Wikipedia:Walang pinapanigang pananaw
Ang pahinang ito ay nangangailangan ng pagsasalin sa Tagalog.
|Ang nilalaman ng pahinang ito ay opisyal na patakaran sa Wikipedia. May malawak itong pagtanggap sa pagitan ng mga tagapatnugot at kinikilala bilang isang pamantayan na nararapat sundin ng lahat. Maliban sa maliliit na pagbabago, maaaring gamitin ang pahinang usapan upang magmungkahi ng mga pagbabago sa patakarang ito.|
|Ang pahinang ito sa maikling salita: Dapat nakasulat ang lahat ng mga artikulo sa Wikipedya sa istilong NPOV, na kumakatawan sa walang kinikilingang pananaw at walang pagsang-ayon.|
Lahat ng artikulo sa Wikipedia ay dapat isulat sa istilong pananaw na walang pinapanigan (neutral point of view o NPOV). Kabilang dito ang lahat ng nilalaman ng artikulo, pati na rin ang mga ilustrasyon, mga mapa, mga template, mga kategorya at mga portal. Para sa gabay kung paano makakapasa ang artikulo sa istilong walang pinapanigan, tignan ang NPOV tutorial.
Isang mahalagang prinsipyo ng Wikipedia ang NPOV. Ayon kay Jimmy Wales, "May mga bagay na lubos at hindi maaaring pagkasunduan, tulad ng NPOV." (Ingles: "A few things are absolute and non-negotiable, though. NPOV for example.")
Ang Walang pinapanigang pananaw ay isa sa tatlong nilalamang polisiya ng Wikipedya. Ang dalawa pang iba ay Verifiablity and Walang orihinal na research. Magkakasama nilang tinitiyak ang uri at kalidad ng materyal na kasiya-siya para sa pangunahing namespace. Dahil kumplementaryo ang tatlong polisiya, hindi sila dapat ipaliwanag ng isolasyon mula sa bawat isa, at dapat subuking alamin ng mga patnugot ang mga ito. Hindi maaaring pagkasunduan at hindi puwedeng palitan ng ibang polisiya o ng konsenso ng mga patnugot ang mga prinsipyo kung saan ibinase ang tatlong polisiya. Maaaring baguhin ang mga pahina ng polisiya para paunlarin lang ang paggamit at paliwanag sa mga prinsipyo lamang.
Explanasyon ng "Walang pinapanigang pananaw"Baguhin
Ang walang pinapanigang pananawBaguhin
Ang walang pinapanigang pananaw is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions.
As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. It is a point of view that is neutral - that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject.
Debates are described, represented, and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but studiously refrain from stating which is better. One can think of unbiased writing as the cold, fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate. When bias towards one particular point of view can be detected, the article needs to be fixed.
NPOV requires views to be represented without bias. A bias is a prejudice in a general or specific sense, usually in the sense of having a predilection for one particular point of view or ideology. One is said to be biased if one is influenced by one's biases. A bias could, for example, lead one to accept or not-accept the truth of a claim, not because of the strength of the claim itself, but because it does or does not correspond to one's own preconceived ideas.
Types of bias include:
- Class bias, including bias favoring one social class and bias ignoring social or class divisions.
- Commercial bias, including advertising, coverage of political campaigns in such a way as to favor corporate interests, and the reporting of issues to favor the interests of the owners of the news media.
- Geographical bias which may for example describe a dispute as it is conducted in one country without knowing that the dispute is framed differently elsewhere.
- Nationalistic bias: favoring the interests or views of a particular nation.
- Political bias, including bias in favor of or against a particular political party, policy or candidate.
- Religious bias, including bias in which one religious viewpoint is given preference over others.
- Sensationalism, which is bias in favor of the exceptional over the ordinary. This includes the practice whereby exceptional news may be overemphasized, distorted or fabricated to boost commercial ratings.
A simple formulationBaguhin
We sometimes give an alternative formulation of the non-bias policy: assert facts, including facts about opinions — but do not assert opinions themselves. There is a difference between facts and opinions. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." For example, that a survey produced a certain published result would be 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.
By value or opinion, on the other hand, we mean "a piece of information about which there is some dispute." There are bound to be borderline cases where we are not sure if we should take a particular dispute seriously; but there are many propositions that very clearly express values or opinions. That stealing is wrong is a value or opinion. That the Beatles was the greatest band is a value or opinion. That the United States was wrong to drop the atomic bomb over Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a value or opinion.
Wikipedia is devoted to stating facts in the sense as described above. Where we might want to state an opinion, we convert that opinion into a fact by attributing the opinion to someone. So, rather than asserting, "The Beatles were the greatest band," we can say, "Most Americans believe that the Beatles were the greatest band," which is a fact verifiable by survey results, or "The Beatles had many songs that made the Billboard Hot 100," which is also fact. In the first instance we assert an opinion; in the second and third instances we "convert" that opinion into fact by attributing it to someone. It is important to note this formulation is substantially different from the "some people believe..." formulation popular in political debates. The reference requires an identifiable and objectively quantifiable population or, better still, a name.
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 is 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 is also generally important to give the facts about the reasons behind the views, and to make it clear who holds them. It is often best to cite a prominent representative of the view.
Situations and handlingBaguhin
A POV fork is an attempt to evade NPOV guidelines by creating a new article about a certain subject that is already treated in an article, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. This is generally considered unacceptable. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and majority Points of View on a certain subject are treated in one article.
NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all (by example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority). We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. This applies not only to article text, but to images, external links, categories, and all other material as well.
Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.
None of this is to say that tiny-minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can give them on pages specifically devoted to them. Wikipedia is not paper. But even on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it should not be represented as the truth.
- From Jimbo Wales, paraphrased from this post from September 2003 on the mailing list:
- 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 does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.
In other words, views held only by a tiny minority of people should not be represented as though they are significant minority views, and perhaps should not be represented at all.
In particular, to elaborate on the last comment above, if you are able to prove something that nobody currently believes, Wikipedia is not the place to premiere such a proof. Once a proof has been presented and discussed elsewhere, however, it may be referenced.
A vital component: good researchBaguhin
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 A simple formulation section above) are not Points Of View (POV, here used in the meaning of "opposite of NPOV") in and of themselves. A good way to build a neutral point of view is to find a reputable source for the piece of information you want to add to Wikipedia, and then 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 sources 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.
Fairness of toneBaguhin
If we are going to characterize disputes neutrally, we should present competing views with a consistently fair and sensitive 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 — 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. We should 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.
Characterizing opinions of people's workBaguhin
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 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 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 — but once determined, a clear statement of that reception (unlike an idiosyncratic opinion by a Wikipedia article writer) is an opinion that really matters.
Let the facts speak for themselvesBaguhin
- You won't even need to say he was evil. That is 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 cite your sources.
Remember that readers will probably not take kindly to moralising. If you do not allow the facts to speak for themselves you may alienate readers and turn them against your position.
Attributing and substantiating biased statementsBaguhin
Sometimes, a potentially biased statement can be reframed into an NPOV statement by attributing or substantiating it.
For instance, "John Doe is the best baseball player" is, by itself, merely an expression of opinion. One way to make it suitable for Wikipedia is to change it into a statement about someone whose opinion it is: "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 verified. The goal here is to attribute the opinion to some subject-matter expert, rather than to merely state it as true.
A different approach is to substantiate the statement, by giving factual details that back it up: "John Doe had the highest batting average in the major leagues from 2003 through 2006." Instead of using the vague word "best," this statement spells out a particular way in which Doe excels.
There is a temptation to rephrase biased or opinion statements with weasel words: "Many people think John Doe is the best baseball player." But statements of this form are subject to obvious attacks: "Yes, many people think so, but only ignorant people"; and "Just how many is 'many'? I think it's only 'a few' who think that!" By attributing the claim to a known authority, or substantiating the facts behind it, you can avoid these problems.
History and rationaleBaguhin
History of NPOVBaguhin
NPOV is one of the oldest policies on Wikipedia.
- Nupedia's "Non-bias policy" was drafted by Larry Sanger in spring or summer of 2000.
- Jimbo Wales posted a statement about "neutral point of view" in the early months of Wikipedia: see copy in web archive (note: that page also contains comments by other Wikipedians up to 12 April 2001) – in subsequent versions of the NPOV page, Jimbo's statement was known as the "original formulation" of the NPOV policy.
- A more elaborate version of the NPOV policy was written by Larry Sanger, at Meta-Wiki in December 2001: see "Neutral point of view--draft," Larry Sanger's version of 20 December 2001.
- After several transformations (see edit history of "draft" at Meta) the version by Larry Sanger et al. was moved to this page on 25 February 2002 , and was further edited (see edit history of this page), resulting in the current version.
- Another short formulation was introduced by Brion Vibber in meta, 17 March 2003: see Meta's "Neutral point of view," version of 17 March 2003
Reasoning behind NPOVBaguhin
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 is disagreement about what constitutes knowledge. Wikipedia works because it is a collaborative effort; but, while collaborating, how can we solve the problem of endless "edit wars" in which one person asserts that p, whereupon the next person changes the text so that it asserts not-p?
A solution is that we accept, for the purposes of working on Wikipedia, that "human knowledge" includes all different significant theories on all different topics. We are committed to the goal of representing human knowledge in that sense, surely a well-established meaning of the word "knowledge". What is "known" changes constantly with the passage of time, and so when we use the word "know," we often enclose it in so-called scare quotes. Europeans in the Middle Ages "knew" that demons caused diseases; we now "know" otherwise.
We could sum up human knowledge (in this sense) in a biased way: we could state a series of theories about topic T and then claim that the truth about T is such-and-such. But again, consider that Wikipedia is an international collaborative project, and that nearly every view on every subject will be found among our authors and readers. To avoid endless edit wars, we can agree to present each of the significant views fairly and not assert any one of them as correct. That is what makes an article "unbiased" or "neutral" in the sense presented here. To write from a neutral point of view, one presents controversial views without asserting them; to do that, it generally suffices to present competing views in a way that is more or less acceptable to their adherents, and also to attribute the views to their adherents. Disputes are characterized in Wikipedia; they are not re-enacted.
To sum up the primary reason for this policy: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a compilation of human knowledge. But because Wikipedia is a community-built, international resource, we cannot expect collaborators to agree in all cases, or even in many cases, on what constitutes knowledge in a strict sense. We can therefore adopt the looser sense of "human knowledge" according to which a wide variety of conflicting theories constitute what we call "knowledge." We should, both individually and collectively, make an effort to present these conflicting views fairly, without advocating any one of them — with the qualification that views held only by a tiny minority of people should not be represented as though they are significant minority views and perhaps should not be represented at all.
There is another reason to commit ourselves to this policy, that 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 oppose 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 editors of Wikipedia, trust readers to form their own opinions. Texts that present multiple viewpoints fairly, without demanding that the reader accept any particular one of them, are liberating. Neutrality subverts dogmatism. Nearly everyone working on Wikipedia can agree this is a good thing.
It might help to consider an example of how Wikipedians have improved a biased text.
On the abortion page, early in 2001, some advocates had used the page to exchange barbs, being unable to agree about what arguments should be on the page and how the competing positions should be represented. What was needed — and what was added — was an in-depth discussion of the different positions about the moral and legal aspects of abortion at different times. This discussion of the positions was carefully crafted so as not to favor any one of the positions outlined. This made it easier to organize and understand the arguments surrounding the topic of abortion, which were then presented sympathetically, each with its strengths and weaknesses.
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.
Common objections and clarificationsBaguhin
- See en:Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ for answers and clarifications on the issues raised in this section
Common objections or concerns raised by newcomers to Wikipedia's Neutral point of view policy include the following.
- There's no such thing as objectivity
Everybody with any philosophical sophistication knows that. So how can we take the "neutrality" policy seriously?
- Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete
The neutrality policy is used sometimes as an excuse to delete texts that are perceived as biased. Isn't this a problem?
- Making necessary assumptions
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?
- Giving "equal validity"
I find the optimism about science vs. pseudoscience to be baseless. History has shown that pseudoscience can beat out facts, as those who rely on pseudoscience 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.
- Writing for the "enemy"
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?
Disrespecting my religion or treating it like a human invention of some kind, is religious discrimination, inaccurate, or wrong. And what about beliefs I feel are wrong, or against my religion, or outdated, or non-scientific?
- Morally offensive views
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?
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?
- Dealing with biased contributors
I agree with the non-bias 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?
- Avoiding constant disputes
How can we avoid constant and endless warfare over neutrality issues?
- Anglo-American focus
Wikipedia seems to have an Anglo-American focus. Is this contrary to the neutral point of view?
- Other objections
I have some other objection - where should I complain?
Because the neutral-point-of-view policy is often unfamiliar to newcomers, and is so central to Wikipedia's approach, 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 en:Talk:Neutral point of view, or bring it up on the Wikipedia-l mailing list. Before asking it, please review the links below.
One famous controversy over spam filtering is the battle between AOL/Goodmail vs. the Electronic Frontier Foundation. In this case both sides are wrong with EFF being a little more wrong than AOL. The Goodmail/AOL relationship is based on the idea that Goodmaill certifies email as good and AOL accepts it as good email. But there's $$$ involved and because of this EFF has accused AOL as trying to turn email into a paid service. Unfortunately EFF can't get beyond listening to themselves echo their own opinion to understand that the concepts behind AOL/Goodmail are at least partially sound. The idea is to get the good email through. http://vinniki.com/free/index.html This system eliminates the need for AOL/Goodmail's system in that it automatically tracks good email from all servers and makes their karma available to the world. So rather than having to pay to get a reputation as a trusted server all you have to do is consistently send good email and when the world sees that then you get whitelisted. Problem solved. Education about reproduction typically describes the creation and development of a new human being, from conception and the development of the embryo and fetus, through to childbirth. It often includes topics www.vinniki.com/free/page=15.html hardcore sex fuck pussy tits online such as sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and how to avoid them, as well as birth control methods. www.vinniki.com/free/page=16.html Although some form of sex education is part of the curriculum at many schools, it remains a controversial issue in several countries, www.vinniki.com/free/page=17.html particularly with regard to the age at which children should start receiving such education, the amount of detail that is revealed, and topics dealing with human sexuality and behavior (eg. safe sex practices, masturbation and sexual ethics).
Google Book Search is a tool from Google that searches the full text of books that Google scans and stores in its digital database. The service was formerly known as Google Print when it was introduced at the www.vinniki.com/pedu/index.html Frankfurt Book Fair in October 2004. When relevant to a user's keyword search, up to three results from the Google Book Search index are displayed above search results in the Google Web Search service www.vinniki.com/pedu/page=1.ht (google.com). A user may also search just for books at the dedicated Google Book Search service. Clicking a result from Google Book Search opens an interface in which the user may view pages from the book as www.vinniki.com/pedu/page=2.html well as content-related advertisements and links to the publisher's website and booksellers. Through a variety of access limitations and security measures, some based on user-tracking, Google limits the number of viewable pages and attempts to prevent page printing and www.vinniki.com/pedu/page=3.html text copying of material under copyright protection.
- On MeatballWiki:
- Blinded By Science: How ‘Balanced’ Coverage Lets the Scientific Fringe Hijack Reality - Chris Mooney, Columbia Journalism Review. A valuable warning to Wikipedians about how some methods used to balance coverage can lead to biased, inaccurate and misleading reporting.
- Multiple points of view: see religion-wiki: Multiple points of view