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 ...
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.
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 ...
For guidance on how to make an article conform to the neutral point of view (NPOV), see the NPOV tutorial. NPOV (Neutral Point Of View) is a fundamental Wikipedia principle which states that all articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly and without bias. This includes reader-facing templates, categories ...
Less is, because more content on a contentious point simply invites bickering over personal attitudes, not well-founded fact. So if in real doubt, remove the stuff that is causing waves until the the rational discussion over the contribution's worth is resolved, preferably by references being added and NPOV being applied more thoroughly.
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 ...