable scientific publication. IMO, this is more important than only allowing another viewpoint that is not sympathetical. This is because, once we let some wrong information pass, it can be almost impossible to correct it later. I am not just talking about the principle that a bell cannot be unrung. I am talking about the fact, as pointed out in WP:NPOV#Undue weight, one would have to find an appropriate source for this other viewpoint that is not sympathetical to Scientology. If it contains a scientific statement, in accordance with WP:NOR#What_counts_as_a_reputable_publication?, it would have to be sourced in a reputable scientific publication. The problem is who is going to write a scientific article about claims that were not even published in a reputable scientific journal to begin with? So, it is very important that we prevent the problem at its source with the help of WP:NOR#What_counts_as_a_reputable_publication?, and avoid a useless debate in WP that will not be well sourced and thus entirely indequate in WP.

I know that it's two paragraphs already, but my point is that it is not sufficient to allow a non sympathetical viewpoint. It is even more important to be very careful that right from the start the Scientology viewpoint is carefully filtered so that it does not contain non scientific information that are somehow presented under the umbrella of science. This is very delicate because the very name "Scientology" suggests that it is entirely based on science!!! How do we manage that and yet respect WP:NPOV#Fairness and sympathetic tone, when we present the Scientology view point?

We could present Scientology in the totally quotable words of its' founder, who is recorded as saying openly on numerous occasions that his intent for the organisation was expressly to make money. Scientology is in no way a legitimate religion, was verifiably not meant to be one, (although it was meant to be *seen* as one, for the purposes of extracting money from people) and thus, should in no way be presented by Wikipedia as one. To do so would mean that this site would be becoming an accomplice to a massive conspiracy to defraud.

Petrus4 03:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I am aware of the recent modifications to the NPOV article. However, the most important problems are still not treated (treating the most severe problem consist of changing the name of the policy). Here they are, including some treated criticisms that still prevail the thousands of articles in wikipedia. If you think these criticisms are too harsh and unjustified, then ask me about it, because I think that you are just mistaken.

Examples of criticisms:

Misleading redefinition of known concepts:

• 1. NPOV claims to have nothing to do with objectivity. However, a closer look reveals it to suggest that an "objective" presentation of viewpoints is a possible and attainable goal.
• 2. NPOV has been accused of consistently using doublespeak and euphemisms, for example: by "neutral point of view", it is actually meant "communally accepted perspective" or more severely, simply "common bias". By "minority viewpoint" it is actually meant "subjectively unjustified viewpoint importance" rather than actual quantitative inferiority within the general population.

Pretension of fairness:

• 3. NPOV shows a pseudo-democratic conception of fairness towards viewpoints ( undue weight), which is considered misleading and insulting for the known concept of "fairness" by some critics.
• 4. NPOV professes to fairness towards viewpoints, but does not take fairness towards the article's subject into account, thus allowing articles to become strongly critical of the subject, if there are no prominent defenders of it. (however, this may be considered unethical in practice)

Overuse of vague viewpoint quantification:

• 5. NPOV actively exemplifies using vague and unscientific expressions like "some people", "most people", "many people" for the quantification of viewpoints. Critics see this as being generally unhealthy towards creating a supposedly accurate encyclopedia. (This actually conflicts with wikipedia's policy of verifiability). Another criticism is that these expressions consist of an appeal to popularity, thus are a form of rhetorical bias toward popular viewpoints.

Unsuitability:

• 6 Another criticism is that NPOV naively presumes all participants to be equal in power and persistence over the expression of their supported viewpoints, in order to attain its goal. Therefore it is inappropriate for an encyclopedia that features credited seniority of editorship and hierarchical administrative structure.

-- 84.228.107.148 14:01, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is going to stay, and the NPOV policy might change name and progress, but it will not disapear. So, the question is how to improve it. I am not against the above critic. I am just asking myself how we can make good use of it? -- Lumiere 18:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the critic "Overuse of vague viewpoint quantification:", but it can be taken care of. In general, I think that the NPOV policy should be carefully revised so that it is not only consistent with the remainder of the policies, but in fact reinforce them (in the examples used, etc.). -- Lumiere 19:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Most of the critics are not directly about NPOV, but about what it is claims to be. It could be that NPOV is perfectlty reasonable. The critics are only that there is a pretention that it does more than what it actually does. IMO, the priority should be on what it actually does and how to improve it. As long as we do not lie to ourselve about what it actually does, the issue of what it appears to be is secondary. -- Lumiere 19:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Here's a constructive suggestion: Begin with the simple assertion that a wikipedia article reflects a compromise between various self chosen authors, but does not necessarily reflect ideals like truth, neutrality, fairness or objectivity. That would be a way to start. -- 84.228.107.148 19:27, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the above comment of -- 84.228.107.148. -- Lumiere 19:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Critic 4 contains a part that is directly about the NPOV policy. The critic is that there is no fairness toward the subject itself. The idea is perhaps that allowing viewpoints that are not sympathetical to a basic viewpoint V, which is called the "subject", could be unfair to the viewpoint V, this so called subject. This is true if we adhere to the viewpoint V, even if the other viewpoints are presented as viewpoints, not as the absolute truth. For example, if one is accused to be a thief, it looks bad even if it is just presented as the opinion of someone. If it turns out that V is correct (e.g. the guy is actually not a thief), then there is a valid point here. The best we can do is to filter the best we can the content of all viewpoints with the help of other policies such as WP:NOR and WP:V. Again, we see that NPOV can be improved by taking more into account the other policies. -- Lumiere 19:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Step by step

1. NPOV claims to have nothing to do with objectivity. However, a closer look reveals it to suggest that an "objective" presentation of viewpoints is a possible and attainable goal.

Where does it do this? NPOV is not about objectivity, but agreement; and with god reason. Objectivity is far too difficult a notion to pin down; but it is a simple task to see whether we are in agreement or not. Banno

2. NPOV has been accused of consistently using doublespeak and euphemisms, "neutral point of view", means "communally accepted perspective" or "common bias".

A statement is neutral when there is no significant disagreement. But this is not the same as presenting only one perspective. A well-worded article can present minority opinions well, simply by making proper use of citations. So the problem here is not with the policy, but what the wording of particular articles. Banno 20:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

3. NPOV shows a pseudo-democratic conception of fairness towards viewpoints ( undue weight), which is considered misleading and insulting for the known concept of "fairness" by some critics.

What does this criticism mean? My guess is that it is no different from the following point. Banno 20:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

4. NPOV professes to fairness towards viewpoints, but does not take fairness towards the article's subject into account, thus allowing articles to become strongly critical of the subject, if there are no prominent defenders of it. (however, this may be considered unethical in practice)

Do these critics think that the Wiki should present accounts that have no support? Why? Banno

Because the NPOV policy article is not so well connected with the other policies on this subject. Some section such as WP:NPOV#A simple formulation, which is presented as an alternative formulation of NPOV, opens the door to include any opinion whatsoever just because it is a fact that someone has this opinion. This is against common sense. You cannot include the opinion of Joe KnowNothing in an article on the theory of relativity just on the basis that it is a fact that Joe has this opinion. The remainder of the NPOV policy (and other policies) prevent this to happen, but it remains confusing that the so called simple [alternative] formulation of NPOV suggests that it is actually fine to do it. It can be used sometimes to bypass the rest of the policies. So, there is room for improvement. -- Lumiere 21:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

5. NPOV actively exemplifies using vague and unscientific expressions like "some people", "most people", "many people" for the quantification of viewpoints. Critics see this as being generally unhealthy towards creating a supposedly accurate encyclopedia.

Again, this is a problem of style, not of policy. These phrases should be replaced in a good article with citations or statistics. Banno

You should grant him/her that it is funny that the WP:NPOV policy article presents examples that should also be corrected. -- Lumiere 21:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

6 Another criticism is that NPOV naively presumes all participants to be equal in power and persistence over the expression of their supported viewpoints, in order to attain its goal. Therefore it is inappropriate for an encyclopedia that features credited seniority of editorship and hierarchical administrative structure.

The abuse of administrative power certainly is one aspect of the Wiki that should be addressed in detail. Banno 20:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

It is not clear to me that the critic is about abuse of power. I think that he/she should clarify his/her point. -- Lumiere 21:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

There exists an interpretation of the NPOV policy, especially of the section WP:NPOV#A simple formulation, that suggests that a magical way to include an allegation Y into an article is simply to write "Joe said Y" where it is a verifiable fact that Joe said Y. I would suggest that we clarify this issue. Especially in the context of scientific content, it should be recognized that there is not such a big difference between the statement "Joe said <some statment> [ref]" and "<some statement> [ref]" when [ref] is a reference to the article written by Joe. The same info is conveyed in both cases; it is only easier to see that Joe is the author in the former case -- we use this former approach when Joe is very well known in the subject area as a way to acknowledge the importance of the author. In the case of scientific content, the main criteria should remain that the statement Y is published in a reputable source. -- Lumiere 21:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

As summary of what I think you are saying: "" we use this former approach [..] to acknowledge the importance of the author." That sõunds like a biased POV in itself, except of course if the statement corresponds to what everyone thinks in which case the importance of the author doesn't really matter. In case of a debate, the "importance" of the author, in sofar as it plays a role, needs to be sourced as well. I tend to think that all serious journalists know this, and we editors play the role of journalists -- this last remark of mine may be worth a place somewhere in the explanation, if it's not already in there. Harald88 16:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe that you are arguing that if we explicitly mention the originator(s) or author(s) of a statement because of their importance, then this importance should be sourced as well. This is beside the point of my paragraph, but also it is not clear that it is supported by the WP policies because no explicit statement about the importance of the originator(s) exists in the situation that I describe. There is nothing explicit to provide a source for! Moreover, again, it is beside the point.

The point is that the section WP:NPOV#A simple formulation is misleading if we interpret it too strictly, especially in the context of scientific content. This section suggests that we explicitly mention the author(s) to transform their opinion into a fact about their opinion. For example, "<some statment>" is their opinion whereas "They say <some statement>" is a fact. It suggests that "They say <some statement>" is acceptable in WP, irrespectively of the opinion "<some statment>" and irrespectively of the article where it is included. This is simply non sense and it contradicts what the remainder of the policies say. For example, it makes no sense to accept a statement "Joe KnowNothing says ..." in an article on the theory of relativity simply on the basis that this statement is a fact that is sourced somewhere.

The sentence "we use this former approach [..] to acknowledge the importance of the author." refers to the common practice in scientific publications. The point is that, in this context, explicitly mentioning or not the originator(s) or author(s) of a given statement is a matter of personal opinion (about the importance of the originator(s)), which has not much impact on the actual content that is conveyed. I added this sentence just as a way to further support that it makes no sense to accept any fact of the form "Joe says <some statement> [ref]" in any article when "<some statement> [ref]" is not acceptable. -- Lumiere 19:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

One idea I came up with for possibly improving or at least bolstering the existing NPOV policy would be to place a disclaimer either on the front of the site, or automatically via template on each entry stating that, although policy is used to keep the quality of articles as high as possible, because of the dynamic nature of the site, it is unrealistic to expect that it will at all times have the same degree of editorial quality and objectivity as a conventional encyclopedia.

I personally believe that the ambition for this site to have the same degree of quality and factual accuracy as a print encyclopedia is entirely unrealistic anyway, if for no other reason than the nature of the technology itself. That however is not to say that this site cannot still be immensely useful and valuable...it already is, and will doubtless continue to be. I am also not necessarily suggesting that the maintainers adopt a lower standard, either; rather simply that readers be informed of the magnitude of the difficulty involved in attempting to maintain said standard on a constant basis.

Edit: I just noticed the disclaimer link at the bottom of the page; about no guarantee of validity etc. That's more or less exactly what I had in mind...but the disclaimer link a bit more prominently might be good.

Petrus4 04:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, which means it is a representation of human knowledge at some level of generality.

If you don't know what Wikipedia is see Wikipedia.

But human beings disagree about specific cases;

NPOV is a means of dealing with conflicting views.

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.

NPOV is a means of dealing with conflicting views.

Where there is disagreement about what is true, there's disagreement about what constitutes knowledge.

NPOV is a means of dealing with conflicting views.

Wikipedia works because it's a collaborative effort;

See Wikipedia.

but, while 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.

NPOV is a means of dealing with conflicting views.

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.

For definition of knowledge see knowledge -- Wikipedia does not redefine words.

We could sum up human knowledge (in this sense) in a biased way: we'd state a series of theories about topic T, and then claim that the truth about T is such-and-such. But again, consider that Wikipedia is an international, collaborative project. Nearly every view on every subject will be found among our authors and readers. To avoid endless edit wars, we can agree to present each of the significant views fairly, and not assert any one of them as correct.

NPOV is a means of dealing with conflicting views.

That is what makes an article "unbiased" or "neutral" in the sense we are presenting here.

Wikipedia does not redefine words.

To write from a neutral point of view, one presents controversial views without asserting them;

Already said this in "The neutral point of view" section.

to do that, it generally suffices to present competing views in a way that is more or less acceptable to their adherents, and also to attribute the views to their adherents. Disputes are characterized in Wikipedia. They are not re-enacted.

Already said this in "The neutral point of view" section.

To sum up the primary reason for this policy: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a compilation of human knowledge.

If you don't know what Wikipedia is see Wikipedia.

But because Wikipedia is a community-built, international resource, we cannot expect collaborators to agree in all cases, or even in many cases, on what constitutes knowledge in a strict sense.

NPOV is a means of dealing with conflicting views.

We can, therefore, adopt the looser sense of "human knowledge" according to which a wide variety of conflicting theories constitute what we call "knowledge."

Wikipedia does not redefine words.

We should, both individually and collectively, make an effort to present these conflicting views fairly, without advocating any one of them,

Already said this in "The neutral point of view" section.

with the qualification that views held only by a tiny minority of people should not be represented as though they are significant minority views, and perhaps should not be represented at all.

What constitutes a "significant minority"?

There is another reason to commit ourselves to this policy. Namely, 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.

Readers are left to form their own opinions.

Totalitarian governments and dogmatic institutions everywhere might find reason to be opposed to Wikipedia, if we succeed in adhering to our non-bias policy: 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.

Readers are left to form their own opinions.

Texts that present multiple viewpoints fairly, without demanding that the reader accept any one of them, are liberating.

Readers are left to form their own opinions.

Neutrality subverts dogmatism, and nearly everyone working on Wikipedia can agree this is a good thing. Neutrality has long been, and will always be, the only way Wikipedia can remain an unbiased source of information for the whole world.

I don't think NPOV is the only reason Wikipedia remains unbiased. Bensaccount 16:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

To comment on just one example: I believe that especially for newcomers, but also as reminder for us,

NPOV is a means of dealing with conflicting views

is far less informative than :

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.

And please stop vandalising the article. Harald88 17:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

No it is not. Saying views conflict is the exact same as saying "views represent different ideas of what truth is and their adherents believe that the other views are false and therefore not knowledge." And maybe you should assume some good faith yourself. Bensaccount 18:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

That's what I did three times; as you surely have read, there comes an end to such good faith assumptions... Harald88 19:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

In fact, Sanger's version says even less: All he says is "views conflict". My version says NPOV is a means of dealing with conflicting views. Bensaccount 18:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Who is/was Sanger? Harald88 19:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Read the history of NPOV. Bensaccount 20:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

"Nothing is more usual than for philosophers to encroach on the province of grammarians, and to engage in disputes of words, while they imagine they are handling controversies of the deepest importance and concern." — David Hume

Without stating it clearly here above Bensaccount argues to completely delete the following chapter:

4. Why should Wikipedia 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 about specific cases; 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. Wikipedia works because it's a collaborative effort; but, while 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.

We could sum up human knowledge (in this sense) in a biased way: we'd state a series of theories about topic T, and then claim that the truth about T is such-and-such. But again, consider that Wikipedia is an international, collaborative project. Nearly every view on every subject will be found among our authors and readers. To avoid endless edit wars, we can agree to present each of the significant views fairly, and not assert any one of them as correct. That is what makes an article "unbiased" or "neutral" in the sense we are presenting here. To write from a neutral point of view, one presents controversial views without asserting them; to do that, it generally suffices to present competing views in a way that is more or less acceptable to their adherents, and also to attribute the views to their adherents. Disputes are characterized in Wikipedia. They are not re-enacted.

To sum up the primary reason for this policy: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a compilation of human knowledge. But because Wikipedia is a community-built, international resource, we cannot expect collaborators to agree in all cases, or even in many cases, on what constitutes knowledge in a strict sense. We can, therefore, adopt the looser sense of "human knowledge" according to which a wide variety of conflicting theories constitute what we call "knowledge." 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 not be represented as though they are significant minority views, and perhaps should not be represented at all.

There is another reason to commit ourselves to this policy. Namely, 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 might find reason to be opposed to Wikipedia, if we succeed in adhering to our non-bias policy: 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. Neutrality has long been, and will always be, the only way Wikipedia can remain an unbiased source of information for the whole world.

Contrary to Bensaccount, when I first read this article I found that chapter very helpful as it motivates and summaries in a thoughtful way Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Thus, deleting it will IMO be detrimental for quick understanding of newcomers, even if "everything has already been said elsewhere".

What may IMO be worth consideration is to abbreviate it.

Note about his argument: As he did not refer on all points where "everything has already been said elsewhere", I'm also not convinced that everything has really been said elsewhere. Harald88 17:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

PS I notice that now Bensaccount has deleted most of that chapter without asking for consensus (which requirement I had cited to him/her), with the faulty remark "Abbreviated per Harold88s requests". I thus regard Bensaccount's last actions as a form of vandalism.

For emphasis: I did not request an abbreviation, and certainly not a non-consensual down trimming by one person. I hereby demand Bensaccount to demonstrate his/her WP:good faith by reverting him/herself. An alternative is to consider page protection. Harald88 18:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

You want me to assume that you are trying to help the project by keeping this section even when I give many reasons why it is redundant and not useful? How about an explanation? You say it motivates you and summarizes something. This is not enough. How does it motivate you? It obfuscates things far more than summarizes them. Bensaccount 18:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I notice that you now change from argument: instead of "already said elsewhere", you now find it "obfuscating". And note that you and I are not the Wikipedia community...

BTW, the motivation is from the clear explanations for the need of NPOV; it motivated me to help editing Wikipedia. Harald88 19:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I find it unfortunate that you need to have simple concepts written out over and over repeatedly with each form more vague than the last for you to be motivated. Have you tried repeatedly reading the same statement? It theoretically should have the same effect. Bensaccount 20:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Bensaccount, when people disagree with you, or have trouble understanding you, perhaps you are not automatically correct, or just not terribly clear. -- Ec5618 20:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I see that this section (or chapter) strongly advocates a no suppression policy, using the mechanism of attribution of viewpoint to whoever have this viewpoint. The problem is that this is not in accord with other policies such as WP:NOR which by definition must suppress information. If we interpret this section in a strict manner, we could have an entire article that provides some original research of Joe simply by explicitly stating that it is the opinion of Joe. Joe will be very happy because not only his original research is presented, but even better is name is explicitly mentioned several times! I think that it is time that we consider the spirit of each policy and make sure that there is a balance between WP:NPOV (which is primarily about non suppression) and WP:NOR and WP:V which are mainly about higher quality.

You are mistaken: "significant views" only, and what material may be used is described elsewhere. Harald88 01:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I know that only significant view should be presented. I see that there is a mention of "significant views" only in this section. However, this is not enough. Also, significant minority view should be presented as such and majority view should also presented as such. We cannot present a minority view as if it was the majority view. The verifiability policy is very useful here. Also, if a minority or even a majority view includes some original research, this part cannot be presented in WP. When we present the NPOV policy, we must present it in that context. -- Lumiere 02:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Note that I see no conflict between the basic idea of these policies. To the contrary, it is well argued in WP:NOR and WP:V that these policies support a high quality form of NPOV that is consistent with the basic formulation of NPOV of Jimbo Wales. The problem occurs only with specific sections (or chapters) of NPOV such as section 4 discussed here and even more with section WP:NPOV#A simple formulation previously discussed. -- Lumiere 20:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

My comment is perhaps different than the point of Bensaccount, but it is consistent with his point. By selectively taking some components of NPOV and putting the emphasis on them and ignoring others, one can provide a very biased angle on NPOV. For example, there is nothing mentioned about the fact that if a statement represent the viewpoint of a majority (e.g. of the scientific community), then we should be able to find appropriate references in text book, etc. Moreover, I think that such a fundamental section should also consider the other policies. The policies WP:V and WP:NOR regularly refer to the other policies including NPOV, but NPOV refers very little to the other policies. NPOV appears as if it was disconnected from the other policies. -- Lumiere 20:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

You comment is in disagreement with his claimed motivation that "everything has already been said elsewhere". Instead you don't like the text, but perhaps you are right that that was also his true motivation.

No I am not in disagreement, but I go further ahead. Bensaccount said that everything was said before. I just added that this can be used to present a biased view of the NPOV policy.

BTW, NPOV is not about all and every policy of Wikipedia and certainly doesn't intend to do so, now you strive for the opposite as Bensaccount. But some more links here and there won't harm.

A more balanced version will be an improvement. Links are not enough -- they would have to be explained. Somehow, I had the impression that the goal of the section was to present a biased view with an implicit "no suppression at all" rule. This is why I strongly criticized the section.

For all viewpoints we must have verifiable sources, and citing them indicates in how far they correspond to "majority"and/or claimed "authority".

I know. My point is that NPOV cannot be explained as being disconnected from this fact and other relevant facts from other policies. Every time that we formulate NPOV in a simple way, we must present it in the context a way that does not conflict with of other policies. This is what they do when they present WP:V and WP:NOR, and we must do the same for WP:NPOV.

I think that people who get into edit wars and find themselves on the loosing end next want to alter Wikipedia's policies in order to make Wikipedia something else than it is intended to be. See for example some negative comments on the project page on Selective fact suppression, which are actually directed against WP:NPOV itself. Harald88 01:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Your first sentence is somehow an attack on the persons that you have in mind. We should not attack these persons on the basis of their association with an article or whatever. You should focus on the logic of their arguments. See WP:NPA. In which sections are the negative comments?

Bensaccount, you're making massive changes to the article and upsetting people in the process. Please use standard Wikipedia process for a case such as this and make your edits to a copy in your userspace. When you are satisfied with the results, present it here for discussion and develop consensus for its adoption. The alternative is edit warring and strife, and to have that happen at the NPOV policy page reflects poorly on all of us.  —  Saxifrage |  ☎ 21:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, did I upset you? Bensaccount 21:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

No. However, that's irrelevant for whether you should be using best practices and making your edits to a copy.  —  Saxifrage |  ☎ 21:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:content forking. Bensaccount 00:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, the idea of Saxifrage was not to have a permanent fork, but only a temporary version that illustrates Bensaccount's proposal. On the other hand, I don't see the usefulness of creating a new version with a section removed to help us understand the point. I think that we should focus on Bensaccount's proposal instead of attacking his behavior. Most likely, he acted in good faith and expected a better response to his edit. -- Lumiere 01:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

The particular edit that is currently being considered isn't what prompted me to make that suggestion. (And, yes, I am not advocating a content fork.) What prompted me was the ongoing refactoring of the policy page during the last two weeks by Bensaccount. That kind of large-scale project is the sort of thing that, if done a small piece at a time, can be very disruptive to a page. Thus, best practices is to copy the page into (e.g.) User:Bensaccount/Neutral point of view and to edit it there until it is done to the user's satisfaction. Then present it to other editors here to see if there is consensus to change to that version.  —  Saxifrage |  ☎ 02:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I still maintain that we should not attack Bensaccount approach as long as it is done in respect of the policy. What is this "best practice"? If it is an informal rule that is adopted by many, Bensaccount has the right to consider that it is not useful in this case. These informal rules are not policy and we should not act as if they were policy. We can only make a polite suggestion to him, but we should not mention "vendalism", etc. -- Lumiere 02:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. If enough people feel as I do then they'll speak up. I'm not sure where you heard anyone use the word vandalism, though.  —  Saxifrage |  ☎ 12:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I personally support the proposal of Bensaccount to remove section 4. I can see that some people might like this section very much, but we must question why. What is so well explained in that section that was not explained before? I don't see anything. To the contrary, I only see vague abstract principles to support the idea of no suppression of information with no mention of other factors such as no original research which need to be considered to avoid conflict with other policies in practice. -- Lumiere 01:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Lumiere, you have a rather unique definition of "no original research" and have tried to claim that all sources must be peer reviewed scientifically or else they cannot be cited, and you have only tried to use this argument to remove sources you disagreed with on topics where POV fighting wsa going on. Removing this section doesn't do anything but get rid of text you find personally troubling because it gets in the way of you pushing your own POV onto articles in an underhanded fashion. These changes cannot be made without full discussion beforehand and clear consensus... the number of people reverting the changes alone shows you don't have it. DreamGuy 12:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you should start by understanding what I propose before rising the consensus issue. Also refering to my point of view on some other articles to discredit my logic in this discussion is against WP:NPA. Please, focus on the content of my argument and keep this kind of personal attack away. Now, back to the actual content of the discussion, the following requirement from WP:NOR is fine with me: "Reputable publications include peer-reviewed journals, books published by a known academic publishing house or university press, and divisions of a general publisher which have a good reputation for scholarly publications." What is certainly not acceptable is a source article that presents the viewpoint of an organization and is published in a journal that is owned by this organization or some closely related organization. The publisher should be a large independent organization, where independent means that it does not have the purpose of the article as its agenda. Where to draw the line to separate the non acceptable sources from the acceptable sources is not entirely clear, and the WP:NOR and the WP:V policies discuss that.

However, this is not even the issue that I am discussing here. My concern is only that the NPOV policy is described in some sections or paragraphs of the NPOV policy in a way that contradicts the basic idea and the spirit of WP:NOR and WP:V. There is little effort made to clarify what the NPOV policy means in the context of WP:NOR and WP:V to guarantee as much as possible that the common understanding of WP:NPOV does not conflict in practice with the other policies. -- Lumiere 14:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

In general, if we do not only consider scholarly contents, what is a reputable source should depend a lot on the viewpoint that is presented and how it is presented. For example, if a viewpoint is with no ambiguity clearly presented as the religious Catholic viewpoint, a publication from the Vatican would be perfectly fine. If the viewpoint is presented as a scientific viewpoint, for example if it is the viewpoint of an organization that presents itself as a scientific organization, then a reputable scientific publisher should be required. Even if the organization does not present itself as a scientific organization, if the viewpoint is presented as a scientific content, for example if the Vatican enters into a scientific debate, then a reputable scientific publisher should be required. This is implicit in the idea that the purpose of a reputable publisher is to clearly identify where the viewpoint belongs. There should be a good match between the nature of the publisher and the nature of the viewpoint. As another example, if some viewpoint is a critic of some scientific experiments (the method used etc.), this viewpoint should be published in a reputable scientific publisher. This is also the idea of finding a prominent adherant to a viewpoint. The idea is not that a prominent adherant give any validity to the viewpoint. It is only a way to uniquely identify the viewpoint and make sure that there is a good match between the actual viewpoint that is presented and what it claims to be. I am just saying that this principle should be more explained in the NPOV policy -- it is already the idea of NPOV, but it should be better explained. It will make a good link with WP:NOR and WP:V. -- Lumiere 15:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)