1516:
2416:: "No, you have to be kidding me. Every single person who signed this petition needs to go back to check their premises and think harder about what it means to be honest, factual, truthful. Knowledge's policies around this kind of thing are exactly spot-on and correct. If you can get your work published in respectable scientific journals - that is to say, if you can produce evidence through replicable scientific experiments, then Knowledge will cover it appropriately. What we won't do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of 'true scientific discourse'. It isn't." —
500:
1001:
143:
875:
view, even when it may not align with their own opinions of what is true. So be it. Knowledge is more interested in the documentation of reliably verifiable human knowledge than the determination of subjective "truth". Any attempt to do the latter is a futile endeavor to maintain balance on a slippery slope greased by conflicting opinions. Proven scientific facts, on the other hand, are another matter; they can be nailed down.
1374:, sources to document their existence and main concepts. Such sources are considered "reliable" only for that single purpose. Failure to use such unsavory sources would mean we fail to document a large part of unpleasant reality. We wish nonsense did not flourish, but it does, so we must document it. It too is part of the "sum total of human knowledge". We are allowed to document these things, but not
2243:, still guard right wing articles, and it's impossible to make them even close to NPOV. Anything negative, no matter how well sourced, will sooner or later be deleted by them. We're talking about billions of dollars at stake, so these people are serious and use any and all methods to make sure that any controversy or criticism in Koch brothers related articles is removed or greatly minimized.
410:. They are not part of the official encyclopedia but are all part of the behind-the-scenes workplace editors use to aid in the production of articles. They are not covered by NPOV or bound by the same rules as articles and may express the unsourced opinions of editors, use Knowledge essays, policies, and guidelines as sources, and in other ways are different from articles.
1607:. A conjecture that has not received critical review from the scientific community or that has been rejected may be included in an article about a scientific subject only if other high-quality reliable sources discuss it as an alternative position. Ideas supported only by a tiny minority may be explained in articles devoted to those ideas if they are
2082:: "In the same spirit, therefore, should each type of statement be received; for it is the mark of an educated man to look for precision in each class of things just so far as the nature of the subject admits; it is evidently equally foolish to accept probable reasoning from a mathematician and to demand from a rhetorician scientific proofs." —
38:
788:: "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." That means that it is part of Knowledge's function to document biases, opinions, and points of view. They are part of "all human knowledge", and we find them in the reliable sources we use.
108:
1217:" distaste for quack anything: medicine, science, psychology, social science ... I often vote to keep articles on these subjects, because the advocates of orthodoxy here sometimes seem to be even less reasonable than the quacks--and because I think the best way to expose quacks is to let them state their views plainly." —
2457:: "Science-based medicine has one rigorous standard of evidence, the kind .... CAM has a double standard. They gladly accept a lower standard of evidence for treatments they believe in. However, I suspect they would reject a pharmaceutical if it were approved for marketing on the kind of evidence they accept for CAM."
174:) neutrally, even when those facts and opinions present bias. The expression "neutral point of view" is misleading because the "Neutral" in NPOV refers to an editorial attitude and mindset; it is not a true "point of view". It refers primarily to editorial behavior, and relatedly to aspects of how editors present
1450:"I believe in evidence. I believe in observation, measurement, and reasoning, confirmed by independent observers. I'll believe anything, no matter how wild and ridiculous, if there is evidence for it. The wilder and more ridiculous something is, however, the firmer and more solid the evidence will have to be." —
792:"get between" the sources and the content. Editors should put their own opinions aside and "stay out of the way" by neutrally documenting what a source says, including its opinions and biases. That means that when editors edit neutrally, Knowledge content will reflect the biases found in reliable sources.
882:". Because we document the "sum of all human knowledge" as it's found in reliable sources, if something is weird, odd, or sensational, it will often receive "even more" coverage in RS, and that's why we must cover it "even more", rather than treat it as trivia. It's what we do. We don't cover it because
1808:: "In particular, the goal of the Knowledge is to produce the best encyclopedia encapsulating the sum total of human knowledge.... offers the possibility of everything being written into history, with all of mankind sharing knowledge and information in a way that enables everyone to profit from it." —
894:
weird. If they think it's trivia, they will ignore it, and so should we. On the other hand, if they cover it, and we then treat it as trivia and ignore it, we have violated NPOV by using editorial bias to give it a weight that differs from the weight it is given in reliable sources. We must always be
521:
The expression "neutral point of view" is misleading because the "N" in NPOV refers to an editorial attitude and mindset; it is not a true "point of view". Editors have their inclinations and biases, but when they are editing they must put on their "editor's hat". That "hat" is a neutral attitude and
1528:
If editors write properly and distribute due weight appropriately (more here and less there), readers should sense that an article includes biases, both in its parts and as a whole. Those biases must not come from editors, but solely from its sources, and readers should sense that the mainstream and
1243:
to the mainstream point of view, the quack point of view should be stated succinctly, without promotion or advocacy, and the mainstream skeptical view should be stated clearly so as to make it clear that the subject is deprecated by the mainstream. The bias in favor of the mainstream should be clear
1185:
should not be used as a justification for marginalizing or removing scientific criticism of creation science, since creation science itself is almost never published in peer-reviewed journals. Likewise, views of adherents should not be excluded from an article on creation science solely on the basis
1173:. Their documentation is usually based on poor sources, they lack reliable evidence, and they are therefore neglected by the mainstream and rarely mentioned in mainstream reliable sources. While they deserve the scorn they receive, they are still part of that reality which we must document here. The
1046:
The point of view and spirit found in sources must be preserved and presented "as is", without editorial interference. Editors must not neutralize the biases and points of view in sources, neither by hiding nor censoring them, nor by giving them more or less due weight than they have in the sources.
791:
Knowledge content reflects the biases in the sources it uses. The NPOV policy requires articles to fairly and proportionately represent the views published in reliable sources. It does not permit editors to "correct" or remove biases they see in sources, or to allow their own beliefs and opinions to
1252:
Because
Knowledge has a bias towards the use of reliable and accurate sources, fringe POV pushers have a hard time here. While it should not be difficult to include facts about proven reality, it should be difficult to make fringe points of view appear to be true. If fringe POV pushers want to edit
1063:
of editors. It is often an unconscious, rather than malicious, phenomenon. It is one of those natural human faults to which we are all prone, but we must guard against it. Editors must consciously remove those glasses when editing, because they must faithfully document the ideas, biases, and spirit
643:
is an important trait of good editors. They must be able to divorce themselves from their own POV so much that they can bend over backward to aid in the writing of content which documents views they do not like. They must never block the inclusion of content that opposes their own POV or political
627:
to adopt, and that is a bias in favor of using all types of reliable sources, regardless of the sources' points of view. Refusal to use a source because "it is biased" is totally wrong, because most reliable sources are biased; they were written to make some point, otherwise, they would not exist.
1235:
Minority opinions should not be silenced arbitrarily. They should be described but should be assigned less weight than mainstream opinions, simply because mainstream opinions are backed by more reliable sources, reliable research, and better fact-checking. The lack of these things is part of what
971:
To make it clear that biased content is not from editors, attribution is essential. The more strong and biased a statement, the more likely it should be an exact quote attributed to the author. These are situations where paraphrasing is usually not appropriate. We don't leave out such content, we
134:
content. Since
Knowledge does not take sides, and because it documents all types of biased points of view, often using biased sources, article content cannot be neutral. Source bias must remain evident and unaffected by editorial revisionism, censorship, whitewashing, or political correctness. We
933:
Note that the "NPOV test" of appropriate content balance (in articles that document points of view and biases) is not the presence of positive and favorable content, but the presence or absence of properly sourced negative and controversial content, giving each their due weight. If the latter is
874:
The due weight distribution in an article should always mirror the unequal balance usually found between reliable sources. This will usually favor the mainstream point of view, and that should be the impression received by readers. They should learn that the best sources favor a certain point of
1616:
Fringe editors do not like this situation, but it's what's best for creating a dependable encyclopedia. Although we oppose POV pushing by fringe editors, we must keep in mind that they may still raise valid suggestions and objections, so it is important to hear them out, and if they have solid,
647:
It should be possible for an editor to contribute in an NPOV fashion, even though they have strong points of view in real life. Just as "it is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it," it is also the mark of a good editor to be able to understand and
745:
be documented, and all types of reliable sources, including biased ones, should be used: "While
Knowledge is required to present a neutral point of view, sources on the other hand are not expected to be neutral." Therefore, source bias must remain evident and unaffected by editors. They
302:, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view does not mean the exclusion of certain points of view, but includes all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due
1032:
Editors must not exercise censorship; they must present all significant sides of any controversy and document the opposing points of view, and they must not shield readers from such views. To leave out one side amounts to promoting the other side's POV. Knowledge should include
545:
By contrast, in other situations, they can be themselves, and their expressions of personal biases and beliefs must not be used against them by claiming it indicates they edit in a biased manner. Discussing and editing are two different things. Such an accusation is a serious
644:
positions. If they cannot do this, they should recuse themselves from the topic and edit in other areas. Editors who are unwilling or unable to write for the opponent are incapable of truly understanding or abiding by the NPOV policy. As such they will always cause problems.
1050:
Censorship involves removing, hiding, sidelining, distorting, and/or refusing to include properly sourced content. Active censorship by any of these methods is one of the most blatant violations of NPOV. Knowledge does not "take sides", but censorship does take sides, and
721:
form of bias, hence their efforts to remove content and sources they perceive as "not neutral". They do not understand "neutral" in the
Knowledge sense of the word, and think NPOV means content should have "No Point Of View", when nothing could be further from the truth.
769:
of millions of articles, violation of NPOV, and denial that such points of view exist in the real world. Yes, it's an uncomfortable and sad fact that nonsense exists, but it is our job to document all of it that is notable enough to be mentioned in reliable sources.
1502:
as to not understand reality, or to consider nonsense to be true, should have a hard time here, and they do because they lack good sources. To make up for the lack they often use original research and poor sources, and then dare to demand that they be treated in a
190:
There are some types of articles where points of view (POV) are not a notable or problematic factor, but most articles document points of view and biases, and that's how it should be. This essay is primarily about such articles and how to deal with biased content.
198:) is our most sacred policy, yet its use of the word "neutral" is constantly misunderstood by editors and visitors who feel that NPOV occupies some sort of "No Point Of View" middle ground between biased points of view. Points of view and criticisms are by nature
761:
Without the use of non-neutral sources to document the non-neutral biases in the real world, most of our articles would fail to document "the sum total of human knowledge," and would be rather blah reading, devoid of much meaningful and interesting content.
233:. 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," and editors must not leave or create holes in our coverage.
169:
It means "neutrally reflecting what the sources say. It does not mean that the article has to be 'neutral'." We do not document "neutral facts or opinions". Instead, we write about all facts and referenced opinions (that aren't solely based on
1067:
Editors must not use whitewashing to hide uncomfortable views, neither those they don't like nor those which are critical of the article's subject. NPOV requires the inclusion of such material. If an article lacks criticism, the fact that
186:
bias, while remaining neutral in how they do it. Source bias must remain evident and unaffected by editorial revisionism, censorship, whitewashing, or political correctness. Editors must remain neutral toward any existing bias in sources.
628:
After all, persuasion is a major purpose of communication. Writers don't write, and speakers don't speak, just to say "I have no point of view". Of course, they have points of view and biases, and our job is to document them. We actually
862:
with due care and caution, please. Devoting equal time and space to all 'sides' of a controversy only makes sense if all sides are equally credible. Where a preponderance of evidence – or an outright consensus among experts – exists,
983:
of content is that deletion "goes against the entire basic premise" of
Knowledge: "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." —
827:
Attempts to keep an article or its lead balanced and neutral (free of non-neutral opinions) are necessarily based on the subjective opinions and judgment of editors. They are therefore most often an expression of forbidden
1489:"A habit of basing convictions upon evidence, and of giving to them only that degree of certainty which the evidence warrants, would, if it became general, cure most of the ills from which this world is suffering." —
1365:
Some fringe and nonsensical ideas are not notable enough for their own articles but deserve mention within existing articles because of brief mention in RS. Because they are not well-documented in mainstream RS, per
1940:
612:. Therefore other editors provide an important counterbalancing service when they spot and correct the consequences of our biased editing. When pointing out such editing errors, it is important to follow the
471:, in other words, editors must ensure that articles do not show any "declared or intentional bias" coming from editors, only the bias found in the sources. Because points of view and criticisms are by nature
2175:
Knowledge, on the other hand, begins with a very radical idea, and that's for all of us to imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge.
655:
the information the article contains, but if they are good
Knowledge editors, they will not be satisfied until all significant opposing points of view have been presented factually and without promotion.
1186:
that their work lacks peer review. Other considerations for notability should be considered as well. Fringe views are properly excluded from articles on mainstream subjects to the extent that they are
565:
material in a manner that misrepresents its original meaning or presents it with a slant or point of view not found in the source. Such misrepresentation may occur by painting a rosier picture, using
1498:
Both in the real world and here at
Knowledge, the fringe point of view must produce very strong evidence (good sources) if it can ever be accepted as legitimate and true. Those who are so far
2192:
217:
because not all points of view are equal. There is no policy that dictates that we cannot document, use, and include "non-neutral" sources, opinions, or facts in an article body or its
2040:
is an example of the unfortunate consequences of not having a point of view: "'The problem was she could sing a telephone directory, but she didn't have a musical point of view,' says
486:
any conflict between them. Knowledge does not take part in the discussion between those sides. It merely describes them and does not erase or neutralize any of the sides in an article.
2232:
1072:
criticism does not mean that criticism should be kept out of the article. That too is censorship. Such a lack of criticism may be a sign that censorship has been at play, either by
1841:
This comment, made by a blocked trolling-only account, ironically illustrates both a misunderstanding of NPOV and the fact that points of view are what makes content worth reading:
1396:) for acceptance as logical, sensible, and true, we demand a much higher sourcing standard; we demand "extraordinary evidence". If they can manage that, maybe they aren't fringe.
1725:"Neutral editing" obviously means "when editors edit neutrally," since no human being is truly "neutral" or free from bias. No one possesses completely "unbiased, unfiltered"
812:
a "point of view". Such a position is extremely rare in real life and reliable sources. As such, it is a position we rarely document or include. NPOV does not mean neutral or
2056:
1846:: "It is a very well-written article that provides all points of view except the neutral one. But why would we want that. The intelligent debate is far more interesting."
1647:
178:
content. Editors must not allow their biases to non-neutrally affect whether or how they include, delete, or present biased content and sources. They must not introduce
294:
and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without editorial bias. Knowledge aims to
1047:
There are some types of articles where points of view are not a problematic factor, but most articles document points of view and biases, and that's how it should be.
1691:
2240:
124:. We do not document exclusively neutral facts or opinions; we write about facts and opinions neutrally. The "Neutral" in NPOV refers to an editorial attitude and
1825:
and certain navigation pages. Whatever would be found in a published encyclopedia is considered part of the encyclopedia. Editorial functions are not part of it.
1507:
not recognized by our policies and guidelines. Such attempts have been soundly ridiculed and rejected here, and such editors often end up blocked and/or banned.
956:, for every opinion, there is likely an equal and opposite opinion out there which should be included. The NPOV test describes biased content which exists in an
800:
In the broad spectrum of opposing points of view, "neutral" occupies the exact middle position between opposing points of view and takes no side in the matter,
202:
neutral, and all types of biased points of view must be documented, often using biased sources, so the resulting content should not be neutral or free of bias.
2099:
1573:
1704:
2597:
1686:
836:". This does not mean that no attempt should ever be made to rectify the gross imbalance, but don't react to it by seeking a completely equal balance:
2224:
2024:
1434:
policies. When editors use these policies properly, they are applying the scientific method. The following notable quotes touch on these matters:
1134:
While mainstream subjects are based on numerous excellent sources and tend to receive favorable treatment here, there are editors whose legitimate
1603:
policy requires that all majority and significant-minority positions be included in an article. However, it also requires that they not be given
1641:
669:
2306:"In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded." —
1236:
makes an opinion a "minority" opinion. If it can muster better evidence and documentation in better sources, it becomes a mainstream opinion.
2558:
1402:
When dealing with the evidence for claims, and especially claims for fringe subjects, scientists and skeptics follow the basic principles of
2186:"All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others." ―
651:
One indication that NPOV is being met is when editors on both sides of a controversial issue disagree with, and are not totally happy with,
934:
minimal or missing, something is likely wrong and NPOV is being violated. The complete or partial removal of properly sourced content is
1662:
1636:
915:
2204:
1677:
903:
idea of trivia, or, alternatively, they just feel like giving trivia a lot of attention, which for us translates to greater "weight".
640:
530:
attitude. As long as their biases do not cause them to violate policy, there should be no problem. While editing, editors must remain
2480:
53:
It contains the advice or opinions of one or more
Knowledge contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of
399:
54:
1587:
of fringe points of view, so the fact that fringe believers don't like these articles shows that we must be doing something right.
475:
neutral, editors must make sure that the opinions and biases found in sources shine through, unaffected by the editorial process.
1994:
1672:
878:
The balance found in reliable sources will also affect how we cover weird, odd, and sensational information, stuff we often dub "
2071:
in several sources, but, although he may be the inspiration, it is more likely a discombobulation of this quote of his from the
2136:
2125:
1652:
1104:
713:
The word "neutral" in the NPOV policy is frequently misunderstood by new editors, visitors, and outside critics. To paraphrase
665:
541:"Neutral point of view means neutrally reflecting what the sources say. It does not mean that the article has to be 'neutral'."
371:
359:
347:
335:
323:
249:
242:
938:
and must be viewed with suspicion. Especially guard against the removal of properly sourced negative material. We don't write
2570:
2347:
1265:
may look the same, but it's allowable to have a bias for reality, but not allowable to frame nonsense with a favorable bias.
741:
POV, which is the type of bias found in reliable sources, many of which are far from neutral. All significant points of view
558:
preventing them from editing any related subject. That would never work and such accusations are forbidden personal attacks.
395:
1515:
499:
1029:. Neither the NPOV nor BLP policies protect article subjects from documented criticism, which by nature is never neutral.
17:
2540:
2530:
2408:
1631:
1254:
391:
1052:
965:
550:
that would rebound on all editors who express their own points of view in discussions, and such accusations create a
1544:
of their favorite delusions. The dominance by the mainstream point of view will obviously offend these believers in
2509:
570:
299:
1115:
seek to whitewash negative information from articles. This is extremely unwikipedian and must be firmly resisted.
609:
2592:
2536:
2228:
1139:
1124:
1100:
703:
562:
980:
511:"The best content is developed through civil collaboration between editors who hold opposing points of view." —
2579:(2021), documenting an instance of Japanese Knowledge editors misusing the NPOV policy to practice whitewashing
2388:
1763:
1569:
1533:
1371:
1224:
Goodman points to the real problem of attempts by certain skeptics to delete quack articles. This is a form of
1206:
1083:
Censorship in the real world isn't just about risqué images, pornography, or naughty words, but is often about
989:
953:
919:
306:. Observe the following principles to achieve the level of neutrality that is appropriate for an encyclopedia:
1967:
926:"the value that others add" and improve the content. This can be done through adding content, proper framing,
2157:
1284:
or fringe theories, editors should be careful not to present the pseudoscientific fringe views alongside the
1261:
of nonsensical opinions and beliefs is forbidden here, while advocacy of proven reality isn't forbidden. The
1043:. Our goal is to document "the sum total of human knowledge," and censorship seriously undermines that goal.
2497:
2440:
1883:
1667:
1557:
1464:
1431:
1317:
Whatever sources are available can be used to document the existence and main concepts of a notable subject.
779:
586:
468:
291:
1232:
policy (if a subject can establish notability, it has a right to an article here). This is biased editing.
467:
remain neutral in their presentation of biased content. Knowledge, represented by its editors, must remain
2563:
1809:
1657:
1022:
226:
1344:
Medical claims must use sources of such a high standard that we have a special sourcing guideline called
600:
between editors who hold opposing points of view. Everyone is biased, and it is natural for humans to be
2053:
1867:
means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream."
1407:
1332:
1135:
1088:
1026:
597:
582:
527:
505:
1878:
2095:
2474:
2365:
2343:
2220:
1474:
1285:
1229:
1158:
1108:
1092:
1069:
407:
1591:
1549:
1537:
1482:
1419:
1269:
1096:
927:
868:
58:
717:, "It does not mean what they think it means." They think it means that articles must not contain
2526:
2520:
2073:
1584:
1541:
1393:
1375:
1258:
1034:
1008:
Censorship is wrong, so don't change any existing imbalance. Gold does weigh more than a feather.
957:
935:
923:
850:
256:
68:
1552:, and we regularly see their attempts to change the balance of articles on fringe subjects like
1523:
Knowledge does not cater to "lunatic charlatans" by permitting them to misuse the encyclopedia.
1000:
648:
present various points of view, including those they find distasteful, without censoring them.
1990:
1499:
1463:"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts." —
1415:
1411:
1262:
1056:
605:
578:
522:
mindset, since NPOV is not a true "point of view" which can be included in an article. Like a
171:
2504:
2348:"Mommie Dearest: The pope beatifies Mother Teresa, a fanatic, a fundamentalist, and a fraud."
820:
between opposing points of view. All opinions are not equal, so they must not be given equal
2575:
2551:
2417:
2383:
2370:
2352:
2163:
1914:
1545:
1490:
1367:
1240:
1210:
1191:
1187:
1182:
1174:
911:
879:
864:
833:
821:
590:
403:
281:
206:
142:
46:
1426:
is paralleled by, and perfectly aligned with, the editorial needs and demands found in our
2492:
2312:
2307:
2296:
2291:
2282:
2045:
1792:
1604:
1561:
1504:
1423:
1345:
1073:
765:
A change of the NPOV policy to accommodate such specious reasoning would mean the radical
601:
551:
387:
209:
distribution in an article should always mirror the unequal balance usually found between
2083:
1142:
tends to make them deal improperly with the subjects, even to the point of censoring and
1111:, we do see censorship and whitewashing at Knowledge. We also see it when editors with a
554:
that would mean the mere holding of a point of view automatically means the editor has a
2505:
Happy
Birthday, Knowledge! Ten years of Knowledge and their neutral point of view policy
534:, disinterested, and even-handed towards the subject, regardless of their personal POV.
2546:
2236:
2041:
2019:
1608:
1600:
1170:
992:, it is improved. Good faith editors should not be made to feel their work is in vain.
859:
574:
443:
218:
195:
2516:
2586:
2216:
2187:
1858:
1744:
1481:"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it." ―
1281:
1273:
1154:
1143:
1112:
976:
907:
845:
841:
840:"The pursuit of balance can create imbalance because sometimes something is true." —
817:
714:
698:
617:
555:
547:
451:
NPOV is an attitude and mindset, not a true "point of view", and refers primarily to
214:
1370:, editors are allowed to use fringe and other unreliable, and in extreme cases even
1293:
Sourcing standards for opinions, as well as for normal, medical, and fringe subjects
61:. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.
2485:
2431:
2327:
1969:
Are your biases showing? Avoiding confirmation bias in due diligence investigations
1565:
1451:
1427:
1298:
1225:
1166:
829:
513:
210:
1617:
policy-based, arguments, maybe their suggestions can lead to article improvement.
2058:
Fortunately her amazing voice still brought her fame, but mostly after her death.
1942:
Everyone is biased: Harvard professor’s work reveals we barely know our own minds
1244:
because that is the bias found in the best sources and in most reliable sources.
1055:
is not a legitimate type of "editor" here. That editor wears glasses which often
865:
we fail as editors if our coverage does not accurately reflect that understanding
482:
sides, but the sources often do, and article content must document the sides and
225:
do this. A lack of such content may be an indication that editors have exercised
2231:, yet the Koch brothers/NMS team got away with it without much happening. Their
2153:
2037:
1580:
1014:
985:
961:
943:
939:
785:
784:
Knowledge started with a vision, a "radical idea", later expressed by cofounder
613:
2470:
2278:
2256:
2112:
1946:
1918:
1905:
Shi, Feng; Teplitskiy, Misha; Duede, Eamon; Evans, James (November 29, 2017).
1863:
1726:
1553:
1441:
1162:
1084:
1077:
1060:
1018:
230:
1877:
Shi, Feng; Teplitskiy, Misha; Duede, Eamon; Evans, James A. (July 15, 2019).
1473:"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." —
1410:, and editors should use the same principles in their editing. These involve
1197:
A pragmatic viewpoint that harmonizes well with our policies is expressed by
693:"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
2068:
2049:
1822:
1301:
standards vary depending on the topic matter, and they exist on two levels.
1202:
813:
766:
566:
1787:
1253:
here, they should have a hard row to hoe, and they shouldn't be allowed to
150:
Reality is not neutral, balanced, or unbiased, and content must mirror it.
2124:"Biased sources are not inherently disallowed based on bias alone,..." —
1999:
1218:
1201:, one of our most esteemed and experienced editors. In real life he is a
1198:
1150:
946:
526:, they are responsible for presiding over the article with a neutral and
2517:
Collective
Intelligence and Neutral Point of View: The Case of Knowledge
2493:
Knowledge's "Neutral Point of View": Settling Conflict through Ambiguity
2235:
resulted in very short blocks and then nothing! Their currently active
2055:
He later stated: "I made a very bad mistake. I should have signed her."
1403:
1341:
Generally accepted facts only need generally accepted reliable sources.
623:
Another quality of the editor's hat is a type of bias that editors are
523:
312:
125:
670:
Knowledge:Identifying reliable sources § Biased or opinionated sources
561:
Editors must be honest and guard against consciously or unconsciously
1906:
968:
upsets this balance by trying to remove negative opinions and facts.
531:
988:, founder of Knowledge. We try to build content, not break it down.
153:
Content should be presented without the influence of editorial bias.
2435:
1146:
them. Such actions insert editorial bias into the editing process.
780:
Knowledge:Systemic bias § Content will reflect the bias in a source
1514:
999:
498:
141:
1228:
which violates the principles of the NPOV policy, as well as the
431:
316:
175:
131:
2571:
Non-English editions of Knowledge have a misinformation problem
2264:
2259:(writer/host) (December 14, 1980). "Encyclopaedia Galactica".
2215:
An example of secretive and deceptive COI editing is when the
509:
are the equivalent to the negotiation table in the real world.
102:
32:
1995:"Confirmation Bias and the Ethical Demands of Argumentation"
1177:
should also be considered when dealing with such articles:
960:
relationship, and we must include both to maintain an NPOV
135:
document all aspects of reality, whether we like it or not.
2527:
Is Knowledge Biased? Verifying the "neutral point of view"
1529:
best sources have the weightiest opinions on the subject.
2290:"An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof." —
2193:
The Salmon of Doubt: Hitchhiking the Galaxy One Last Time
1692:
Meta:Responses to How to Build Knowledge, Understand Bias
1440:"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." —
832:
and are usually based on a misunderstanding of NPOV and "
18:
Knowledge:NPOV means neutral editors, not neutral content
2436:"Evidence: "It Worked for My Aunt Tillie" is Not Enough"
596:
This is why the best content is developed through civil
241:
This summary of a section from the NPOV policy is worth
2294:, "On the Extraordinary: An Attempt at Clarification,"
2227:. The whitewashing activities were discovered and then
1847:
1741:
271:
264:
90:
83:
76:
1280:"When discussing topics that reliable sources say are
437:
This applies to both what you say and how you say it."
331:
Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts.
290:
means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of
286:
Achieving what the Knowledge community understands as
27:
Essay on NPOV, editorial neutrality and biased sources
1239:
Since articles on fringe topics are required to give
1181:"For example, the lack of peer-reviewed criticism of
1788:"The Knowledge: The encyclopedia for the rest of us"
1288:
as though they are opposing but still equal views."
1248:
Fringe POV pushers and sourcing for fringe subjects
367:
Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views.
1859:WP:NPA#What is considered to be a personal attack?
1663:NPOV FAQ#Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete
1338:Undeniable facts don't normally need any sourcing.
2371:God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything
2148:
2146:
2144:
1721:
1719:
1644:(the phrase doesn't mean what you think it means)
816:content, nor does it mean that there should be a
666:Knowledge:Neutral point of view § Bias in sources
2223:to professionally whitewash many articles about
130:Editors must edit neutrally when they deal with
2332:Past Imperfect: History According to the Movies
1879:"Are Politically Diverse Teams More Effective?"
1597:
1437:
1295:
674:
418:
253:
2285:had preceded him by a couple of years in 1978:
1583:calls "lunatic charlatans", nor does it allow
916:delete content because of a lack of neutrality
906:With the exception of completely unequivocal
725:The NPOV policy does forbid the inclusion of
8:
1574:Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories
1392:If fringe ideas and nonsense wish to argue (
660:Content is not neutral, so preserve its bias
1705:Knowledge:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard
2481:A Closer Look at the Neutral Point of View
2404:
2402:
2400:
2398:
1737:
1735:
1687:Category:Knowledge essays about neutrality
1190:by reliable sources on those subjects." —
1039:information than other encyclopedias, not
459:neutrality. In fact, it doesn't mean that
298:Editors, while naturally having their own
296:describe disputes, but not engage in them.
2025:The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life
1757:
1755:
1753:
774:Content will reflect the bias in a source
303:
2251:
2249:
1939:Johnson, Carolyn Y. (February 5, 2013),
1765:Knowledge and the sum of human knowledge
1592:unwarranted promotion of fringe theories
972:simply frame and attribute it properly.
430:the sides, fairly and without editorial
250:Explanation of the neutral point of view
2281:'s version is likely the most popular,
1715:
1648:Neutral and proportionate point of view
1093:suppression of political points of view
2559:Knowledge and the Politics of Openness
1861:: "Using someone's affiliations as an
1837:
1835:
1833:
1831:
1305:Opinions, normal, and medical subjects
1013:The NPOV policy does not allow use of
886:think it's weird, we cover it because
796:Neutrality, balance, and false balance
620:in fellow editors. No one is perfect.
2374:(2007) p.150. Twelve Books, New York.
2044:, president of Jazz and Classics for
975:Because Knowledge is created through
455:neutrality, and only peripherally to
182:bias, but must include and preserve
7:
2048:, who considered signing her to the
1331:All opinions need to be sourced and
537:The great Muboshgu put it this way:
394:. By contrast, it does not apply to
2225:them and their political activities
1272:guideline requires that we avoid a
128:; it is not a true "point of view".
2205:Knowledge:Verifiability, not truth
1762:Battles, Matthew (July 12, 2012),
1414:and are a fundamental part of the
758:remain neutral in how they do it.
469:neutral in the philosophical sense
59:thoroughly vetted by the community
55:Knowledge's policies or guidelines
25:
2598:Knowledge essays about neutrality
2263:. Episode 12. 01:24 minutes in.
1786:Jerney, John (October 22, 2002),
1579:Knowledge does not cater to what
1532:Those opinions are disputed by a
1257:for defenders of proven reality.
914:, it is considered a bad idea to
1907:"The Wisdom of Polarized Crowds"
1286:scientific or academic consensus
990:Imperfect content is not removed
414:Editorial vs. content neutrality
343:Avoid stating facts as opinions.
106:
36:
2137:Knowledge:Neutrality of sources
2219:paid the conservative PR firm
2126:Knowledge:NPOV#Bias in sources
1966:Phelps, Marcy (June 5, 2015),
390:itself, in other words to its
355:Prefer nonjudgmental language.
1:
1821:This would also apply to the
1418:. The scientific reliance on
1130:Censorship of fringe subjects
895:guided (governed) by RS, and
2541:Open University of Catalonia
2531:Kellogg School of Management
2409:Knowledge:Lunatic charlatans
2300:, Vol. 1, No. 1, p. 11, 1978
1590:NPOV is clearly against the
1119:Dealing with fringe subjects
899:idea of "trivia" may not be
444:Neutral point of view policy
2067:The quote is attributed to
1642:Don't teach the controversy
1107:), and, although Knowledge
996:Censorship and whitewashing
2614:
2510:Columbia Journalism Review
2334:, edited by Mark C. Carnes
2316:, December 13, 1987, p. 3
2310:, "On Pseudo-Skepticism",
1576:, to name a few examples.
1511:Impression felt by readers
1199:David Goodman ("User:DGG")
1122:
922:indicates it is better to
777:
663:
279:
254:
66:
30:Essay on editing Knowledge
2471:Is the Knowledge Neutral?
2087:, Book 1, third paragraph
1919:10.1038/s41562-019-0541-6
1637:Describing points of view
1125:Knowledge:Fringe theories
733:POV, but does not forbid
604:; we tend to suffer from
602:blind to their own biases
2389:Why I Am Not a Christian
2233:sockpuppet investigation
1694:(historical Meta policy)
1570:9/11 conspiracy theories
1149:Fringe subjects include
1095:(think of censorship in
641:Writing for the opponent
636:Writing for the opponent
114:This page in a nutshell:
2498:The Information Society
1884:Harvard Business Review
1465:Daniel Patrick Moynihan
1188:rarely if ever included
1070:a similar article lacks
930:, and better sourcing.
213:. Editors must avoid a
2564:Times Higher Education
2537:The Truth of Knowledge
2392:(1927). Watts, London.
2159:The birth of Knowledge
2096:Aristotle and accuracy
1810:Knowledge:Testimonials
1768:, metaLAB (at) Harvard
1613:
1525:
1495:
1399:
1010:
808:opinion because it is
710:
518:
448:
382:Where does NPOV apply?
378:
155:
2547:Who Killed Knowledge?
2443:, Volume 20, Number 3
2229:reported in the press
1653:Neutrality of sources
1601:neutral point of view
1518:
1408:scientific skepticism
1211:Arbitration Committee
1089:political correctness
1027:political correctness
1003:
981:objection to deletion
936:generally not allowed
858:"Apply and interpret
750:include source bias,
610:Dunning–Kruger effect
583:propaganda techniques
502:
463:is neutral, but that
196:Neutral Point of View
145:
57:, as it has not been
2475:Joseph M. Reagle Jr.
2366:Christopher Hitchens
2344:Christopher Hitchens
2221:New Media Strategies
1475:Christopher Hitchens
1205:, and here he is an
1159:alternative medicine
1113:conflict of interest
834:due and undue weight
579:appealing to emotion
556:conflict of interest
495:Behavior and mindset
490:Editorial neutrality
400:policies, guidelines
386:NPOV applies to the
147:An unrealistic image
2356:, October 20, 2003.
1993:(October 3, 2013),
1550:conspiracy theories
1483:Neil deGrasse Tyson
1255:make life difficult
606:confirmation biases
478:Knowledge does not
420:"Articles must not
159:NPOV means neutral
116:NPOV means neutral
2521:Indiana University
2434:(September 2015),
2241:named in the press
2085:Nicomachean Ethics
2074:Nicomachean Ethics
1991:Yanklowitz, Shmuly
1632:Be neutral in form
1526:
1520:No fringe advocacy
1209:and member of the
1011:
954:Newton's third law
851:The New York Times
704:The Princess Bride
691:
682:
679:The Princess Bride
519:
503:In Knowledge, the
439:
396:article talk pages
372:...more details...
360:...more details...
348:...more details...
336:...more details...
324:...more details...
156:
2420:, March 23, 2014
1972:, Phelps Research
1793:The Daily Yomiuri
1538:attempt to misuse
1500:out of left field
1416:scientific method
1412:critical thinking
1175:parity of sources
1005:Preserve the bias
830:original research
754:preserve it, and
708:
685:
677:Knowledge is not
675:
618:assume good faith
575:logical fallacies
516:
446:
419:
243:studying in depth
237:Summary from NPOV
140:
139:
101:
100:
16:(Redirected from
2605:
2593:Knowledge essays
2552:Pacific Standard
2459:
2452:
2451:
2449:
2428:
2422:
2406:
2393:
2384:Bertrand Russell
2381:
2375:
2363:
2357:
2341:
2335:
2324:
2318:
2275:
2269:
2268:
2253:
2244:
2213:
2207:
2202:
2196:
2184:
2178:
2177:
2172:
2170:
2150:
2139:
2134:
2128:
2122:
2116:
2109:
2103:
2065:
2059:
2035:
2029:
2017:
2011:
2010:
2009:
2007:
1987:
1981:
1980:
1979:
1977:
1963:
1957:
1956:
1955:
1953:
1936:
1930:
1929:
1927:
1925:
1902:
1896:
1895:
1893:
1891:
1874:
1868:
1856:
1850:
1839:
1826:
1819:
1813:
1803:
1802:
1800:
1783:
1777:
1776:
1775:
1773:
1759:
1748:
1739:
1730:
1723:
1673:What NPOV is Not
1491:Bertrand Russell
1428:reliable sources
1282:pseudoscientific
1276:when it states:
1183:creation science
1064:of the sources.
888:reliable sources
697:
512:
442:
292:reliable sources
274:
267:
211:reliable sources
110:
109:
103:
93:
86:
79:
77:WP:NEUTRALEDITOR
40:
39:
33:
21:
2613:
2612:
2608:
2607:
2606:
2604:
2603:
2602:
2583:
2582:
2467:
2462:
2447:
2445:
2430:
2429:
2425:
2407:
2396:
2382:
2378:
2364:
2360:
2342:
2338:
2325:
2321:
2313:Zetetic Scholar
2308:Marcello Truzzi
2297:Zetetic Scholar
2292:Marcello Truzzi
2283:Marcello Truzzi
2276:
2272:
2255:
2254:
2247:
2214:
2210:
2203:
2199:
2185:
2181:
2168:
2166:
2156:(August 2006),
2152:
2151:
2142:
2135:
2131:
2123:
2119:
2110:
2106:
2066:
2062:
2052:label in 1994."
2046:Capitol Records
2036:
2032:
2020:Goffman, Erving
2018:
2014:
2005:
2003:
1989:
1988:
1984:
1975:
1973:
1965:
1964:
1960:
1951:
1949:
1938:
1937:
1933:
1923:
1921:
1904:
1903:
1899:
1889:
1887:
1876:
1875:
1871:
1857:
1853:
1840:
1829:
1820:
1816:
1798:
1796:
1785:
1784:
1780:
1771:
1769:
1761:
1760:
1751:
1740:
1733:
1724:
1717:
1713:
1623:
1614:
1562:energy medicine
1534:fringe minority
1513:
1496:
1456:The Roving Mind
1424:reproducibility
1400:
1353:Fringe subjects
1294:
1250:
1219:User:DGG#Biases
1140:fringe subjects
1132:
1127:
1121:
1053:User:Censorship
998:
966:User:Censorship
958:action-reaction
910:violations and
798:
782:
776:
711:
672:
662:
638:
552:chilling effect
548:personal attack
497:
492:
449:
416:
384:
379:
284:
278:
277:
270:
263:
259:
252:
239:
172:primary sources
107:
97:
96:
89:
84:WP:PRESERVEBIAS
82:
75:
71:
63:
62:
37:
31:
28:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
2611:
2609:
2601:
2600:
2595:
2585:
2584:
2581:
2580:
2568:
2556:
2544:
2534:
2524:
2514:
2502:
2490:
2478:
2466:
2465:External links
2463:
2461:
2460:
2423:
2394:
2376:
2358:
2336:
2319:
2270:
2245:
2208:
2197:
2179:
2140:
2129:
2117:
2104:
2060:
2042:Bruce Lundvall
2030:
2012:
1982:
1958:
1931:
1897:
1869:
1851:
1827:
1814:
1778:
1749:
1731:
1714:
1712:
1709:
1708:
1707:
1701:
1700:
1696:
1695:
1689:
1684:
1675:
1670:
1665:
1660:
1655:
1650:
1645:
1639:
1634:
1628:
1627:
1622:
1619:
1596:
1540:Knowledge for
1536:who regularly
1512:
1509:
1505:special manner
1494:
1493:
1486:
1485:
1478:
1477:
1470:
1469:
1460:
1459:
1447:
1446:
1436:
1398:
1397:
1389:
1388:
1387:
1386:
1380:
1379:
1362:
1361:
1360:
1359:
1354:
1350:
1349:
1342:
1339:
1336:
1328:
1327:
1326:
1325:
1319:
1318:
1314:
1313:
1312:
1311:
1306:
1292:
1291:
1290:
1289:
1249:
1246:
1222:
1221:
1195:
1194:
1171:fringe science
1131:
1128:
1120:
1117:
997:
994:
920:Editing policy
872:
871:
869:TenOfAllTrades
855:
854:
804:, neutral has
797:
794:
775:
772:
673:
661:
658:
637:
634:
543:
542:
496:
493:
491:
488:
417:
415:
412:
383:
380:
377:
376:
364:
352:
340:
328:
311:Avoid stating
300:points of view
276:
275:
268:
260:
255:
248:
247:
238:
235:
221:. In fact, we
163:, not neutral
138:
137:
120:, not neutral
111:
99:
98:
95:
94:
87:
80:
72:
67:
64:
52:
51:
43:
41:
29:
26:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2610:
2599:
2596:
2594:
2591:
2590:
2588:
2578:
2577:
2572:
2569:
2566:
2565:
2560:
2557:
2554:
2553:
2548:
2545:
2542:
2538:
2535:
2532:
2528:
2525:
2522:
2518:
2515:
2512:
2511:
2506:
2503:
2500:
2499:
2494:
2491:
2488:
2487:
2482:
2479:
2476:
2472:
2469:
2468:
2464:
2458:
2456:
2444:
2442:
2437:
2433:
2432:Hall, Harriet
2427:
2424:
2421:
2419:
2415:
2410:
2405:
2403:
2401:
2399:
2395:
2391:
2390:
2385:
2380:
2377:
2373:
2372:
2367:
2362:
2359:
2355:
2354:
2349:
2345:
2340:
2337:
2333:
2330:'s review of
2329:
2323:
2320:
2317:
2315:
2314:
2309:
2305:
2301:
2299:
2298:
2293:
2289:
2284:
2280:
2274:
2271:
2266:
2262:
2258:
2252:
2250:
2246:
2242:
2238:
2234:
2230:
2226:
2222:
2218:
2217:Koch brothers
2212:
2209:
2206:
2201:
2198:
2195:
2194:
2189:
2188:Douglas Adams
2183:
2180:
2176:
2165:
2161:
2160:
2155:
2149:
2147:
2145:
2141:
2138:
2133:
2130:
2127:
2121:
2118:
2114:
2113:Inconceivable
2108:
2105:
2102:
2101:
2097:
2093:
2089:
2088:
2086:
2081:
2076:
2075:
2070:
2064:
2061:
2057:
2054:
2051:
2047:
2043:
2039:
2034:
2031:
2027:
2026:
2021:
2016:
2013:
2002:
2001:
1996:
1992:
1986:
1983:
1971:
1970:
1962:
1959:
1948:
1944:
1943:
1935:
1932:
1920:
1916:
1912:
1908:
1901:
1898:
1886:
1885:
1880:
1873:
1870:
1866:
1865:
1860:
1855:
1852:
1849:
1848:
1845:
1838:
1836:
1834:
1832:
1828:
1824:
1818:
1815:
1812:
1811:
1807:
1795:
1794:
1789:
1782:
1779:
1767:
1766:
1758:
1756:
1754:
1750:
1746:
1742:
1738:
1736:
1732:
1728:
1722:
1720:
1716:
1710:
1706:
1703:
1702:
1698:
1697:
1693:
1690:
1688:
1685:
1683:
1681:
1676:
1674:
1671:
1669:
1668:NPOV tutorial
1666:
1664:
1661:
1659:
1656:
1654:
1651:
1649:
1646:
1643:
1640:
1638:
1635:
1633:
1630:
1629:
1625:
1624:
1620:
1618:
1612:
1610:
1606:
1602:
1595:
1593:
1588:
1586:
1582:
1577:
1575:
1571:
1567:
1563:
1559:
1555:
1551:
1547:
1543:
1539:
1535:
1530:
1524:
1521:
1517:
1510:
1508:
1506:
1501:
1492:
1488:
1487:
1484:
1480:
1479:
1476:
1472:
1471:
1468:
1466:
1462:
1461:
1457:
1453:
1449:
1448:
1445:
1443:
1439:
1438:
1435:
1433:
1432:verifiability
1429:
1425:
1421:
1417:
1413:
1409:
1405:
1395:
1391:
1390:
1384:
1383:
1382:
1381:
1377:
1373:
1369:
1364:
1363:
1357:
1356:
1355:
1352:
1351:
1347:
1343:
1340:
1337:
1334:
1330:
1329:
1323:
1322:
1321:
1320:
1316:
1315:
1309:
1308:
1307:
1304:
1303:
1302:
1300:
1287:
1283:
1279:
1278:
1277:
1275:
1274:false balance
1271:
1266:
1264:
1260:
1256:
1247:
1245:
1242:
1237:
1233:
1231:
1227:
1220:
1216:
1215:
1214:
1212:
1208:
1207:administrator
1204:
1200:
1193:
1189:
1184:
1180:
1179:
1178:
1176:
1172:
1168:
1164:
1160:
1156:
1155:pseudoscience
1152:
1147:
1145:
1141:
1137:
1129:
1126:
1118:
1116:
1114:
1110:
1106:
1105:United States
1102:
1098:
1094:
1090:
1086:
1081:
1079:
1075:
1071:
1065:
1062:
1058:
1054:
1048:
1044:
1042:
1038:
1037:
1030:
1028:
1024:
1020:
1016:
1009:
1006:
1002:
995:
993:
991:
987:
982:
978:
973:
969:
967:
963:
959:
955:
950:
948:
945:
941:
940:hagiographies
937:
931:
929:
925:
921:
917:
913:
909:
904:
902:
898:
893:
889:
885:
881:
876:
870:
866:
861:
857:
856:
853:
852:
847:
846:public editor
843:
842:Daniel Okrent
839:
838:
837:
835:
831:
825:
823:
819:
818:false balance
815:
811:
807:
803:
795:
793:
789:
787:
781:
773:
771:
768:
763:
759:
757:
753:
749:
744:
740:
736:
732:
728:
723:
720:
716:
715:Inigo Montoya
709:
706:
705:
700:
699:Inigo Montoya
694:
689:
684:
681:
680:
671:
667:
659:
657:
654:
649:
645:
642:
635:
633:
632:such content.
631:
626:
621:
619:
615:
611:
607:
603:
599:
598:collaboration
594:
592:
588:
584:
580:
576:
572:
568:
564:
559:
557:
553:
549:
540:
539:
538:
535:
533:
529:
525:
517:
515:
508:
507:
501:
494:
489:
487:
485:
481:
476:
474:
470:
466:
462:
458:
454:
447:
445:
438:
435:
433:
429:
423:
413:
411:
409:
405:
401:
397:
393:
389:
381:
375:
373:
368:
365:
363:
361:
356:
353:
351:
349:
344:
341:
339:
337:
332:
329:
327:
325:
320:
318:
314:
309:
308:
307:
305:
301:
297:
293:
289:
283:
273:
269:
266:
262:
261:
258:
251:
246:
244:
236:
234:
232:
228:
224:
220:
216:
215:false balance
212:
208:
203:
201:
197:
192:
188:
185:
181:
177:
173:
168:
166:
162:
154:
151:
148:
144:
136:
133:
127:
123:
119:
115:
112:
105:
104:
92:
88:
85:
81:
78:
74:
73:
70:
65:
60:
56:
50:
48:
42:
35:
34:
19:
2574:
2562:
2550:
2508:
2496:
2486:The Atlantic
2484:
2454:
2453:
2448:November 22,
2446:, retrieved
2439:
2426:
2413:
2412:
2387:
2379:
2369:
2361:
2351:
2339:
2331:
2328:Robert Sobel
2322:
2311:
2303:
2302:
2295:
2287:
2286:
2273:
2260:
2211:
2200:
2191:
2182:
2174:
2167:, retrieved
2158:
2154:Wales, Jimmy
2132:
2120:
2107:
2091:
2090:
2084:
2079:
2078:
2072:
2063:
2033:
2023:
2015:
2006:November 15,
2004:, retrieved
1998:
1985:
1976:November 15,
1974:, retrieved
1968:
1961:
1952:December 12,
1950:, retrieved
1941:
1934:
1922:. Retrieved
1910:
1900:
1888:. Retrieved
1882:
1872:
1862:
1854:
1843:
1842:
1817:
1805:
1804:
1797:, retrieved
1791:
1781:
1770:, retrieved
1764:
1679:
1658:NPOV dispute
1615:
1605:undue weight
1598:
1589:
1578:
1566:crop circles
1531:
1527:
1522:
1519:
1497:
1467:
1455:
1452:Isaac Asimov
1444:
1401:
1296:
1267:
1251:
1238:
1234:
1223:
1196:
1167:health fraud
1148:
1133:
1082:
1066:
1049:
1045:
1040:
1035:
1031:
1023:whitewashing
1012:
1007:
1004:
977:inclusionism
974:
970:
951:
932:
905:
900:
896:
891:
887:
883:
877:
873:
849:
826:
809:
805:
801:
799:
790:
783:
764:
760:
755:
751:
747:
742:
738:
734:
730:
726:
724:
718:
712:
702:
695:
692:
687:
683:
678:
676:
652:
650:
646:
639:
629:
624:
622:
595:
591:weasel words
571:manipulation
560:
544:
536:
520:
510:
504:
483:
479:
477:
472:
464:
460:
456:
452:
450:
440:
436:
427:
425:
421:
388:encyclopedia
385:
369:
366:
357:
354:
345:
342:
333:
330:
321:
310:
295:
287:
285:
272:WP:WikiVoice
240:
227:whitewashing
222:
204:
199:
193:
189:
183:
179:
164:
160:
158:
157:
152:
149:
146:
129:
121:
117:
113:
44:
2418:Jimbo Wales
2237:meatpuppets
2169:December 5,
2115:" — YouTube
2100:Philosiblog
2038:Eva Cassidy
1799:October 22,
1772:October 22,
1581:Jimmy Wales
1372:blacklisted
1358:First level
1310:First level
1263:POV pushing
1226:deletionism
1101:North Korea
1059:the mental
1015:revisionism
986:Jimmy Wales
962:homeostasis
944:advertising
928:attribution
890:think it's
786:Jimmy Wales
614:Golden Rule
581:, or using
426:but should
404:user essays
45:This is an
2587:Categories
2326:Quoted in
2279:Carl Sagan
2257:Carl Sagan
2239:, who are
1947:Boston.com
1864:ad hominem
1727:perception
1711:References
1554:homeopathy
1442:Carl Sagan
1385:After that
1333:attributed
1324:After that
1241:prominence
1230:notability
1163:paranormal
1136:skepticism
1123:See also:
1109:opposes it
1103:, and the
1085:media bias
1078:commission
1019:censorship
979:, another
778:See also:
664:See also:
506:talk pages
408:user pages
288:neutrality
280:See also:
231:censorship
207:due weight
91:WP:YESBIAS
2164:TED Talks
2069:Aristotle
2050:Blue Note
1911:arXiv.org
1823:Main Page
1542:promotion
1378:for them.
1368:WP:Parity
1203:librarian
1192:WP:Parity
947:brochures
912:vandalism
767:neutering
737:bias and
731:editorial
729:bias and
727:editorial
567:sophistry
532:apathetic
528:objective
453:editorial
282:WP:ASSERT
265:WP:YESPOV
257:Shortcuts
180:editorial
69:Shortcuts
2092:See also
2000:HuffPost
1890:July 31,
1745:Muboshgu
1678:Yes. We
1621:See also
1585:advocacy
1420:evidence
1394:advocate
1376:advocate
1346:WP:MEDRS
1299:sourcing
1259:Advocacy
1151:quackery
1144:deleting
1138:towards
1074:omission
924:preserve
844:, first
814:neutered
625:required
608:and the
392:articles
313:opinions
2441:Skeptic
1924:July 1,
1682:biased.
1609:notable
1404:science
1061:"sight"
892:notably
860:WP:NPOV
739:content
735:content
688:Neutral
563:framing
524:referee
514:Valjean
484:explain
465:editors
461:content
457:content
428:explain
184:content
165:content
161:editing
126:mindset
122:content
118:editing
2567:(2015)
2555:(2014)
2543:(2012)
2533:(2012)
2523:(2011)
2513:(2011)
2501:(2010)
2489:(2006)
2477:(2005)
2277:While
2261:Cosmos
2028:, 1959
1626:Essays
1572:, and
1546:fringe
1458:(1983)
1270:fringe
1169:, and
1161:, the
1091:, and
1057:affect
880:trivia
822:weight
707:(1987)
668:, and
424:sides,
304:weight
194:NPOV (
176:biased
132:biased
2576:Slate
2455:Quote
2414:Quote
2353:Slate
2080:Quote
1844:Quote
1806:Quote
1699:Other
1599:"The
1213::
1097:China
1025:, or
952:Like
901:their
867:." —
589:, or
573:, or
406:, or
317:facts
47:essay
2450:2015
2171:2015
2098:and
2008:2015
1978:2015
1954:2015
1926:2019
1892:2019
1801:2015
1774:2015
1548:and
1430:and
1422:and
1406:and
1297:Our
1268:Our
1041:less
1036:more
802:ergo
756:must
752:must
748:must
743:must
630:want
616:and
587:spin
480:take
432:bias
422:take
229:and
223:must
219:lead
205:The
2519:—
2265:PBS
2077::
1915:doi
1680:are
1611:."
1558:ESP
1076:or
942:or
908:BLP
897:our
848:of
810:not
719:any
701:in
653:all
473:not
315:as
200:not
2589::
2573:—
2561:—
2549:—
2539:—
2529:—
2507:—
2495:—
2483:—
2473:—
2438:,
2397:^
2386:,
2368:,
2350:,
2346:,
2248:^
2190:,
2173:,
2162:,
2143:^
2094::
2022:,
1997:,
1945:,
1913:.
1909:.
1881:.
1830:^
1790:,
1752:^
1734:^
1718:^
1594::
1568:,
1564:,
1560:,
1556:,
1454:,
1165:,
1157:,
1153:,
1099:,
1087:,
1080:.
1021:,
1017:,
964:.
949:.
918:.
884:we
824:.
806:no
696:—
690:"?
593:.
585:,
577:,
569:,
441:—
402:,
398:,
245::
2411::
2304:*
2288:*
2267:.
2111:"
1928:.
1917::
1894:.
1747:)
1743:(
1729:.
1348:.
1335:.
686:"
434:.
374:)
370:(
362:)
358:(
350:)
346:(
338:)
334:(
326:)
322:(
319:.
167:.
49:.
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
