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)