User:Thebiguglyalien/When interest compromises neutrality

This is an essay on the neutral point of view policy.

It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.

Editors are typically active in a given topic area because they are interested in it. This interest might be academic or emotional. When editors have an emotional investment in presenting information in a certain way, it compromises their ability to edit neutrally.

Types of interest

Academic interest

Editors with an academic or casual interest in a subject enjoy reading and learning about it. They are external observers with no personal connection or strong emotional investment in the subject. Academic interest encourages an editor to improve articles in a topic where they have fun editing, which is beneficial to both the editor and the encyclopedia.

Examples of academic interest include:

Topics related to an editor's real life area of study or where an editor is an expert
Subjects where an editor has a base level of knowledge but is interested in learning more
Social or political causes that an editor is not closely connected and does not have have strong feelings about but finds the dynamics interesting

Emotional interest

Editors with an emotional or personal interest in a subject feel strongly about it and believe it needs to be seen or represented differently in society. They might feel it's honorable, persecuted, and underappreciated, or they might feel it's frightening, unjust, or overrated. This inevitably leads to problems with neutral point of view when editing. If an editor feels strong emotions when discussing or debating a topic in casual conversation, they should almost certainly avoid editing about the topic on Wikipedia.

Examples of emotional interest include:

A political ideology, position, or figure that fills an editor with hope or rage, whether rationally or irrationally
Any topic an editor sees as really urgent, which needs to be advocated, denounced, defended, or exposed
A film, television show, band, video game, sports team, media franchise, etc where an editor is a "loyal diehard fan" or believes that gets unfair hate

Disinterest

Sometimes an editor will make changes to an article that they have no interest in. This typically occurs when clearing out a backlog or some other form of gnoming. It's very rare for this sort of editing to introduce significant neutrality issues, though care must be taken when answering edit requests, because these are often edits of interest going through a disinterested editor.

Determining interest

It's not always clear whether an editor's interest in a subject is academic or emotional—or both—but the content of their tone and contributions can often demonstrate which it is. If they write in a way that benefits the "opponent" and are willing to change their mind on content disputes after reading new sources, it's likely to be academic interest. If they consistently favor one point of view or engage with hostility, it's likely to be emotional interest.

Good editing is impartial, dispassionate, and (with the exception of living persons concerns) amoral. Editors should cover both positive and negative information about a topic proportionally to how it is covered in high quality reliable sources. Academically interested and disinterested editors are typically capable of editing in this manner. Emotionally interested editors are not. If someone is editing in the name of justice or public awareness for a cause, then the integrity of their editing is compromised by emotional interest.

Emotional interest is most commonly seen in contentious topics, especially when related to politics, but any topic area can be affected by inappropriate emotionally-invested editing. Oftentimes, emotionally interested editors participate exclusively or almost exclusively in their favored topic. In discussions, they will typically shrug off policy and guideline arguments because they think that their topic deserves an exception. You can often find people with emotional interest engaging at articles for deletion where they insist on keeping articles because they're "important in the history" or "important to fans" of whatever subject they're passionate about, even if sources don't indicate general notability. When fans of a media subject have emotional interest, it often leads to fancruft.

Editors with an emotional interest may try to defend their editing by arguing that "everyone is biased". While everyone does bring their own perspectives, the bias channeled through academic interest is not the same as emotional bias. Academic bias and bias toward mainstream sources are not bad things, but the personal and emotional biases of editors can be harmful to Wikipedia. This is why good faith editors defer to sources over their own biases. The "everyone is biased" line is one of the most immediate indicators that an editor either does not understand their emotionally-driven editing or is trying to obscure it.

Types of interest

Academic interest

Emotional interest

Disinterest

Determining interest

See also