Encyc:Point of view
From Encyc
Unlike Wikipedia, Encyc does not strive for a mythological "Neutral Point of View." It's simply not worth fighting over an ideal which doesn't exist.
Instead, we should identify biased writing so that readers can evaluate the sources for themselves. Therefore, personal opinions should always be identified as such. As a temporary measure, personal views can be flagged with the {{opinion}} tag so that the author or others have an opportunity to rewrite the prose in such a way that their point of view is clearly marked or shown to be a widely-held or verifiable point of view.
Blissyu2's opinion: I agree that there is no neutral point of view. Bias is everywhere. It is impossible to remove bias without upsetting the factual nature of the article or introducing a new bias. Henceforth there is no need to remove something which is truthful yet biased. What could be done instead is to keep the truthful yet biased section and to add to it with a truthful yet biased statement that represents an alternative to it. This then can present a fuller perspective. It shouldn't really need to be said who said what, as it is not going to be one person's perspective, but rather a group of perspectives. For an example of a perspective: why did Kato do the whole CBOrgatrope/Robert Black/Private Musings set up? Kato himself has never said in any believable way, so this is an opinion. A lot of people believe that it was done as he said to try to mess with Wikipedia minds, to try to hurt guilty Wikipedia people and have a laugh at their expense, end of story. Some people, on the other hand, think that it was done so as to try to take over Wikipedia Review, or at least to gain power there, by manipulating people to Kato's advantage. That isn't one personal opinion: that opinion is shared by many. Of course, in saying that, there is also a third opinion, which is based on people not looking at the evidence. Some people mistakingly think that Kato didn't set anyone up at all, and that the whole thing was Wikipedia over-reacting to something innocent. People who think that are, quite simply, wrong. A lot of people have opinions based on not having all of the information, or having the wrong information. This is not biased yet informative, rather it is simply wrong. It does not help anyone to have wrong information like that. It was a set up. It has been proven to have been a set up and was admitted to being a set up. The question mark is why the set up was done and what the ultimate aims were. We know that it resulted in my being banned from my own site but was that the aim when it began or just a lucky break for Kato? Was Somey in on it or did he simply take advantage of it? These are unknowns that can have opinions attached to them. This is the difference between having 2 biased opinions that are both based on facts and having 1 opinion that is based on misinformation. The opinion that is based on misinformation is useless. The 2 biased opinions that are based on facts are both useful, and can be presented side by side.
- I agree that bias is everywhere, but disagree that we need to point it out with tags whenever we see it. If an article is obviously slanted it looks bad for the encyclopedia, tags or no. Readers can determine this for themselves. I'm afraid I have no answer for how to give every article the most well-rounded, fairest treatment we can. It's not something Wikipedia is really good at either. I do think that this is one reason why developing a broad range of articles here is a good idea. It would be nice if people who think that Wikipedia sounds a bit biased had a place to turn to for a second opinion. Emperor 23:37, 31 August 2008 (EDT)
