వికీపీడియా:తటస్థ దృక్కోణం: కూర్పుల మధ్య తేడాలు
Content deleted Content added
శీర్షికల అనువాదం |
చి శీర్షికల అనువాదం |
||
పంక్తి 6:
'''తటస్థ దృక్కోణం''' అనేది [[meta:Foundation issues|వికీమీడియా మౌలిక సూత్రాలలో]] ఒకటి. వికీపీడియాలోని అన్ని వ్యాసాలు మరియు విజ్ఞాన సర్వస్వపు అంశాలు అన్ని''' ప్రముఖ''' దృక్పధాలను, మరియు ప్రధానమైన '''ఇతర''' దృక్పధాలకు ప్రాతినిధ్యం కలిగించాలి. నమ్మదగిన ఆధారాలున్న, ఇతర వేదికలలో ప్రచురింపబడిన, అన్ని దృక్పధాలకూ స్థానం ఉండాలి.
Line 22 ⟶ 16:
ఈ మూడు విధానాలు కలిసి వికీపీడియాలో ఉంచదగిన విషయం మౌలిక పరిధులను నిర్దేశిస్తాయి. ఒక వ్యాసపు నాణ్యతను, వికీపీడియా ప్రమాణికతను నిర్ణయిస్తాయి. కాబట్టి వీటిని సంయుక్తంగా పరిశీలించాలి గాని, విడివిడిగా చూడరాదు. సభ్యులంతా వీటి గురించి బాగా తెలుసుకొని ఉండాలి.
ఈ మూడు సూత్రాలను దేనికదే విడివిడిగా కాక '''సంయుక్తంగా, విచక్షణతో''' అమలు చేయాలి. అంతే కాకుండా ఈ మౌలిక సూత్రాలను సభ్యుల [[వికీపీడియా:ఏకాభిప్రాయం|ఏకాభిప్రాయం]]తో కూడా రద్దుచేయరాదు. ఈ మౌలిక సూత్రాల ఆచరణను, వివరణను మరింత మెరుగుపరచే దిశలో మాత్రమే ఈ పాలిసీల పేజీలను దిద్దవచ్చును.
==ఉపోద్ఘాతం==
వికీపీడియాలోని వ్యాసాలన్నీ తటస్థ దృక్కోణంతో రాయాలనేది వికీపీడియా విధానం. అన్ని ప్రముఖ దృక్కోణాలు, ప్రధానమైన చిన్న, చిన్న దృక్కోణాలను వ్యాసాలు నిస్క్పాక్షికంగా ప్రతిబింబించాలి. తేలిగ్గా అపార్ధం చేసునే అవకాశం గల విధానమిది. వికీపీడియా గొప్పతనమేమిటంటే, వ్యాసాలు పక్షపాత రహితంగా ఉండేందుకు ఇక్కడి సభ్యులంతా కృషిచేస్తారు.
Line 34 ⟶ 26:
===తటస్థత - ప్రాధమిక భావన===
వికీపీడియా లో "నిష్పాక్షికత", "తటస్థ దృక్కోణం" అనే వాటిని మామూలు అర్ధానికి భిన్నంగా, చాలా ఖచ్చితమైన అర్ధంలో వాడతాము:
Line 64 ⟶ 55:
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.
</blockquote>
''--[[
===వికీపీడియా తటస్థంగా ఎందుకుండాలి?===
Line 101 ⟶ 92:
The policy of having a neutral point of view is not to ''hide'' different points of view, but to show the diversity of viewpoints. In case of controversy, the strong points and weak points will be shown according to each point of view, without taking a side. The neutral point of view is not a "[[separate but equal]]" policy. The facts, in themselves, are neutral, but the simple accumulation of them cannot be the neutral point of view. If only the favorable (or the unfavorable) facts of a point of view are shown in an article, the article will still be non-neutral.
==ఒక సరళమైన నిర్వచనం==
We sometimes give an alternative formulation of the non-bias policy: assert facts, including facts about opinions — but don't assert opinions themselves. There is a difference between facts and values, or opinions. By "fact," we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." In this sense, that a survey produced a certain published result is a fact. That there is a planet called Mars is a fact. That Plato was a philosopher is a fact. No one seriously disputes any of these things. So we can feel free to ''assert'' as many of them as we can.
Line 150 ⟶ 141:
What follows is a list of common objections, or questions, regarding Wikipedia's non-bias policy, followed by replies.
===అసలు నిష్పాక్షికత అనేది ఉందా?===
<!-- 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.''
Line 187 ⟶ 178:
We can certainly include long discussions that present our moral repugnance to such things; in doing so, we can maintain a healthy, consistent support for the neutral point of view by attributing the view to prominent representatives or to some group of people. Others will be able to make up their own minds and, being reasonable, surely come around to our view. Those who harbor racism, sexism, etc., will not be convinced to change their views based on a biased article, which only puts them on the defensive; on the other hand, if we make a concerted effort to apply our non-bias policy consistently, we might give those with morally repugnant beliefs insight that will change those views.
=== సమస్థానం కల్పించడం ===
''But wait. I find the optimism about science vs. pseudo-science to be baseless. History has shown that pseudo-science can beat out facts, as those who rely on pseudo-science use lies, slander, innuendo and numerical majorities of followers to force their views on anyone they can. If this project gives equal validity to those who literally claim that the Earth is flat, or those who claim that the Holocaust never occurred, the result is that it will (inadvertently) legitimize and help promote that which only can be termed evil.''
Line 195 ⟶ 186:
See this [http://www.idrewthis.org/2004/bothsides.gif humorous illustration] of the "equal validity" issue.
===ఆంగ్ల, అమెరికన్ ప్రాధాన్యత===
''Wikipedia seems to have an Anglo-American focus. Is this contrary to the neutral point of view?''
Line 201 ⟶ 193:
Yes, it is, especially when dealing with articles that require an international perspective. The presence of articles written from a United States or British perspective is simply a reflection of the fact that there are many U.S. and British citizens working on the project, which in turn is a reflection of the fact that so many of them are online. This is an ongoing problem that should be corrected by active collaboration from people from other countries. But rather than introducing their own cultural bias, they should seek to improve articles by removing any examples of cultural bias that they encounter, or making readers '''aware''' of them. This is not only a problem in the English Wikipedia. The [[French Language Wikipedia]] may reflect a French bias, the Japanese Wikipedia may reflect a Japanese bias, and so on.
===తటస్థత లేదన్న సాకుతో తొలగించే విధానం===
''The neutrality policy is used sometimes as an excuse to delete texts that are perceived as biased. Isn't this a problem?''
Line 209 ⟶ 201:
There's sometimes trouble determining whether some claim is true or useful, particularly when there are few people on board who know about the topic. In such a case, it's a good idea to raise objections on a [[talk page]]; if one has some reason to believe that the author of the biased material will not be induced to change it, we have sometimes taken to removing the text to the talk page itself (but not deleting it entirely). But the latter should be done more or less as a last resort, never as a way of punishing people who have written something biased.
===పక్షపాతం గూడు కట్టుకొన్నవారి సంగతేంటి?===
''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?''
Line 215 ⟶ 208:
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 [[వికీపీడియా:Wikipetiquette|politely]] — one gets more flies with honey) and asking others to help. See [[వికీపీడియా: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.
===ఎడతెగని వివాదాలనుండి తప్పుకొనేదెలా? ===
''How can we avoid constant and endless warfare over neutrality issues?''
The best way to avoid warfare over bias is to remember that most of us are reasonably intelligent, articulate people here, or we wouldn't be working on this and caring so much about it. We have to make it our goal to understand each others' perspectives and to work hard to make sure that those other perspectives are fairly represented. When any dispute arises as to what the article should say, or what is true, we must not adopt an adversarial stance; we must do our best to step back and ask ourselves, "How can this dispute be fairly characterized?" This has to be asked repeatedly as each new controversial point is stated. It is not our job to edit Wikipedia so that it reflects our own idiosyncratic views and then defend those edits against all-comers; it is our job to work together, mainly adding new content, but also, when necessary, coming to a compromise about how a controversy should be described, so that it is fair to all sides.
===అవుసరమైనంత అనుకోలు===
''What about the case where, in order to write any of a long series of articles on some general subject, we must make some controversial assumptions? That's the case, e.g., in writing about evolution. Surely we won't have to hash out the evolution-vs.-creationism debate on every such page?''
Line 229 ⟶ 223:
It is difficult to draw up general principles on which to rule in specific cases, but the following might help: there is probably not a good reason to discuss some assumption on a given page, if an assumption is best discussed in depth on some ''other'' page. Some brief, unobtrusive pointer might be apropos, however. E.g., in an article about the evolutionary development of horses, we might have one brief sentence to the effect that some creationists do not believe that horses (or any other animals) underwent any evolution, and point the reader to the relevant article. If there is much specific argument over some particular point, it might be placed on a special page of its own.
==="ప్రత్యర్ధి" దృక్కోణం వ్రాయాలా?===
''I'm not convinced by what you say about "writing for the enemy." I don't want to write for the enemy. Most of them rely on stating as fact many things which are demonstrably false. Are you saying that, to be neutral in writing an article, I must ''lie,'' in order to represent the view I disagree with?''
Line 237 ⟶ 232:
This can be a particularly touchy subject, and a large number of people can honestly fail to see the bias inherent in a popular term, simply because it's the one commonly used. But it shouldn't take long to understand that the English wikipedia is a ''highly international project'', and its editors reflect many different points of view. It's important to note that this level of objectivity is rather new to most people, and disputes over the proper terms may simply depend on the balance of points of view.
===ఇతర అభ్యంతరాలు===
''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 [[వికీపీడియా:Mailing lists|Wikipedia-l]] mailing list.
== ఆంగ్ల వికీలో సంబంధిత వ్యాసాలు==
* [[
* [[
* [[
* [[m:Responses to How to Build Wikipedia, Understand Bias|Understand Bias]]
* [[
* [[
* [[:en:Talk:Creationism]]
* [[meta:Positive tone]]
* [[
* [[:en:God's Eye View]]
* [[:en:consensus reality]]
* [[
* [[
▲* [[వికీపీడియా:WikiProject Countering Systemic Bias|WikiProject Countering Systemic Bias]]
[[వర్గం:Wikipedia official policy|{{PAGENAME}}]]▼
▲[[వర్గం:Wikipedia official policy|{{PAGENAME}}]]
{{Wikipedia policies and guidelines}}
|