Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Opposing Viewpoints is a series of books on current issues which seeks to explore the varying opinions in a balanced pros/cons debate. The series attempts to encourage critical thinking and issue awareness by providing opposing views on contentious issues.
This is best established by attributing each statement in Wikipedia to a reliable, published source (but see Rules 7 and 8 on excessive self-citing). Most scientists are in the fortunate position of having access to a wide body of literature, and experience in using inline citations to support their writing.
In Wikipedia, one of the most common forms of violating the NPOV policy is to selectively cite some information that supports one view whilst deleting or trivializing other information that opposes it. In this manner, one can completely misrepresent or conceal the full range of views on a subject whilst still complying with Wikipedia:Verifiability.
The core policy of Wikipedia, NPOV, is meant to provide a framework whereby editors with diverse, often conflicting, even opposing points of view can collaborate on the creation of an encyclopedia. It does so through the principle that while it is often hard for people to agree as to what is the truth, it is much easier for people to agree as ...
This page details arguments that are commonly seen in deletion discussions that have been identified as generally unsound and unconvincing. These are arguments that should generally be avoided – or at the least supplemented with a better-grounded rationale for the position taken, whether that be "keep", "delete" or some other objective.
Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views and that it does not give a false impression of parity , or give undue weight to a particular view.
Without neglecting opposing points of view in our attempts to present a neutral point of view article in keeping with fundamental Wikipedia principles. In cases when there is one paramount reliable source (for example, an uncontroversial census as a source for demographic information), then there is no need to establish consensus by citing ...
The Death Penalty: Opposing Viewpoints is a book in the Opposing Viewpoints series. It presents selections of contrasting viewpoints on the death penalty: first surveying centuries of debate on it; then questioning whether it is just; whether it is an effective deterrent; and whether it is applied fairly. It was edited by Mary E. Williams.