Neutral point of view

From RationalWiki

“Prepare to continue the epic struggle between Good and Neutral!”

~ Conservapedia Zapp Brannigan.^[1]

Neutral point of view (NPOV) is a non-fiction writing style in which all aspects of a subject are discussed without expressing the view of the author, or drawing a moral or political conclusion on the subject. Treatment of the subject typically includes balanced discussion of significant and noted attitudes and opinions to it, no view is emphasized unduly over others. NPOV is rarely used in essays, which are usually intended to prove a point or reach a conclusion on a given subject, but is widely used in factual resources such as encyclopedias.

1 NPOV on Wikipedia
2 Conservapedia's criticism of NPOV
3 Alternatives to NPOV
4 Footnotes

[edit] NPOV on Wikipedia

NPOV is a Wikipedia foundation issue,^[2] and one of the five pillars of Wikipedia.^[3] It is a central feature of Wikipedia's encyclopedic style, and extensive project page space is given over to outlining what NPOV means and how it should be implemented, addressing possible objections to it, and tutoring editors to write in neutral wording.^[4] Naturally, every editor has opinions, and some may attempt to express them in Wikipedia content. However, such biased content is liable to be removed or ammended by other editors to maintain the NPOV balance. Editors who wish to make additions to articles and see them remain in place must learn to right factually in a NPOV style, verifying all assertions with citations and references. In this way, the Wikipedia community is (at least partially) self-regulating in terms of editorial neutrality.

[edit] Conservapedia's criticism of NPOV

Conservapedia maintains that "Bias gets in the way of reliability" but also that "Neutrality may not be an antidote to bias".^[5] This does not explain how the path to reliability can be achieved, or why neutrality is not an antidote to bias, since the opposite of biased is unbiased. However, this seems to be the only explicit criticism of the concept of neutrality. Most of Conservapedia's criticism of Wikipedia focuses on its claim that "Despite its official 'neutrality policy', Wikipedia has a strong liberal bias".^[6] Since "Neutrality may not be an antidote", Conservapedia counters the perceived liberal bias in Wikipedia with flagrant right-wing fundamentalist bias and propaganda throughout its own pages.

Most, if not all, of Conservapedia's examples of 'liberal bias' within Wikipedia do not stand up to scrutiny, and they tend to show a basic inability (deliberate or otherwise) to comprehend the concepts of NPOV and verifiability. Many are simply examples of the kind of hardline conservative claptrap trotted out on Conservapedia itself, with the suggestion that Wikipedia is biased for not forming the same outrageous moralising conclusions. For example, Wikipedia has a 'liberal bias' in that it does not insinuate that Barack Obama's career is the result of racial quotas and affirmative action, characterise homosexuals as violent and promiscuous, or postulate that atheism leads to meanness and suicide. Furthermore, Wikipedia is acused of 'promoting' suicide, in that it objectively mentions suicides in a high number of articles and biographies.^[7]

[edit] Alternatives to NPOV

[edit] CPOV (Conservative Point Of View)

This is the style used on Conservapedia. Instead of seeking a balanced discussion of all sides of an argument, consensus is reached by pushing an argument so far right that it cannot go any further. CPOV can also stand for:

Christian Point of View
Creationist Point of View
Cranks' Point of View
Crazy Point of View
Cretins' Point of View.

[edit] SPOV (Snarky Point Of View)

SPOV is the style encouraged on RationalWiki. Neutrality is all very well in its place, but certain controversial contentions and ridiculous opinions are liable to provoke a snarkastic response in any rational thinking person. It is only fitting that such subjects should be treated with the "snarkasm" they so richly deserve.

[edit] MOPOV (My Own Point Of View)

This is a style widely used in many contexts, in which the author assumes that his or her own opinions are intrinsically more correct, valuable or interesting than any other person's opinions, by virtue of being his or her own. MOPOV expressions can be mildly indulgent, but if such behaviour continues unchallenged, or is even bolstered by the adulation of others, it can gradually lead the author to conclude that his or her word is infallible, or that he or she is in fact God. This state of affairs can bring a host of unwanted responsibilities. Fortunately, excessive MOPOV can be remedied in its early stages with judicial use of "snarkasm".

See also: Argument from authority.