వికీపీడియా:తటస్థ దృక్కోణం: కూర్పుల మధ్య తేడాలు

{{అనువాదం}}

{{Policylist}}

 

 

 

[[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]] is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies. The other two are [[Wikipedia:Verifiability]] and [[Wikipedia:No original research]]. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. Because the policies are complementary, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should familiarize themselves with all three. The principles upon which these policies are based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus. Their policy pages may be edited only to improve the application and explanation of the principles.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

వికీపీడియా లో "నిష్పాక్షికత", "తటస్థ దృక్కోణం" అనే వాటిని మామూలు అర్ధానికి భిన్నంగా, చాలా ఖచ్చితమైన అర్ధంలో వాడతాము:

 

 

 

<blockquote>

A general purpose encyclopedia is a collection of synthesized knowledge presented from a neutral point of view. To whatever extent possible, encyclopedic writing should steer clear of taking any particular stance '''other than''' the stance of the neutral point of view.

''--[[Jimbo Wales]], Wikipedia founder''

 

 

Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, which means it is a representation of human [[knowledge]] at some level of generality. But human beings disagree about specific cases; for any topic on which there are competing views, each view represents a different idea of what the truth is, and insofar as that view contradicts other views, its adherents believe that the other views are ''false'' and therefore not ''knowledge''. Where there is disagreement about what is true, there's disagreement about what constitutes knowledge. Wikipedia works because it's a collaborative effort; but, while collaborating, how can we solve the problem of endless "[[edit war]]s" in which one person asserts that ''p,'' whereupon the next person changes the text so that it asserts ''not-p''?

There is another reason to commit ourselves to this policy. Namely, when it is clear to readers that we do not expect them to adopt any particular opinion, this leaves them free to make up their minds for themselves, thus encouraging ''intellectual independence''. Totalitarian governments and dogmatic institutions everywhere might find reason to be opposed to Wikipedia, if we succeed in adhering to our non-bias policy: the presentation of many competing theories on a wide variety of subjects suggests that we, the creators of Wikipedia, trust readers' competence to form their own opinions themselves. Texts that present multiple viewpoints fairly, without demanding that the reader accept any one of them, are liberating. Neutrality subverts dogmatism, and nearly everyone working on Wikipedia can agree this is a good thing.

 

What we mean isn't obvious, and is easily misunderstood. There are many other valid interpretations of "unbiased," and "neutral". The notion of "unbiased writing" that informs Wikipedia's policy is "presenting conflicting views without asserting them." This needs further clarification, as follows.

 

Another point bears elaboration as well. Writing unbiasedly can be conceived very well as ''representing'' disputes, ''characterizing'' them, rather than engaging in them. One can think of unbiased writing as the cold, fair, analytical description of debates. Of course, one might well doubt that this can be done at all without somehow subtly implying or insinuating that one position is correct. But experienced academics, polemical writers, and rhetoricians are well-attuned to bias, both their own and others', so that they can usually spot a description of a debate that tends to favor one side. If they so choose, with some creativity, they can usually remove that bias.

 

 

'''Now an important qualification:''' Articles that compare views need not give minority views ''as much'' or as detailed a description as more popular views. We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by only a small minority of people deserved as much attention as a majority view. To give such ''undue weight'' to the lesser held view may be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. If we are to represent the dispute fairly, we should present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. None of this, however, is to say that minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can possibly give them on pages specifically devoted to those views. There is no size limit to Wikipedia. But even on such pages, though a view is spelled out possibly in great detail, we still make sure that the view is not represented as ''the truth.''

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 [[వికీపీడియా:cite sources|cite a prominent representative of the view]].

 

 

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 [[వికీపీడియా: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.

 

 

If we're going to characterize disputes fairly, we should present competing views with a consistently positive, sympathetic tone. Many articles end up as partisan commentary ''even while'' presenting both points of view. Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization &mdash; for instance, refuting opposing views as one goes along makes them look a lot worse than collecting them in an opinions-of-opponents section.

We should, instead, write articles with the tone that ''all'' positions presented are at least plausible, bearing in mind the important qualification about extreme minority views. Let's present all significant, competing views sympathetically. We can write with the attitude that such-and-such is a good idea, except that, in the view of some detractors, the supporters of said view overlooked such-and-such a detail.

 

 

A special case is the expression of aesthetic opinions. Wikipedia articles about art, artists, and other creative topics (e.g., musicians, actors, books, etc.) have tended toward the effusive. This is out of place in an encyclopedia. We might not be able to agree that so-and-so is the greatest guitar player in history, but it may be important to describe how some artist or some work has been received by the general public or by prominent experts. Providing an overview of the common interpretations of a creative work, preferably with citations or references to notable individuals holding that interpretation, is appropriate. For instance, that Shakespeare is [http://absoluteshakespeare.com/william_shakespeare.htm widely acknowledged] as one of the greatest playwrights of the English language is a bit of knowledge that one should learn from an encyclopedia. However, in the interests of neutrality, one should also learn that a number of reputable scholars argue that there is a [http://www2.localaccess.com/marlowe/pamphlet/pamphlet.htm strong case] to make that the author of much of the work still attributed to Shakespeare was his contemporary Christopher Marlowe. Notice that determining how some artist or work has been received publicly or critically might require research &mdash; but once determined, a clear statement of that reception (unlike an idiosyncratic opinion by a Wikipedia article writer) is an opinion that really matters.

 

 

It might help to consider an example of a biased text and how Wikipedians have rendered it at least relatively unbiased.

There are numerous other success stories of articles that began life as virtual partisan screeds but were nicely cleaned up by people who concerned themselves with representing all views clearly and sympathetically.

 

 

[[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" &mdash; 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 [[వికీపీడియా:Cite sources|cite your sources]].

 

 

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 [[వికీపీడియా: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."

 

 

What follows is a list of common objections, or questions, regarding Wikipedia's non-bias policy, followed by replies.

 

===There's no such thing as objectivity===

''Everybody with any philosophical sophistication knows that. So how can we take the "neutrality" policy seriously? Neutrality, lack of bias, isn't possible.''

 

This should not be construed to mean that there can be no objective truth in an encyclopedia, in the sense that easily obtainable documents should be quoted or referenced correctly when first-hand sources are available, even if there are second-hand sources which quote them incorrectly. Neutrality does not compel us to introduce inaccuracy when something can be directly verified. Neutrality dictates that there can be multiple prominent interpretations to the meaning or validity of a work, but often the contents can be objectively verified, especially in the case of modern documents.

 

''How are we to write articles about pseudoscientific topics, about which majority scientific opinion is that the pseudoscientific opinion is not credible and doesn't even really deserve serious mention?''

 

There is a minority of Wikipedians who feel so strongly about this problem that they believe Wikipedia should adopt a "[[వికీపీడియా: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.

 

 

NPOV policy often means presenting multiple points of view. This means providing not only the points of view of different groups today, but also different groups in the past.

An important note on using the term "fundamentalism". Please see the article on [[fundamentalism]] for the technical definition of this term. This word is often used in articles on religion, but should only be used in one of its technical senses. We should take care to explain what we mean by this term in order to avoid: (a) causing unnecessary offense, and (b) misleading the reader (most people being unaware of how this word should be used.) We should not use this term as a pejorative phrase, and should remember that it is ''not'' a synonym for "opposition to science" nor "deeply held beliefs" and it should not be used to refer to religion or political conservatism when those do not meet the word's technical senses. As religion is a controversial topic, be prepared to see some of these articles edited due to what may seem minor quibbles.

 

 

''What about views that are morally offensive to most Westerners, such as racism, sexism, and Holocaust denial, that some people actually hold? Surely we are not to be neutral about ''them''?''