వికీపీడియా:తటస్థ దృక్కోణం: కూర్పుల మధ్య తేడాలు

480 బైట్లు చేర్చారు ,  15 సంవత్సరాల క్రితం
చి
బాటు చేసిన మార్పు: ఆంగ్ల నేంస్పేసు పేర్లు తెలుగులోకి మార్పు
దిద్దుబాటు సారాంశం లేదు
చి (బాటు చేసిన మార్పు: ఆంగ్ల నేంస్పేసు పేర్లు తెలుగులోకి మార్పు)
వికీపీడియా సంగ్రహానికి సంబంధి మూడు ముఖ్యమైన విధానాలున్నాయి. అవి:
 
* [[Wikipediaవికీపీడియా:తటస్థ దృక్కోణం|తటస్థ దృక్కోణం]]
* [[Wikipediaవికీపీడియా:No original research|పరిశోధన తాలూకు అసలు ప్రతి కాకూడదు]]
* [[Wikipediaవికీపీడియా:Verifiability|నిర్ధారణకు అనుకూలంగా ఉండాలి]].
 
 
 
 
నిష్పాక్షికంగా రాయడానికి సాధన అవసరం. ఇది ఎలా రాయాలనే విషయమై అనుభవజ్ఞులైన సభ్యులు తమ సలహాలను ఒక [[Wikipediaవికీపీడియా:తటస్థత పాఠం|పాఠంగా]] రాయాలని కోరుతున్నాం.
 
 
The policy is easily misunderstood. It doesn't assume that writing an article from a single, unbiased, objective point of view is possible. Instead it says to ''fairly represent'' all sides of a [[dispute]] by not making articles state, imply, or insinuate that only one side is correct. Crucially, a great merit of Wikipedia is that [[Wikipedian]]s work together to make articles unbiased.
 
Writing unbiased text requires practice. Contributors who have mastered the art of NPOV are invited to help develop the [[Wikipediaవికీపీడియా:NPOV tutorial|neutrality tutorial]].
 
===The basic concept of neutrality===
::* If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
::* If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name ''prominent'' adherents;
::* If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not (see [[Wikipediaవికీపీడియా:Flat earth problem]]).
 
Bias need not be conscious. For example, beginners in a field often fail to realize that what sounds like common sense is actually biased in favor of one particular view. (So we not infrequently need an expert in order to render the article entirely unbiased.) To take another example, writers can, without intent, propagate "geographical" bias, by for example describing a dispute ''as it is conducted in one country'' without knowing that the dispute is framed differently elsewhere.
In presenting an opinion, moreover, it is important to bear in mind that there are disagreements about how opinions are best stated; sometimes, it will be necessary to qualify the description of an opinion or to present several formulations, simply to arrive at a solution that fairly represents all the leading views of the situation.
 
But it's not ''enough,'' to express the Wikipedia non-bias policy, just to say that we should state facts and not opinions. When asserting a fact ''about an opinion,'' it is important ''also'' to assert facts ''about competing opinions,'' and to do so without implying that any one of the opinions is correct. It's also generally important to give the facts about the reasons behind the views, and to make it clear who holds them. It's often best to [[wikipediaవికీపీడియా:cite sources|cite a prominent representative of the view]].
 
==A vital component: good research==
 
Disagreements over whether something is approached the ''Neutral Point Of View'' (NPOV) way can usually be avoided through the practice of good research. Facts (as defined in the previous paragraph) are not ''Points Of View'' (POV, here used in the meaning of "opposite of NPOV") in and of themselves. A good way to help building a neutral point of view is to find a reputable source for the piece of information you want to add to wikipedia, and then [[Wikipediaవికీపీడియా:Cite sources|cite that source]]. This is an easy way to characterize a side of a debate without excluding that the debate has other sides. The trick is to find the best and most reputable source you can. Try the library for good books and journal articles, and look for the most reliable online resources. A little bit of ground work can save a lot of time in trying to justify a point later.
 
The only other important consideration is that sources of comparable reputability might contradict. In that case the core of the NPOV policy is to let competing approaches of the same topic exist on the same page: work for ''balance'', that is: divide ''space'' describing the opposing viewpoints according to reputability of the sources. And, when available, give precedence to those sources that have been the most successful in presenting facts in an equally balanced manner.
 
[[User:Karada|Karada]] offered the following advice in the context of the [[Saddam Hussein]] article:
:You won't even ''need'' to say he was evil. That's why the article on [[Hitler]] does not start with "Hitler was a bad man" — we don't need to, his deeds convict him a thousand times over. We just list the facts of the [[Holocaust]] dispassionately, and the voices of the dead cry out afresh in a way that makes name-calling both pointless and unnecessary. Please do the same: list Saddam's crimes, and [[Wikipediaవికీపీడియా:Cite sources|cite your sources]].
 
===Rewording a potentially biased statement===
 
Sometimes, a potentially biased statement can be reworded to a more NPOV version. For instance, "John Doe is the best baseball player" can be reworded to "John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by many". Even better would be, "John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by baseball insiders such as Al Kaline and Joe Torre", as long as those statements are correct and can be [[Wikipediaవికీపీడియా:Verifiability|verified]]. Similarly, "Joe Bloggs has poor habits" can be reworded to "Joe Bloggs has often been criticized for his habits, by observers such as Momar Kadafi and Anwar Saddat."
 
==Objections and clarifications==
Pseudoscience can be seen as a social phenomenon and therefore significant. However, pseudoscience should not obfuscate the description of the main views, and any mention should be proportional to the rest of the article.
 
There is a minority of Wikipedians who feel so strongly about this problem that they believe Wikipedia should adopt a "[[Wikipediaవికీపీడియా:scientific point of view|scientific point of view]]" rather than a "neutral point of view." However, it has not been established that there is really a need for such a policy, given that the scientists' view of pseudoscience can be clearly, fully, and fairly explained to believers of pseudoscience.
 
=== Religion ===
''I agree with the nonbias policy but there are some here who seem completely, irremediably biased. I have to go around and clean up after them. What do I do?''
 
Unless the case is really egregious, maybe the best thing is to call attention to the problem publicly, pointing the perpetrators to this page (but [[Wikipediaవికీపీడియా:Wikipetiquette|politely]] — one gets more flies with honey) and asking others to help. See [[Wikipediaవికీపీడియా:Dispute_resolution|Dispute resolution]] for more ideas. There must surely be a point beyond which our very strong interest in being a ''completely'' open project is trumped by the interest the vast majority of our writers have, in being able to get work done without constantly having to fix the intrusions of people who do not respect our policy.
 
=== Avoiding constant disputes ===
''I have some other objection. Where should I ask it?''
 
Before asking it, please review the links below. Many issues surrounding the neutrality policy have been covered before very extensively. If you have some new contribution to make to the debate, you could try [[Talk:Neutral point of view]], or bring it up on the [[Wikipediaవికీపీడియా:Mailing lists|Wikipedia-l]] mailing list.
 
== Other resources ==
 
* [[Wikipediaవికీపీడియా:NPOV tutorial|NPOV tutorial]]
* [[Wikipediaవికీపీడియా:Neutral point of view/Examples|Examples]]
* [[Wikipediaవికీపీడియా:Neutral point of view/Examples Debate|Examples Debate]]
* [[m:Responses to How to Build Wikipedia, Understand Bias|Understand Bias]]
* [[Wikipediaవికీపీడియా:List of controversial issues|List of controversial issues]]
* [[Wikipediaవికీపీడియా:Words to avoid|Words to avoid]]
* [[Talk:Creationism]]
* [[meta:Positive tone]]
* [[Wikipediaవికీపీడియా:Guidelines for controversial articles|Guidelines for controversial articles]]
* [[God's Eye View]]
* [[consensus reality]]
* [[Wikipediaవికీపీడియా:Avoid weasel terms]]
* [[Templateమూస:NPOV]] - <nowiki>{{NPOV}}</nowiki> message used to warn of problems
* [[Templateమూస:NPOV-section]] - <nowiki>{{NPOV-section}}</nowiki> tags only a single section as disputed
* [[Templateమూస:POV check]] - <nowiki>{{POV check}}</nowiki> message used to mark articles that may be biased. [[Templateమూస:bias]] (<nowiki>{{bias}}</nowiki> may be used for short)
* [[Wikipediaవికీపీడియా:WikiProject Countering Systemic Bias|WikiProject Countering Systemic Bias]]
 
== External links ==
* Multiple points of view: see [[WikiCities:c:religion-wiki:Religion-wiki:Multiple points of view|religion-wiki: Multiple points of view]]
 
[[Categoryవర్గం:Wikipedia official policy|{{PAGENAME}}]]
[[Categoryవర్గం:NPOV]]
<!-- Interlanguage links -->
[[bg:&#1059;&#1080;&#1082;&#1080;&#1087;&#1077;&#1076;&#1080;&#1103;:&#1053;&#1077;&#1091;&#1090;&#1088;&#1072;&#1083;&#1085;&#1072; &#1075;&#1083;&#1077;&#1076;&#1085;&#1072; &#1090;&#1086;&#1095;&#1082;&#1072;]]
51,725

దిద్దుబాట్లు

"https://te.wikipedia.org/wiki/ప్రత్యేక:MobileDiff/144308" నుండి వెలికితీశారు