Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
This is a stab at creating an example section to help distinguish neutral vs non-neutral writing. I created it because the actual "Neutral Point of View" page now has an awful lot of commentary on it and it is getting difficult to get much guidance. I have tried to glean my examples on the basis of the majority opinion on that page.
All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects.
NPOV is an acronym for neutral point of view, which is an official policy of Wikipedia. Everybody has a point of view. Though 99% of the world may see something exactly the way you do, your view is still just one of many possible views that might be reasonably held. For example, what does it mean to be liberal? Some have said that this ...
Some articles by definition, express a point of view, in which case I propose that a neutral point of view (NPOV), has a slightly different meaning as follows: . For a general article: (existing policy) Neutral Point of View means as described in policy, and loosely means to (a) provide a balanced article in (b) a neutral manner.
At Wikipedia, points of view (POVs) – cognitive perspectives – are often essential to articles which treat controversial subjects. Wikipedia's official "Neutral Point of View" (NPOV) policy does not mean that all the POVs of all the Wikipedia editors have to be represented. Rather, the article should represent the POVs of the main scholars ...
Neutral point of view – All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing significant views fairly, proportionately and without bias. Verifiability ( WP:V ) – Material challenged or likely to be challenged , and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source.
The concept that there is a "right" answer to most issues under debate presupposes (a) the existence of a Perfectly Objective Truth in the first place, and (b) that someone knows that Perfectly Objective Truth well enough to provide the "right" answer. Those assumptions are in flagrant violation of anything like a neutral point of view.
Because the neutral point of view policy is often unfamiliar to newcomers yet central to Wikipedia's approach, many issues surrounding the neutrality policy have been covered extensively before. If you have some new contribution(s) to make to the debate, you could try Talk:Neutral point of view, or bring it up on the Wikipedia mailing list ...