Neutral point of view

{{Langnav}}
{{cquote|The hottest places in [[Hell]] are reserved for those who in time of [[moral]] crisis preserve their neutrality.|||[[John F. Kennedy]]'s loose paraphrasing of a passage in [[The Divine Comedy#The Inferno|Dante's ''Inferno'']]<ref>[https://harpers.org/2010/10/dante-the-curse-on-those-who-do-nothing-in-the-face-of-evil/ Dante – The Curse on Those Who Do Nothing in the Face of Evil] by Scott Horton (October 17, 2010) ''Harper's Magazine''.</ref>{{efn|The actual passage in ''The Inferno'' is:<BR>
Fama di loro il mondo esser non lassa;<BR>
misericordia e giustizia li sdegna:<BR>
non ragioniam di lor, ma guarda e passa.}}}}
'''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.

==NPOV on Wikipedia==
NPOV is a [[Wikipedia]] foundational issue,<ref>{{wpl|Metawiki:Foundation issues||.}}</ref> and one of the five pillars of Wikipedia.<ref>{{wpa|Wikipedia:Five pillars}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{wpa|Wikipedia:Neutral point of view}}</ref><ref>{{wpa|Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial}}</ref> Naturally, every editor has opinions, and some may attempt to express them in Wikipedia content. However, such [[bias]]ed content is liable to be removed or amended 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 write [[fact]]ually 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. However, on some subjects, Wikipedia is willing to accept that the majority point of view is probably right and there's no need for [[false equivalence]] between [[kook]]s and experts: this includes [[fringe]] vs. mainstream [[science]].<ref>{{wpa|Wikipedia:Fringe theories}}</ref>{{efn|On other subjects… [[Wikipedia#Criticisms of Wikipedia|er]], [[Wikipedia#Quality control|not]] [[Wikipedia#Bias in Wikipedia|so]] [[Wikipedia#Attitude towards expertise|much]].}}

==NPOV on Substack==
Substack provides a platform for newsletters, including by subscription. Following complaints that it was platforming [[antivax]], [[white nationalist]]s, [[Antisemitism|anti-semite]]s, [[neo-Confederates]], and [[Nazis]],<ref name=katz/><ref name=oremus>[https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2024/01/10/substack-bans-nazis-newsletters-controversy/ Substack wanted to be neutral. Its tolerance of Nazis proved divisive. Facing a writer revolt, the popular newsletter platform agrees to ban some accounts — testing its ‘free speech’ stance] by Will Oremus & Taylor Lorenz (January 10, 2024) ''The Washington Post''.</ref> the founders of the company (Chris Best, Hamish McKenzie, Jairaj Sethi) issued a statement defending their decision to give a platform to Nazis, in part saying:
{{cquote|I just want to make it clear that we don’t like Nazis either — we wish no-one held those views. But some people do hold those and other extreme views. Given that, we don't think that [[censorship]] (including through demonetizing publications) makes the problem go away — in fact, [[Streisand effect|it makes it worse]].<ref name=mckenzie>[https://substack.com/@hamish/note/c-45811343 Hamish McKenzie] (December 21, 2023) ''Substack''.</ref>}}
While the Streisand effect is certainly a valid concern when trying to [[No platform|deprive harmful ideas of an audience]], Substack's response was problematic at best ("we don’t like Nazis, we'd like to wish them away"). Furthermore, when looking at [[Reality|the bigger picture]], Substack's response could be considered flat-out disingenuous, because Substack profits from at least some of these extremist groups, as was already known before the statement was issued.<ref name=katz>[https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/11/substack-extremism-nazi-white-supremacy-newsletters/676156/ Substack Has a Nazi Problem: The newsletter platform’s lax content moderation creates an opening for white nationalists eager to get their message out.] by Jonathan M. Katz (November 28, 2023) ''The Atlantic''.</ref> Substack has had a minimalist and disdainful approach to content moderation, essentially leaving the main task to unpaid labor ("we will stick to our decentralized approach to content moderation"<ref name=mckenzie/>).<ref name=katz/> In response to ongoing protestations by non-Nazi writers on Substack, the company agreed to remove a handful of openly Nazi accounts. Some of the writers, such as software engineer and [[cryptocurrency]] critic Molly White, dismissed this as a feeble response:
{{quotebox|It’s honestly insulting, both to writers and readers on the platform, that they think they can shut up those of us who have serious concerns with such a meager gesture.<ref name=oremus/>}}
Casey Newton, who covers platform moderation, wrote:
{{quotebox|The Nazis did not commit the only atrocity in history, but a platform that declines to remove their supporters is telling you something important about itself. If it won’t remove the Nazis, why should we expect the platform to remove any other harm?<ref>[https://www.platformer.news/p/why-substack-is-at-a-crossroads?publication_id=7976&post_id=140371289&isFreemail=true&r=ksai Why Substack is at a crossroads: Some thoughts on platforms and Nazis] by Casey Newton (Jan 4, 2024) ''Platformer''.</ref>}}

==RationalWiki and NPOV==
{{main|1=RationalWiki:What is a RationalWiki article?|2=What is a RationalWiki article?}}
[[RationalWiki]] articles tend to avoid NPOV on the grounds that they are not encyclopedic in nature. These articles and their authors are uncompromising in their point of view that [[science]] and [[Reasoning|reason]] are superior methods for generating knowledge,<ref group=note>More specifically, science and reason are superior to [[other ways of knowing]], but that's not exactly a high bar to clear in some cases.</ref> [[ignorance]] and undue [[credulity]] are [[What's the harm (logical fallacy)#The harm|harmful]] and should be [[Skepticism|vehemently]] [[Education|dispelled]], and [[WOMBAT|there is virtually no circumstance in which accepting a crank's views as valid is a good use of <i>anyone's</i> time, money, or brainpower]]. However, this is not a rejection of covering facts equally and giving due weight to conflicting opinions when they are valid and relevant.<ref group=note>"Valid and relevant" need to be emphasized here — crank opinions are ''not'' welcome, and will be ruthlessly mocked. After all, [[RationalWiki:Mission|our mission]] is to ''fight'' misinformation, not ''spread'' it!</ref> Indeed, the objection to NPOV is mostly in response to the dry and humorless tone developed by Wikipedia in the name of neutrality.

==Conservapedia's criticism of NPOV==
[[Conservapedia]], a [[conservative]], [[Christian]] [[wiki]] that considers itself a better alternative to Wikipedia, maintains that "Bias gets in the way of reliability" but also that "Neutrality may not be an antidote to bias".<ref>[[cp:Guidelines#Reliability|Conservapedia: Guidelines]].</ref> 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]]".<ref>[[cp:Wikipedia|Conservapedia: Wikipedia]].</ref>  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 ([[Willful ignorance|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 [[homosexual]]s as violent and promiscuous, or postulate that [[atheism]] leads to meanness and [[suicide]]. Furthermore, Wikipedia is accused of 'promoting' suicide, in that it objectively mentions suicides in a high number of articles and biographies.<ref>[[cp:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia&oldid=494795|Conservapedia: Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]], retrieved Aug. 2 2008.  Examples 8, 11, 54, 61.</ref>

==International Olympic Committee==
International Olympic Committee (IOC) was formed as a non-governmental organization in [[Switzerland]] in 1894. Its stated goals are to support international sporting events and the Olympics specifically, to act against any form of [[discrimination]] in the Olympics, and to encourage women in sports.<ref name=charter>[http://www.olympic.org/Documents/olympic_charter_en.pdf Olympic Charter] (in force as from 8 July 2011) ''International Olympic Committee'' (archived from November 9, 2011).</ref>{{rp|14}} While not explicitly neutral, there is the implication of neutrality in its statement, "Any form of discrimination with regard to a [[country]] or a person on grounds of race, [[religion]], [[politics]], [[gender]] or otherwise is incompatible with belonging to the Olympic Movement."<ref name=charter/>{{rp|11}}

In 2019, Gian Franco Kasper, president of the International Ski Federation (an organization affiliated with the IOC) stated, “[[Dictator]]s can organize events such as this without asking the people’s permission. For us, everything is easier in dictatorships.” Kasper later tried to walk back the statement, but it was already obvious to many observers that he was speaking the truth.<ref>[https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/08/sport/ski-chief-dictatorships-scli-intl/index.html Ski chief apologizes for praising dictatorships] by Jack Guy (6:41 AM EST, Fri February 8, 2019) ''CNN''.</ref> Six Olympic Games have been held in dictatorships: [[Nazi Germany]] (1936), [[Soviet Union]] (1980), [[China]] (2008, 2022 summer and winter), and [[Russia]] (2014). The 2022 Olympics were known as the "Genocide Olympics" due to their occurring at the same time as the [[Uighur genocide]] in China.<ref name=wapo>[https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/12/07/us-boycott-genocide-olympics-is-only-start/ The U.S. boycott of the Genocide Olympics is only a start] (December 7, 2021 at 2:48 p.m. EST) ''The Washington Post''.</ref> In the modern Olympics, an enormous amount of money is made through corporate advertising and sponsorship, thus profiting indirectly from [[human rights]] abuses at dictator-sponsored Olympics.<ref name=wapo/><ref>[https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/olympics/2022/03/08/olympics-putin-ioc/ The Olympics got in bed with autocrats like Putin. There will be consequences.] by Sally Jenkins (March 8, 2022) ''The Washington Post''.</ref> The IOC president from 2013 to 2025, Thomas Bach, was involved with 3 of the dictator Olympics.

==Alternatives to NPOV==
===Snarky Point Of View===
[[SPOV]] is the style originally or historically encouraged on [[RationalWiki]]. Neutrality is all very well in its place, but certain assertions are [[Not even wrong|so feeble or silly]] that they may provoke snarky response from those who think they are feeble or silly. Note, however, that snark is not a substitute for facts, reasoning, and sources.

===MOPOV (My Own Point Of View)===
This is a style widely used in many contexts, in which the author assumes that their own opinions are intrinsically more correct, valuable, or interesting than any other person's opinions, simply by the virtue of being their 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 their word is infallible, or that [[Self projection as god|they are 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".

===Stated Points of View===
In which two or more sides of a debate are given freedom to present their case separately with the caveat that they state their axiomatic assumptions. Free editing of each point of view is allowed, but objections and edits to the arguments of POV-A may only be raised by people holding the same axiomatic assumptions. Other points of view, including criticism of POV-A, are to be presented on the pages of POV-B, along with the assumptions stated for the differing point of view.

Advantages for this approach include allowing more people to contribute more material, and more points of view, and more data can be harvested than with NPOV. In particular, experts may contribute according to their point of view without being overwritten by non-experts who disagree with them.<ref group=note>To be more precise on why this is a good thing, a strict adherence to NPOV (such as {{sl|Wikipedia}} policy) [[Wikipedia#Attitude towards expertise|can and does lead to nasty edit wars]] between people who are actually aware of the facts and stubborn laypeople who have a… [[Dunning-Kruger effect|less nuanced]] view of the facts (which has the unfortunate effect of driving experts away from the platform).</ref> A disadvantage is that while the format allows a limited region of disagreement and debate, much like a two-party system, it may not reflect the full range of opinions; for example, a format with Christian and atheist viewpoints may omit non-Western religious beliefs (and an article on the [[Eucharist]] that only gave Roman Catholic and Protestant views would miss the forest for the trees).

Example: the Wikipedia pages on the mental health condition "Dissociative Identity Disorder" are primarily dealing with the debate as to whether or not the condition exists. Those who do not believe it exists cite papers by those who do not believe it exists and those that do believe it exists cite their sources. NPOV enforces a stalemate position in the debate, leaving the site devoid of actual content material on the subject itself. Those who do have real content to contribute on the actual topic itself are closed out by the debate. What is lost is the possibility of harnessing the encyclopaedic knowledge of the variety of subtopics that could be written about by those who would write stating that they know it exists, have lived with the condition, and know how to successfully treat the condition. This knowledge is censored by those who [[Ignorance|have limited knowledge of the topic]] but remain editorially to keep the debate, and only the debate front and centre. The net result being that, if you actually want information on the topic in hand, Wikipedia is of very little use to anyone researching the topic.

===Conservative Point Of View===
{{see also|Overton window}}
{{see also|Censorship}}
Instead of seeking a balanced discussion of all sides of an argument, CPOVs often have a consensus that is reached by pushing an argument so far to the right that it cannot go any further. [[#Conservapedia|This frequently involves banning anyone with different opinions and removing their contributions.]]
CPOV can also stand for: 
*[[Christian]] Point of View
*[[Creationist]] Point of View
*[[Crank]]s' Point of View
*Crazy Point of View
*Cretins' Point of View.

The opposite, Liberal Point Of View, is seldom seen for some reason. Maybe liberals tend to have more respect for truth and facts.{{fact|joke}}

==The illusion of neutrality==
Search engines and [[social media platforms]] have at times presented themselves as neutral, but the reality is that they can't be neutral. This is simply because they have to present things in an ordered sort of way, and the ordering requires ranking, and the ranking requires prioritizing some results over others. If they were totally neutral, one would just as likely get [[random]] results from looking for a [[:Recipe:Ukrainian chicken noodle soup|chicken soup recipe]] and the top results are: [[quantum physics]], [[chickenhawk]], [[:RationalWiki:chicken coop|Chicken coop]], and [[intelligent design]]. Who wants that kind of result, anyway? The reality is that results are dependent on an algorithm that is designed by a computer scientist: some human(s) has to decide what is important and what is not. Once there is an algorithm, some people will try to figure out a loophole for their advantage (e.g., [[search engine optimization]]), and others will complain that their [[crank]] ideas are not highlighted.<ref>[https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/03/12/duckduckgo-russian-disinformation-unbiased-search-results/ In Ukraine, tech platforms abandon the illusion of neutrality: From Facebook to TikTok to DuckDuckGo, companies that once claimed to be 'unbiased’ are showing that they can take a side after all.] by Will Oremus (March 12, 2022) ''The Washington Post''.</ref>

==See also==
*[[Argument from authority]]
*[[Balance fallacy]]
*[[Originalism]] — a legal theory that claims to be neutral with regard to interpreting [[United States Constitution|constitutional]] law based on original intent or meaning, but is mysteriously only espoused by conservatives with an agenda
*[[Larry Sanger]] — co-founder of Wikipedia, and a NPOV extremist
**[[Ballotpedia]] — a Sanger-inspired website with strict NPOV
**[[Citizendium]] — Sanger's expert-driven wiki, now moribund
**[[Everipedia]] — Sanger's blockchain-based Wikipedia-type wiki

==Notes==
{{reflist|group=note}}

==References==
{{reflist|2|80%}}

[[Category:Language]]

Categories: Language