From DIYinfo.org
|
Contents |
All Diyinfo articles must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected on all articles, and of all article editors.
Neutral point of view is one of Diyinfo's core content policies. This policy determines the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Diyinfo articles. The principle upon which the policy is based is non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus. Their policy pages may be edited only to improve the application and explanation of the principle.
[edit] Reasoning behind NPOV
Diyinfo is a general information based website, 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 is disagreement about what constitutes knowledge. Diyinfo works because it is a collaborative effort; but, while collaborating, how can we solve the problem of endless "edit wars" in which one person asserts that x, whereupon the next person changes the text so that it asserts not-x?
A solution is that we accept, for the purposes of working on Diyinfo, that "human knowledge" includes all different significant theories on all different topics. We are committed to the goal of representing human knowledge in that sense, surely a well-established meaning of the word "knowledge". What is "known" changes constantly with the passage of time, and so when we use the word "know," we often enclose it in so-called scare quotes. Example; That asbestos products are safe to use; we now "know" otherwise.
We could sum up human knowledge (in this sense) in a biased way: we could state a series of theories about topic X and then claim that the truth about X is such-and-such. But then again, consider that Diyinfo is an international collaborative project, and that 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 presented here.
To sum up the primary reason for this policy: Diyinfo is a general information based website, a compilation of human knowledge. But because Diyinfo 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, that 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 oppose Diyinfo, 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 editors of Diyinfo) trust readers to form their own opinions. Texts that present multiple viewpoints fairly, without demanding that the reader accept any particular one of them, are liberating. Neutrality subverts dogmatism. Nearly everyone working on Diyinfo can agree this is a good thing.
[edit] Explanation of the neutral point of view
[edit] The neutral point of view
The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting perspectives on a topic. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions.
As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. The neutral point of view policy is often misunderstood. The acronym NPOV does not mean "no points of view". The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV". The neutral point of view is a point of view that is neutral, that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject: it neither endorses nor discourages viewpoints. Debates within topics are described, represented and characterized, writing clearly about each side; but they are not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but studiously refrain from asserting which is better. One can think of unbiased writing as the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate, including the mutual perspectives and the published evidence. When editorial bias toward one particular point of view can be detected, the article needs to be fixed.
[edit] Bias
NPOV requires views to be represented without bias. All editors and all sources have biases - what matters is how we combine them to create a neutral article.
[edit] A simple formulation
Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." For example, that a survey produced a certain published result would be a fact. That there is a tool called a hammer is a fact. That saws cut is a fact. No one seriously disputes any of these things. So we can feel free to assert as many of them as we can.
By value or opinion, on the other hand, we mean "a matter which is subject to dispute." There are bound to be borderline cases where it is not clear if a particular dispute should be taken seriously and included. However, there are many propositions that very clearly express values or opinions. That brand x glue is the best to use is a value or opinion. That doing a certain task in a certain order is an opinion. That washing walls and removing flaking paint before re-painting is a fact. That using brand x to do the job is a value or opinion. Diyinfo is devoted to stating facts in the sense described above.
[edit] Article structure
Sometimes the internal structure of an article may require additional attention to protect neutrality and avoid problems like POV forks and undue weight. Although specific article structures are not as a rule prohibited, in some cases the article structure itself may need attention. Care must be taken to ensure the overall presentation is broadly neutral.
Examples that may warrant attention include:
- "Segregation" of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself; Article sections devoted solely to criticism, or "pro and con" sections within articles are two commonly cited examples. There are varying views on whether and to what extent such kinds of article structure are appropriate.
- Arrangements of formatting, headers, footnotes or other elements that appear to unduly favor a particular "side" of an issue; For example, some contributors advise against article sections devoted entirely to "criticism," although some assert that such sections are not always inappropriate. or
- Other structural or stylistic aspects that make it difficult for a neutral reader to fairly and equally assess the credibility of all relevant and related viewpoints.(Commonly cited examples include articles that read too much like "self promotion", or content structured like a "PR advert".
