This is the page we were looking at Tuesday regarding Wikipedia's "neutrality" policy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPOV
There's an explanation further down the page that goes into details, but these are their major points:
Avoid stating opinions as facts.
Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts.
Avoid presenting uncontested assertions as mere opinion.
Prefer non-judgmental language.
Accurately indicate the relative prominence of opposing views.
Does that conform to your idea of "neutral"?
Also, here's what they say further down the page in the Clarifications section:
"There's no such thing as objectivity
Everybody with any philosophical sophistication knows that. So how can we take the "neutrality" policy seriously?"
Just reading those rules, it sounds like they want everyone to play nice with each other, don't call each other names, and don't state your opinion as fact. I don't feel that means "neutral"
ReplyDeleteWe take neutrality seriously because it is an underlying foundation of how Wikipedia operates according to its mission.
ReplyDeleteSince we are collectively constructing it, we need to do our best to agree to a few guidelines to maintain Wikipedia.
To paraphrase Wiki about Wiki: It's about creating a community that abides by a few guidelines of respect and courtesy. Theoretically, this harmonious community is a place with the ability to summarize the human knowledge into accessible articles.
When an article is close to neutral, it is more likely to be interpreted by the consumer, not just influences by the producer.
Neutrality isn't really a state that can exist, but more of a state to strive to create.