Wikipedia talk:NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content

History and attribution

For history and attribution: User:BullRangifer/NPOV means neutral editors, not neutral content

I hope editors enjoy my thoughts and that this essay will contribute to our understanding of NPOV. If you seriously think this essay is wrong, you are welcome to create your own. Other essays can be created to explore other POV. There is no requirement that an essay be NPOV or express all POV. If you agree with the general tone in this one, but wish to improve it, feel free. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:23, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

".....There is no requirement that an essay (and Article) be NPOV or express all POV...." Then maybe its time we change this to where ALL must be NPOV. Its no wonder that many major Universities and Colleges have not only failed students for using Wikipedia as a source, they are now expelling them. After reading this, "opinion" piece, all I can say, is I don't blame them (The Universities and Colleges) MagnummSerpentinee (talk) 02:00, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Signpost/2018-02-20. Politically diverse editors and article quality

Politically diverse editors and article quality. "The Wisdom of Polarized Crowds"

BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:30, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Last paragraph of the lead

Quoting:

The due weight distribution in an article should always mirror the unequal balance usually found between reliable sources. Editors must avoid a false balance because not all points of view are equal. There is no policy which dictates that we cannot document, use, and include "non-neutral" sources, opinions, or facts in an article body or its lead. In fact, we must do this. A lack of such content may be an indication that editors have exercised whitewashing and censorship. It is a serious violation of NPOV to use censorship and whitewashing to remove any non-neutral opinions, facts, biases, or sources. Our job is to document "the sum total of human knowledge,"[2][3] and editors must not leave or create holes in our coverage.

This paragraph appears somewhat contradictory. My impression is that the inclusion of "opinions" and "Our job is to document 'the sum total of human knowledge,'[2][3] and editors must not leave or create holes in our coverage" is where it detracts, or maybe overgeneralizes. The rest of the lead seems to correspond to what I understand from WP:NPOV and related policies. Per WP:MNA, for instance, it would be inappropriate to include personal religious opinions in a scientific article like evolution (I guess that one could rationalize that it's not part of the related "knowledge", but that's not really the point and unnecessary). Such material would belong under creationism or articles about groups, and even then, random opinions are generally discouraged, unless they're reviews or from relevant notable people; someone's opinion may be mentioned in their BLP too of course, with restrictions of WP:ABOUTSELF. The rest of the essay's lead emphasizes that false balance should be avoided which is in accord with WP:GEVAL, but the parts I mention seem to contradict this. As for censorship, I'm also unsure that it's the right term to use here, but I understand that some consider it as such to not include undue material (or to not include notable criticism). Editorial reasons to include or not include material in a particular encyclopedia article cannot really be compared to government censorship, book burning, etc. The optic of WP:NOTCENSORED is also more about offensive language and images... Where opinions are mentioned, there's the omission that these should be those of reliable sources, or relevant ones. Finally, the "sum of all knowledge", while a nice slogan, contradicts WP:NOT. —PaleoNeonate – 20:53, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Balancing commercial and non-commercial sources

I frequently write/edit about technical topics, often involving high-dollar technical products. The most knowledgeable sources about these products, and often the only detailed source, is the manufacturer or vendor. Presenting only their self-adulating version of the facts, however, is too often destructive of the truth -- or simply provides a mere half-truth that obscures truly important facts (poor quality, low reliability, health and safety hazards, high acquisition/support/operating costs, tough operator requirements, interoperability/compatibility issues, legal issues, major scandals, and so on.).

Consequently, to fairly represent the item, in its most significant aspects, in an encyclopedic form, requires finding sources less biased towards the subject item. Too often, unfortunately, the only sources with detailed information about the item, are, themselves, biased towards it, and unwilling to express any negativity about that item, or others.

A classic example is the aviation industry press. If an airplane is currently in production -- and therefore a likely current or future advertiser in the magazine or website -- little or no criticism of the product will be expressed by the magazine, usually, no matter how bad the product. Publications that are more candid usually have short lifespans, owing to the loss of ad revenue.

Further, their access to new products will be curtailed by manufacturers, who routinely let the flattering publications borrow their airplanes for "review" -- while refusing to even respond to inquiries from more critical reviewers, who must (at great expense) arrange their own access to the new aircraft for review.

Likewise, the audience, itself, will punish critical reviewers of even blatantly obsolete and defective aircraft. The classic example was the vehement backlash against FLYING Magazine's safety-conscious, expert, senior editor Richard Collins -- who once dismissed the infamously troublesome and dangerous Globe Swift (one of which he owned in its prime), as the worst aircraft of its kind. Despite its well-documented bloody history, Swift owners everywhere furiously resented his deprecation of the craft in which they, themselves, were so heavily invested; he has never been forgiven by the Swift community, which has hotly nursed their grudge against him for decades.

These kinds of bias, and pressures against full and fair honesty, afflict nearly all sources in the technical world -- automotive, aerospace, computer, electronic, industrial, and more. And the mass media is usually simply too technologically ignorant to understand the subject well enough to comment usefully. (Infamous examples include needed-but-fumbled major media critiques of the Piper Cheyenne II, and Mitsubishi MU-2, but even more serious and widespread are the more serious examples simply overlooked by major media.) Consequently, in the technical field, it is extremely important to either:

1.) Balance the automatic lavish praise of biased sources, with firm critiques from any available source, however comparatively obscure; or

2.) Use only the very few sources that have a long-demonstrated history of candor and detachment from conflicts of interest (e.g.: they don't accept advertising, and don't accept any freebies, not even free demo rides, from manufacturers or vendors, and they aren't vulnerable or sensitive to consumer-pride backlash).

Good luck finding such sources -- though a few exist; in aviation, for instance, Aviation Consumer magazine; and in the broader world, the often-hated, but brutally honest (if occasionally imperfect), Consumer Reports (not to be confused with the comparatively sloppy Consumer Guide.). ~ Zxtxtxz (talk) 05:59, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

A relevant guideline forbids the "unduly self-serving" use of primary sources. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 06:12, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Excellent addendum. HOWEVER... the crime of omission is too-often effectively invisible in such sources. For instance, a manufacturer may tell you simply, matter-of-factly, that "this product is designed to...[perform some routine function]," without mentioning that it has a notorious history of bursting into flames, or malfunctioning and destroying anything attached to it. Such self-serving mischief is way too common in technical self-sources.

I firmly agree that such sources should never be the only source -- though, frankly, sometimes, there is no other source -- even for some very significant products, including some that are important to other Wikipedia subjects. Frustrating and tricky judgment calls. Zxtxtxz (talk) 06:31, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

"Neutral" means alignment with RS, including their biases.

Saving this here

User:Blanked, you're right when you say: "I don’t think that we should disregard blatant bias, whether we agree with it or not, especially in opinionated pieces." Per NPOV, we should be neutral by not removing that bias. We should document it and not whitewash it. That means the article will then read like biased content, and that's as it should be, as long as the bias is from sources and not from editors. The article about a person who is dishonest will give the impression that the person is dishonest because the weight of RS say so.

Editors are "neutral" when they are centered right under the point where most RS congregate, regardless of whether that is to the left or right of center. We do not "move" or "balance" content to the center to keep an article "neutral". That would be editorial, non-neutral, interference in what RS say. Maybe you should read my essay about this: NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content. At Wikipedia, "neutral" does not mean what you think it means. It really doesn't. It is not a middle position. It is not a position without bias. At Wikipedia, "neutral" means alignment with RS, including their biases. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:13, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

another version:

At Wikipedia, "neutral" does not mean what you think it means. It really doesn't. It is not a middle position. It is not a position without bias. At Wikipedia, "neutral" means alignment with RS, including their biases.

"Neutral" in NPOV does not mean "neutral" in the common sense of the word. It does not mean without bias from sources, only without bias from editors. NPOV does not require that sources or content be without bias or be neutral.

Editors should remain neutral by not removing the bias found in RS. We should document it and not whitewash it. That means the article will then read like biased content, and that's as it should be, as long as the bias is from sources and not from editors. The article about a person who is dishonest will give the impression that the person is dishonest because the weight of RS say so, and that is a very proper bias. Anything else would be dishonest. Wikipedia does not support dishonesty or whitewash it.

Editors are "neutral" when they are centered right under the point where most RS congregate, regardless of whether that is to the left or right of center. We do not "move" or "balance" content to the center to keep an article "neutral". That would be editorial, non-neutral, interference in what RS say. Maybe you should read my essay about this: NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:15, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Response to your long comment in the NPOV talk page

I think it is important to separate the criteria that is used to pick reliable sources (this is what I call source filtering) and the NPOV policy. They are complementary things, not in opposition. However, the NPOV policy is more fundamental and not negotiable, whereas what we call a reliable source may depend on many things. I am not interested in discussing in general the criteria that is used to pick the sources that are used in Climate change, Vaccine misinformation, False or misleading statements by Donald Trump, Trump's "Big Lie" of a stolen election, Russian interference in the 2016 election, etc. I am happy with accepting what was decided by the majority in each of the domain. This is why I say that Climate change does not violate NPOV, given that we accept the filtering of sources used. However, when I work on a specific article, usually in the area of philosophy, then, and only then, I discuss the sources that are reliable. Usually, this is not an issue. I never had a problem with this. Dominic Mayers (talk) 18:18, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

That makes sense. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

So, maybe your point is contained in "published by reliable sources", which is already a part of the first sentence. Dominic Mayers (talk) 19:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

No, my original point is that when we say "neutral" in NPOV, we do not mean it in the normal sense of the word. It does not mean an unbiased or middle position between opposing biased POV. We mean it in relation to the position of most RS on the given matter, and we mean it as primarily referring to "editorial neutrality", never source or content neutrality, as NPOV never requires sources or content to be neutral. It only requires editors to be neutral in how they edit. Due weight requires us to give more weight, IOW to bias the content, toward the POV of most RS.

Our "editorial perspective" should align with the source, and that will change according to the source. We are thus remaining true to the source by documenting it accurately. The total picture of the article will then tend to lean toward the majority of sources, while accurately describing the POV of minority POV/sources. This will make the article appear to be biased and will offend those whose POV is portrayed as the minority or rejected POV. Then we get complaints, and that is often a sign that we are "getting it right". By delimiting/clarifying our unusual meaning of "neutral" in NPOV, we can obviate many of the complaints that we violate our own NPOV rule. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:16, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

There is no unique "normal" sense of "neutral". One of the "normal" sense is "not taking side" and this is exactly the sense of "neutral" in the first sentence of Jimmy Wales 2001 statement. The key point is that "neutral" refers to the editors' position, not the sources' position. He says : "encyclopedic writing should steer clear of taking any particular stance other than the stance of the neutral point of view." This might not be clear for you, because you might continue to think that this neutral point of view consists in following faithfully what the sources say. But, you only need to read what follows to see that it is not at all what he meant. He continues:

"Some examples may help to drive home the point I am trying to make.

1. An encyclopedic article should not argue that corporations are criminals, even if the author believes it to be so. It should instead present the fact that _some people_ believe it, and what their reasons are, and then as well it should present what the other side says.

2. An encyclopedia article should not argue that laissez-faire capitalism is the best social system. (I happen to believe this, by the way.) It should instead present the arguments of the advocates of that point of view, and the arguments of the people who disagree with that point of view.

Perhaps the easiest way to make your writing more encyclopedic, is to write about _what people believe_, rather than _what is so_. If this strikes you as somehow subjectivist or collectivist or imperialist, then ask me about it, because I think that you are just mistaken. What people believe is a matter of objective fact, and we can present _that_ quite easily from the neutral point of view."

So, clearly, he meant that we do not just say things as said by the sources, but we take a perspective. The french word for "perspective" is similar to taking a "step back" : "un recul". If the source say "Trump is a liar", we do not only repeat "Trump is a liar", just like that, but say something more informative. It's never easy to do it in a way that is encyclopedic and I would not know how to do it in the case of Trump, but the idea is that you say more than just repeating what the sources say. It has to be informative, pertinent, etc. by providing a context, may be the arguments. Again, it is not easy and it requires to read the sources a lot. One way to think about it is that Wikipedia must stick to facts about sources and their points of view. These sources might not strick to facts, but Wikipedia itself stick to facts about them. It is as if the universe known by Wikipedia was only the sources and what they say and he has no point of view directly about the reality that is known by these sources. It is is what Jimmy Wales says when he writes "What people believe is a matter of objective fact, and we can present _that_ quite easily from the neutral point of view."

However, there is an exception to that: when it is clear that the statement is expressed as a point of view, called a fact, that would be accepted by all experts, not as Wikipedia's point of view, then it is not needed to attribute the statement to sources, because neutrality has already been achieved in the following sense that some form of attribution to these experts is implicit. In that case, it might even appear strange to attribute the statement to one particular expert. To say that it is attributed to all experts in the domain is kind of weird also, because they might not have explicitly made that statement, even though they would have accepted it. In that case, it is more natural to keep the attribution implicit. This exception is very important, because many editors are almost constantly, if not constantly, in the range of that exception (because of their interests) and they never truly learn what is NPOV and even deform it. Dominic Mayers (talk) 19:48, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I think we largely agree. There are some forms of facts that are just plain, boring, facts, and we can just state them. Then there are opinions, and opinions about facts, and they contain some form of "flavor added", in the sense of commentary and interpretation, and we usually attribute those statements. My motto has long been, "When in doubt, attribute it to the author." There are also BLP, complicated, and sensitive topics, where I don't even resort to paraphrasing. Instead, I quote exactly, with attribution, either inline or just the reference. Then no one can then accuse the editor of distorting what the source says. This is all about the "how" we treat what sources say, and most experienced editors know how to do this. I've been here since 2003 and usually get it right, but always appreciate when other editors correct me and improve what I have written. The value of collaborative editing is priceless. That's one of the things I love about this place. I learn so much. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I am confuse, because this is not the same at all as what I saw you wanted to emphasize in the first sentence of NPOV. A sentence such as "Wikipedia will inevitably reflect the biases of reliable sources" might be what you want to say, but this is too much oriented toward "reliable sources". (In case you have not noticed, if you remove the "reliable", that sentence is completely wrong.) The NPOV policy is not about reliable sources. It creates confusion. It is best to keep things modular and, if we make the link with WP:RS it should rather be to clarify the distinction between the fundamental NPOV policy and these WP:RS guidelines. Dominic Mayers (talk) 07:26, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

??? Are you talking about this essay or "Response to your long comment in the NPOV talk page"? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:30, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Of course, it is as the title says and as I told you in the NPOV talk page. Yet, it is likely to be pertinent to this essay. Dominic Mayers (talk) 18:32, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Still confused. What title in "the title" are you referring to? If you're referring to something written somewhere else, it would be more plain if you just repeat it here in this thread and then discuss just what's written here. It can be confusing if we are discussing "here" about something "there".

Otherwise, any clarifications are always welcome. I may well have worded something unclearly. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I was referring to the title of that section: "Response to your long comment in the NPOV talk page" and when I write "NPOV talk page", I refer, of course, to the talk page of WP:NPOV. Dominic Mayers (talk) 18:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

So we're still talking about the NPOV policy page, not this essay. Right? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:00, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I always been clear that it was a "response to your long comment in the NPOV talk page". It is even in the title and it is as I told you in the NPOV talk page. I believe that it is likely to be related to your essay here, but it is primary what is explained above. However, there is no need to worry about this now, because I don't think a discussion between me and you is going to be fruitful. It is best for both of us to pass to something else. I succeed to discuss with many people with no problems, but with some other people it simply does not work. Dominic Mayers (talk) 19:07, 7 May 2024 (UTC)