Content-Type: text/html

# NeutralPointOfView

HomePage | RecentChanges | Preferences
You can edit this page right now! It's a free, community project

A general purpose encyclopedia is a collection of synthesized knowledge presented from a neutral point of view. To whatever extent possible, encyclopedic writing should steer clear of taking any particular stance other than the stance of the neutral point of view.

The neutral point of view attempts to present ideas and facts in such a fashion that both supporters and opponents can agree. Of course, 100% agreement is not possible; there are ideologues in the world who will not concede to any presentation other than a forceful statement of their own point of view. We can only seek a type of writing that is agreeable to essentially rational people who may differ on particular points.

Some examples may help to drive home the point I am trying to make.

1. An encyclopedic article should not argue that corporations are criminals, even if the author believes it to be so. It should instead present the fact that some people believe it, and what their reasons are, and then as well it should present what the other side says.

2. An encyclopedia article should not argue that laissez-faire capitalism is the best social system. (I happen to believe this, by the way.) It should instead present the arguments of the advocates of that point of view, and the arguments of the people who disagree with that point of view.

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. --Jimbo Wales

Of course, I agree. For more in the same vein, see [Nupedia's policy statement]: VI.A.ii. LACK OF BIAS. -- Larry Sanger

I have one minor clarification that I would add: I don't think the practice of including other points of view implies that an article should treat them equally. In reporting things like pseudoscience, for example, I think it is within the obligation of an encyclopedia to emphasize the lack of scientific basis for some beliefs, and to clearly state that belief in such things is not justified by apparent facts.

Invariably, inclusion of different points of view or even different factual events may unbalance an encyclopedia entry.

A clear mention of lack of scientific basis without additional emphasis is adequate to place anomolous or pseudoscientific positions in context. Science is not the be-all and end-all of human inquiry, and worship of its supposed infallibility in detecting the truth has at times delayed recognition of valid observations or procedures because they were "unscientific." Medicine is famous for this. Chiropractic, herbal medicine, acupuncture, chelation therapy, etc. have all been quackery until science discovered why they worked. Humans cling mightily to their religious observances which "fly in the face" of science, and yet we do not go out of our way to discredit them. What remains unconfirmed by science deserves such a mention- a reader should not be confused that physical confirmation has been demonstrated when it has not. But it is not necessary to exhibit antagonism for these ideas beyond that.

Every now and then a crackpot's speculation turns out to be right--that doesn't mean that we shouldn't call it speculation when it still is. Chiropractic, herbal medicine, accupuncture, and chelation are all still quackery in most cases, and we should not shirk from saying so, except in those few instances where they have been studied scientifically for specific things. Chelation to treat heavy-metal poisoning, for example, or drugs derived from certain herbs. "Science" as I use the term here is just methodical honesty. Once you have honestly and properly tested something and evaluated the results, you can say that it has some reasonable basis. But when something has been tested repeatedly and failed (like chelation for treatment of cancer/heart disease, chiropractic for treatment of bacterial and viral disease, and all of homeopathy), continued belief in that thing is not merely an "alternative" point of view--it's clearly wrong and dangerous. --Lee Daniel Crocker

You and I clearly differ on this. "Once you have honestly and properly tested something and evaluated the results, you can say that it has some reasonable basis." Those you call quacks and crackpots will aver that they have done just as you suggest. Granted, they may rely wholly on what they perceive as empirical "evidence," but most will not admit to a moment's dishonesty with regard to their researches, even to themselves. Neither, by the way, will most research scientists, even when they claim proofs which are later proven false.

Relying on testimonials is inherently willfully dishonest, because we have known about the placebo affect for years and have proven it beyond a shadow of any doubt. To continue to cling to testimonials after knowing about the placebo affect, and knowing that placebo-controlled studies of something have failed, is negligent. Yes, many traditional scientists also have egos and can deceive themselves. That's why real journals have peer review. What I'm saying here is that Wikipedia articles should act as peer review, and clearly identify such deception when we see it.

You can claim something "has been repeatedly tested and failed" but should put that claim in context - ie, it "has been repeatedly tested" with available methods, which is not to say that available methods are infallible or capable or detecting or measuring all things. A little humility goes a long way. It is the most valuable quality for an experimental scientist to possess, in my view. "We are SCIENCE and we declare that assertion to be PURE BUNK," holds no water with me. "I tested it with every method which seemed reasonable to me and I cannot verify your assertion" is honest and says all that needs to be said. If history is any indicator, time will eventually reveal whether the assertions were at fault or the experimenter's methods or observations were. It is not up to us to foreclose the possibility that more may be discovered on the basis of what has not been discovered.

So - in your articles you will openly declare things hokum and bunk. I will call them unverified. And we will be free to tinker with each other's articles. And in some future age, we will all know who was on the right side of which of today's contentious questions.

"Unverified" is fine if that's the case; other things have been tested and failed, and that's different. And article should point out such failures.

I will go ahead and beat this to death: Let's look at my re-treatment of Numerology. I said generally "numerologist believe..." and noted that independent verfication of these beliefs is lacking. I went a step further and mentioned what I see as a nearly insuperable fallacy in the belief in the validity of numerology as it applies to the names of things (unrelated numerlogic values in different languages for the same exact thing) and mentioned this as a question which remains unexplained. In my mind, that fallacy may be just about adequate to invalidate the entire field. Numerologists will differ. It is not my job to tell them they are full of it. Let reasonable people look at it objectively and draw their own conclusions.

I have no problem with that article. It's exactly what I'm talking about. What I'm warning against is the treatment of such "alternative" ideas on an equal basis with verified ones. That article clearly states the case that the belief is unfounded, and that's good.

OK - stepping off the soap box...

Ah, well - in that case, we are in agreement as to how to couch these things. Larry asserted early, and I think we all agreed, that "neutral" handling of unproven claims would uniformly include revelation of their lack of proven foundation. Dang - another happy ending... ;^) AyeSpy

Controversy has more to do with social cultural context than with the truth probability or "factual" nature of the proposition itself.

Let's look a two examples. For an example of a majority believed opinion which is controversial in some circles, let's look at the historical evidence for the Holocaust, which most agree is fact, but is believed to be controversial opinion by some groups (Neo-Nazi and KKK members). For another example, let's take the belief that the universe exists in three dimensional space, this is believed by most people to be true, but physicists "know" that time is another dimension, and many believe that we exist in a 10 dimensional "space."

Should the Wikipedia be neutral on these two positions? I doubt it. How about the issue of evolution which is very controversial amongst some communities in the United States? What about subjects like the history of economics, which would be presented very differently from a Chinese perspective?

Given that nutrality is not a real option in lots of cases, I think the most you can do is to:

- Ask writers to use some humility in the face of controversial opinions
- Plan to cover as many sides of the controversy as possible
- Hope/trust the WikiNature? to produce consensus on controversial documents which present all sides fairly. -- MarkChristensen

Obviously, I totally disagree with Mark that "neutrality is not a real option in lots of cases." I'm not sure I can think of a single one where it is not a real option. --LMS

Well, just as Devil's advocate for a moment: Would it be OK to say "Mozart is among the greatest composers", or would I have to use weasel(ly) words like "Mozart is considered by many/most to be among the greatest composers", given I can find intelligent, rational people who disagree with the former statement. GWO

"Weasel words" if you want to call them that are necessary for being unbiased--qualifications are necessary--basically, you want to say things that virtually all intelligent, rational people can agree with, and you want to couch things in such a way as that it is clear to virtually all such people that the text does not seem to be advocating one view over another. But merely stating a majority opinion doesn't do that, I think. --LMS

The problem with saying only things that "virtually all intelligent people agree on" is that there are so many important issues about which there is wide disagreement. Is matter/energy all that is? It's hard to avoid questions like this when talking about Plato -- and there human community is filled with widely divergent points of view. How does one present Anselem's ontological argument for the existence of God? You can include the major critiques and defenses of the argument, but I'm not convinced you can avoid letting some hint of your own view through.

I had not read this page before, and the view you express here is certainly not followed on Epistemology, [Faith and Reason]?, Obviously bad arguments for the existence of God, and basically all of the other pages in the Larrys Text group. Now I understand that these texts are not up to your standards, and I'd like to contribute, but as a presupositionalist, and someone who is fundamentally convinced that that "brute facts" are random and meaningless without a context, and thus believes all relevant facts to be "interpreted facts." Moreover every contextual reading of a fact, or presentation of such facts, will presupposes a variety of ideas -- at least some of which are controversial.

My personal methodology when presenting a philosopher's ideas to a group of philosophy students is to step into that philosopher's shoes and present the best argument I can for the validity of their views. Later on I teach people how to critique those views, but at no point do any of us pretend to be neutral... And frankly I don't know how to do anything other than pretend...

If the encyclopedia requires a pretense of neutrality, I think that's too bad because philosophy is inevitably tied to arguments, and the advance or critique of arguments is a non-neutral activity (by definition).

Moreover, I think the illusion of neutrality can be added through "Weasel words," but they don't produce "real neutrality." If all you want is for me to pretend nutrality through the use of simple "Weasel words" I certianly can offer that. (Though I'd rather not.) --MarkChristensen

Mark, first of all, please do see Creationism/Talk, as I think it might clear up my position for you.

  The problem with saying only things that "virtually all intelligent people agree on" is that there are so many important issues about which there is wide disagreement. Is matter / energy all that is?...

I think you're failing to understand our position ("our" meaning mine, Jimbo's, and many other people's here on Wikipedia--as well as Nupedia). Where people do not agree about substantive views (obviously, materialism would be one example of a substantive view), they might well agree on how to formulate the views, or what the views are. In that case, that's what Wikipedia should report on--and in depth! All the detail of philosophical theorizing and discourse can be expressed, but it must be attributed to someone. And very often, of course, particularly in philosophy but in other fields as well, scholars disagree even about how to formulate a controversy. In that case, we "go meta" again, this time to explain the different ways people have of formulating a debate.

  How does one present Anselem's ontological argument for the existence of God? You can include the major critiques and defenses of the argument, but I'm not convinced you can avoid letting some hint of your own view through.

Suppose you go to the ontological argument (where I have presented the argument) and you spot something that hints at my own bias. Then you point it out to me; and I remove the alleged hint. Where bias is perceivable, it is also removeable.

  I had not read this page before, and the view you express here is certainly not followed on Epistemology, [faith and reason]?, obviously bad arguments for the existence of God, and basically all of the other pages in the [Larrys Text] group.

That's correct, and I say as much on Larrys Text. Please see the pages that I have "wikified," including the first two chapters (introductory stuff and logic) as well as, approximately, the first half of the metaphysics chapter.

  Now I understand that these texts are not up to your standards, and I'd like to contribute, but as a presupositionalist, and someone who is fundamentally convinced that that "brute facts" are random and meaningless without a context, and thus believes all relevant facts to be "interpreted facts." Moreover every contextual reading of a fact, or presentation of such facts, will presupposes a variety of ideas -- at least some of which are controversial.

If this is your final word on the issue, then I would ask you please not to participate. Unless you are willing to try, at least, to write from a neutral point of view, I personally would not welcome your contributions here. (Of course, I really do want you to participate as much as you can!) Please try to understand that our position is not that it is possible to have some sort of "presuppositionless" point of view in writing. I'm not even sure what that means. The point is a rather more practical one. The idea is that we can, in fact, identify when a presentation of competing views (not of the subject matter itself--in encyclopedia philosophy articles, one presents views, or even views about views, about the subject matter) are tendentious. You have probably read many encyclopedia articles and news articles and other text such that it was extremely difficult to tell what view the author held; the author seemed to be much more concerned with carefully and fairly presenting competing views on a subject, each presented sympathetically, and perhaps with more emphasis on whatever the most popular views are, simply because they are the more popular views.

  If the encyclopedia requires a pretense of neutrality, I think that's too bad because philosophy is inevitably tied to arguments, and the advance or critique of arguments is a non-neutral activity (by definition).

The advance and critique of arguments is of course a non-neutral activity, but encyclopedias are not in the business of advancing and critiquing arguments. They are in the business of presenting and clarifying arguments. You make it sound as though one could not write about philosophy without advancing or critiquing arguments. That's pretty obviously false, isn't it? Think speech acts: I can engage in the speech act of reporting, even when the report is of the act of asserting that p, without myself asserting that p. So, I could go into as much depth as you please, reporting about various competing arguments and critiques thereof, and all the other apparatus of philosophy, without (necessarily) committing myself to any of the claims reported.

Personally, I find it extremely annoying when a philosopher writes an encyclopedia article on some topic and winds up advocating his own pet theory, when there are many other theories out there. Commonly, I notice, such articles are rather weak in their presentation of competing views. The thought that usually goes through my mind when presented with this sort of article is, "Why should I give a flying f*** what this author thinks? Who the h*** does he think he is, trying to tell me what the Truth on this matter is? I'll make up my own mind, thanks very much. Just give me the facts, the facts about what the various leading contenders have said, and their arguments, and I'll weigh their merits myself."

  Moreover, I think the illusion of neutrality can be added through "Weasel words," but they don't produce "real neutrality." If all you want is for me to pretend nutrality through the use of simple "Weasel words" I certianly can offer that.

The reason why "weasel words" is inappropriate in this context is that the phrase means language qualified in order to permit the author a variety of options in defending the text against objections. If I accuse you of using weasel words, I am saying that your language does not sufficiently commit you to some position clearly enough for it to be worth my while to argue against you, because if I do argue against you, you'll "clarify" what you meant in such a way as to render my arguments irrelevant. So it should be obvious why "weasel words" is not appropriate to apply to text intentionally written from the neutral point of view: since encyclopedia articles are not supposed to commit the author(s) to any particular views, (accurate) language expressly used to avoid committing them to any particular view is to be congratulated, not insulted.

Anyway, Mark, I think I have rendered the position on this page clearer and even, I hope, less controversial. So I hope you can live within these constraints. A lot of other people seem to be able to... --Larry Sanger

My short answer is "I think I can live with the constraints you actually practice, but I can't agree with your description of those constraints." --MarkChristensen (A clear description of what I mean will follow shortly.)

Alright, this debate seems to be going the wrong direction. I've read creationism, and creationism/talk? and all of your comments there. And your recent writings here. I've also gone ahead and read the parts of Larrys Text which have been "wikified." And I'm still confused. Without going into detail about any of those pages, I want to say that it is my impression that 1) Creationism was obviously written by someone who is not a creationist, and is in fact an opponent of creationism, and therefore, it strikes me as impossibly confusing to claim that page represents a [Neutral point of View]?.

That's not to say I have a specific objection with the creationism page (other than it presents none of the arguments from either side?). But I find it amazing that anyone could claim that it is really neutral. Now, I don't have a problem with being, presenting both sides of the issue's best arguments, etc. I just don't believe neutrality is/has been achieved. Nor do I even think it is a particularly laudable goal, because if we were ultimately neutral we'd have to say absolutely everything (which is impossible) or absolutely nothing, and while it's possible to say nothing, it does little to help build a usable online encyclopedia.

Ok. Enough of the negative argument, because I think our goals may be similar. I just have a strong objection to your terminology. I agree that it is annoying when an author makes his opinion a prominent part of a supposedly informational article. I also agree that it is possible to "report" on someone's argument with out advancing that argument.

However, I am still committed to the position that the way you structure your report, the information you include in your summary, the weight you apportion to various components of the argument, the way you report on the counterarguments, all of these factors are inevitably going to add up to some kind of bias. This is inevitable because there is no clear line between persuasion and pedagogy, and because there are non-volitional factors which influence every speech act.

That said, I'd like to propose a positive set of goals which I think are achievable, and will result in the kind of texts you want, without reference to what I consider to be a mythical [Neutral Point of View]?

I believe that reasonable goals when presenting a philosopher's work are:

1) Accuracy 2) Fairness 3) Generosity 4) Humility

Let me take each of these in turn.

Accuracy is an obvious virtue for writers of all kinds. Obviously it is an act of bad faith to put words in someone else's mouth, or to knowingly disseminate false information.

Fairness, by contrast is sometimes by some writers considered to be optional. I myself don't believe that this is so, even in purely argumentative writing, effective persuasion requires presenting the best of your opponent's arguments in the best light possible, and then presenting the best counterarguments available. In an ideal world fairness would mean that your presentation of a position you disagree with would be accurate, finely balanced, and persuasive, and a proponent of that position would be willing to sign off on it as it stands.

Generosity is an attitude toward those you disagree with. It is somewhat akin maintaining a Positive tone.

Humility is the virtue of getting out of the way. Inexperienced or insecure writers often create texts which seem to scream "look at me, look at me!" Instead, an entry on Hume, should be asking the reader to look at Hume, and the author should be getting out of the way. Of course, generosity, fairness, and accuracy are essential tools for an author who respects his subject, and wants to stay out of the way.

Anyway, I think that it is fair to say that I believe that in spite of the fact that I don't plan to be neutral, or to even pretend to have such neutrality I can write pages which I think will meet the criteria I see used in other pages on the Wiki, as well as pages you've written, because I think the type of work you are looking for isn't really about neutrality, but about quality. In particular I think that if I strive to create fair, accurate, pages which present their subjects in the best light I can, and try to stay out of the way, the result will be something we can both agree is worthwhile, as well as something you might call neutral (but which I would not).

Perhaps we have a mere semantic dispute on our hands here. Why don't you want to call the style of writing you describe, which for the sake of argument we'll say is the ideal one, of a "neutral" sort? English words are there to be used, and "neutral" has a very definite sense in English when applied to texts, roughly equivalent to "unbiased":

- http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=neutral
- http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=unbiased

Your position strikes me as analogous to that of the skeptic who insists that our best examples of empirical knowledge do not constitute "certain knowledge," simply because he has an impossibly difficult standard to satisfy. Why not proceed as a particularist, saying with Chisholm that whatever of our beliefs are less doubtful than any others are, by definition, certain?

By the way, rereading it, I agree that the creationism article could stand to present the creationists' view a bit more sympathetically. That would make the article more neutral (or less biased). --LMS

I'm uncomfortable with some articles making assumptions based on a USA/N American point of view. If possible I try to qualify information with stuff like "In America..." or something like that. Maybe whiney, but on the internet I don't think it should be assumed that the audience is American... -AD. (see dessert for listings of western european desserts. Gonna qualify that one sooner or later.)

Hear, hear. --LMS

See Creationism/Talk for lots more debate.

See also Positive tone.

HomePage | RecentChanges | Preferences
You can edit this page right now! It's a free, community project
Edit text of this page | View other revisions
Last edited August 13, 2001 4:10 pm (diff)
Search: