Changes: RuneScape:Neutral point of view

Latest revision as of 12:59, 22 July 2016

This page in a nutshell:
All RuneScape Wiki articles should be written from a neutral point of view.

All RuneScape Wiki articles must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views. For guidance on how to make an article conform to the neutral point of view, see the NPOV tutorial.

According to Wikipedia founder Jimmy "Jimbo" Wales: "A few things are absolute and non-negotiable. NPOV for example." ^[1]

Explanation of the neutral point of view

The neutral point of view

The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions.

As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. It is a point of view that is neutral - that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject.

Debates are described, represented, and characterised, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but studiously refrain from stating which is better. One can think of unbiased writing as the cold, fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate. When bias towards one particular point of view can be detected, the article needs to be fixed.

Bias

NPOV requires views to be represented without bias. All editors and all sources have biases. A bias is a prejudice in a general or specific sense, usually in the sense of having a predilection for one particular point of view or ideology. One is said to be biased if one is influenced by one's biases. A bias could, for example, lead one to accept or not-accept the truth of a claim, not because of the strength of the claim itself, but because it does or does not correspond to one's own preconceived ideas.

Types of bias include:

Class bias, including bias favouring a "type" of RuneScape player ("Noob", "Pk'er", "Hi-level")
Commercial bias, such as the promotion of a YouTube video, player gathering, or event.
Sensationalism, which is bias in favour of the exceptional over the ordinary, often leading to Undue Weight. This includes the practice whereby exceptional events may be overemphasised, such as riots, forum black-outs etc. (in some cases)
Bias generated from the players' perception of Jagex, or RuneScape itself, where two separate parties (supporters and opposers) may POV push their philosophies onto the Wiki. This is similar to the Rants forum.

A simple formulation

We sometimes give an alternative formulation of the non-bias policy: assert facts, including facts about opinions — but do not assert opinions themselves. There is a difference between facts and opinions. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." For example, that a survey produced a certain published result would be a fact. That there is a planet called ScapeRune is a fact. That partyhats are discontinued is a fact. No one seriously disputes any of these things. So we can feel free to assert as many of them as we can.

By value or opinion, on the other hand, we mean "a piece of information about which there is some dispute." There are bound to be borderline cases where we are not sure if we should take a particular dispute seriously; but there are many propositions that very clearly express values or opinions. That gold-farming is wrong is a value or opinion. That R4ng3rno0b889 was the greatest ranger is a value or opinion. That the Jagex was wrong to remove unbalanced trade is a value or opinion.

The RuneScape Wiki is devoted to stating facts in the sense as described above. Where we might want to state an opinion, we convert that opinion into a fact by attributing the opinion to someone. So, rather than asserting, "R4ng3rno0b889 was the greatest ranger," we can say, "Most players believe that R4ng3rno0b889 was the greatest ranger," which is a fact verifiable by survey results, or "R4ng3rno0b889 had the most xp on the high scores list for Ranged," which is also fact. In the first instance we assert an opinion; in the second and third instances we "convert" that opinion into fact by attributing it to someone. It is important to note this formulation is substantially different from the "some people believe..." formulation popular in political debates. The reference requires an identifiable and objectively quantifiable population or, better still, a name (with the clear implication that the named individual should be a recognised authority).

In presenting an opinion, moreover, it is important to bear in mind that there are disagreements about how opinions are best stated; sometimes, it will be necessary to qualify the description of an opinion or to present several formulations, simply to arrive at a solution that fairly represents all the leading views of the situation.

But it is not enough, to express the RuneScape Wiki non-bias policy, just to say that we should state facts and not opinions. When asserting a fact about an opinion, it is important also to assert facts about competing opinions, and to do so without implying that any one of the opinions is correct. It is also generally important to give the facts about the reasons behind the views, and to make it clear who holds them. It is often best to cite a prominent representative of the view.

Situations and handling

Undue weight

NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all (by example, the article on Bounty Hunter doesn't mention praising it over the Wilderness, only because a distinct minority of players actually have such views). We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute.

Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.

None of this is to say that tiny-minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can give them on pages specifically devoted to them. The RuneScape Wiki is not paper. But even on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it should not be represented as the truth.

In other words, views held only by a tiny minority of people should not be represented as though they are significant minority views, and perhaps should not be represented at all.

A vital component: good research

Disagreements over whether something is approached the Neutral Point Of View (NPOV) way can usually be avoided through the practice of good research. Facts (as defined in the A simple formulation section above) are not Points Of View (POV, here used in the meaning of "opposite of NPOV") in and of themselves. A good way to build a neutral point of view is to find a reputable source for the piece of information you want to add to RuneScape Wiki, and then cite that source. This is an easy way to characterise a side of a debate without excluding that the debate has other sides. The trick is to find the best and most reputable sources you can. Try the library for good books and journal articles, and look for the most reliable online resources. A little bit of ground work can save a lot of time in trying to justify a point later.

Fairness of tone

If we are going to characterise disputes neutrally, we should present competing views with a consistently fair and sensitive tone. Many articles end up as partisan commentary even while presenting both points of view. Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organisation — for instance, refuting opposing views as one goes along makes them look a lot worse than collecting them in an opinions-of-opponents section.

Let the facts speak for themselves

A piece of advice is given about Lucien (not that this has not been actually stated, but is to remove the Wikipedia aspect of this policy on the RuneScape Wiki):

You won't even need to say he was evil. That is why the article on Zamorak does not start with "Zamorak was a bad Mahjarrat" — we don't need to, his deeds convict him a thousand times over. We just list the facts of his deeds dispassionately, and the voices of the dead cry out afresh in a way that makes name-calling both pointless and unnecessary. Please do the same: list Lucien's crimes, and cite your sources.

Remember that readers will probably not take kindly to moralising. If you do not allow the facts to speak for themselves you may alienate readers and turn them against your position.

Attributing and substantiating biased statements

Sometimes, a potentially biased statement can be reframed into an NPOV statement by attributing or substantiating it.

For instance, "Elfinlocks is the best PKer in RuneScape" is, by itself, merely an expression of opinion. One way to make it suitable for the RuneScape Wiki is to change it into a statement about someone whose opinion it is: "Elfinlocks' combat skills have been praised by many players such as Cow1337killr and R4ng3rno0b889," as long as those statements are correct and can be verified. The goal here is to attribute the opinion to some subject-matter expert, rather than to merely state it as true.

A different approach is to substantiate the statement, by giving factual details that back it up: "Elfinlocks had the highest killcount in Bounty Hunter from 2003 through 2006." Instead of using the vague word "best," this statement spells out a particular way in which Elfinlocks excels.

Common objections and clarifications

Does this apply to Guides? Should we be giving weight to less effective strategies?
- In most cases, no. Guides, when well-written, illustrate the best paths to accomplishing something. For instance, while saying "it's possible to defeat Elvarg with a steel scimitar so you can try if u want to" does give lesser strategies "weight" in the Elvarg article, readers can feel deceived by the content. This lowers our credibility for our guides.

Notes

^ "A few things are absolute and non-negotiable. NPOV for example." in statement by Jimbo Wales in November 2003 and reconfirmed by Jimbo Wales in April 2006 in the context of lawsuits.

Other resources

External links

On MeatballWiki:
- AssumeGoodFaith
- NeutralPointOfView
Multiple points of view: see religion-wiki: Multiple points of view

[1] "A few things are absolute and non-negotiable. NPOV for example." in statement by Jimbo Wales in November 2003 and reconfirmed by Jimbo Wales in April 2006 in the context of lawsuits.

[1]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+{{shortcut|RS:NPOV}}
-{{cleanup|Policy is not specific to RSW.}}
+{{nutshell|All [[RuneScape:About|''RuneScape'' Wiki]] articles should be written from a '''neutral point of view'''.}}
-{{ shortcut | [[RS:NPOV]] }}
+All RuneScape Wiki articles must be written from a '''neutral point of view''' ('''NPOV'''), representing fairly and without bias all significant views. For guidance on how to make an article conform to the neutral point of view, see the [[Wikipedia:wikipedia:NPOV tutorial|NPOV tutorial]]''.
+According to Wikipedia founder Jimmy "Jimbo" Wales: "A few things are absolute and non-negotiable. NPOV for example." <ref>"A few things are absolute and non-negotiable. NPOV for example." in [http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-November/008096.html statement by Jimbo Wales in November 2003] and reconfirmed  by  [http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-April/044379.html Jimbo Wales in April 2006] in the context of lawsuits.</ref>
-All RuneScape Wiki articles must be written from a '''neutral point of view''' ('''NPOV'''), representing fairly and without bias all significant views. For guidance on how to make an article conform to the neutral point of view, see the [[Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial|NPOV tutorial]]''.
+<!-- This page, [[Runescape:Neutral point of view]], is one of Wikipedia's three content policies. The other two are [[Wikipedia:Verifiability]] and [[Wikipedia:No original research]]. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in the main [[Wikipedia:Namespace|namespace]]. Because the policies are complementary, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should try to familiarise themselves with all three. The principles upon which these policies are based are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus. Their policy pages may be edited only to improve the application and explanation of the principles. -->
-Neutral point of view is a fundamental RuneScape wiki principle. According to Wikipedia founder Jim "Jimbo" Wales: "A few things are absolute and non-negotiable. NPOV for example." <ref>"A few things are absolute and non-negotiable. NPOV for example." in [http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-November/008096.html statement by Jimbo Wales in November 2003] and reconfirmed  by  [http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-April/044379.html Jimbo Wales in April 2006] in the context of lawsuits.</ref>
+==Explanation of the neutral point of view==
-<!-- This page, [[Runescape:Neutral point of view]], is one of Wikipedia's three content policies. The other two are [[Wikipedia:Verifiability]] and [[Wikipedia:No original research]]. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in the main [[Wikipedia:Namespace|namespace]]. Because the policies are complementary, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should try to familiarize themselves with all three. The principles upon which these policies are based are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus. Their policy pages may be edited only to improve the application and explanation of the principles. -->
-==Explanation of the neutral point of view==
 === The neutral point of view ===
 The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given ''undue weight'' or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions.
 As the name suggests, the neutral point of view ''is'' a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. It is a point of view that is neutral - that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject.
-Debates are described, represented, and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but studiously refrain from stating which is better. One can think of unbiased writing as the cold, fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate. When bias towards one particular point of view can be detected, the article needs to be fixed.
+Debates are described, represented, and characterised, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but studiously refrain from stating which is better. One can think of unbiased writing as the cold, fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate. When bias towards one particular point of view can be detected, the article needs to be fixed.
 ===Bias===
 NPOV requires views to be represented without bias. All editors and all sources have biases. A bias is a prejudice in a general or specific sense, usually in the sense of having a predilection for one particular point of view or ideology.  One is said to be biased if one is ''influenced'' by one's biases. A bias could, for example, lead one to accept or not-accept the truth of a claim, not because of the strength of the claim itself, but because it does or does not correspond to one's own preconceived ideas.
 Types of bias include:
-* Class bias, including bias favouring one social class and bias ignoring social or class divisions.
+* Class bias, including bias favouring a "type" of ''RuneScape'' player ("Noob", "Pk'er", "Hi-level")
+* Commercial bias, such as the promotion of a YouTube video, player gathering, or event.
+* Sensationalism, which is bias in favour of the exceptional over the ordinary, often leading to Undue Weight.  This includes the practice whereby exceptional events may be overemphasised, such as riots, forum black-outs etc. (in some cases)
-* Commercial bias, including advertising, coverage of political campaigns in such a way as to favour corporate interests, and the reporting of issues to favour the interests of the owners of the news media.
+* Bias generated from the players' perception of Jagex, or ''RuneScape'' itself, where two separate parties (supporters and opposers) may POV push their philosophies onto the Wiki.  This is similar to the Rants forum.
-* Ethnic or racial bias, including racism,  nationalism and regionalism.
-* Gender bias, including sexism and heteronormativity.
-* Geographical bias which may for example describe a dispute as it is conducted in one country without knowing that the dispute is framed differently elsewhere.
-* Nationalistic bias: favouring the interests or views of a particular nation.
-* Political bias, including bias in favour of or against a particular political party, policy or candidate.
-* Religious bias, including bias in which one religious viewpoint is given preference over others.
-* Sensationalism, which is bias in favour of the exceptional over the ordinary.  This includes the practice whereby exceptional news may be overemphasized, distorted or fabricated to boost commercial ratings.
 === A simple formulation ===
-We sometimes give an alternative formulation of the non-bias policy: assert facts, including facts about opinions — but do not assert opinions themselves. There is a difference between facts and opinions. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." For example, that a survey produced a certain published result would be a fact. That there is a planet called Mars is a fact. That Plato was a philosopher is a fact. No one seriously disputes any of these things. So we can feel free to ''assert'' as many of them as we can.
+We sometimes give an alternative formulation of the non-bias policy: assert facts, including facts about opinions — but do not assert opinions themselves. There is a difference between facts and opinions. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." For example, that a survey produced a certain published result would be a fact. That there is a planet called ScapeRune is a fact. That partyhats are discontinued is a fact. No one seriously disputes any of these things. So we can feel free to ''assert'' as many of them as we can.
-By value or opinion, on the other hand, we mean "a piece of information about which there is some dispute." There are bound to be borderline cases where we are not sure if we should take a particular dispute seriously; but there are many propositions that very clearly express values or opinions. That stealing is wrong is a value or opinion. That the Beatles was the greatest band is a value or opinion. That the United States was wrong to drop the atomic bomb over Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a value or opinion.
+By value or opinion, on the other hand, we mean "a piece of information about which there is some dispute." There are bound to be borderline cases where we are not sure if we should take a particular dispute seriously; but there are many propositions that very clearly express values or opinions. That gold-farming is wrong is a value or opinion. That R4ng3rno0b889 was the greatest ranger is a value or opinion. That the Jagex was wrong to remove unbalanced trade is a value or opinion.
-Wikipedia is devoted to stating facts in the sense as described above. Where we might want to state an opinion, we convert that opinion into a fact by ''attributing'' the opinion to someone. So, rather than asserting, "The Beatles were the greatest band," we can say, "Most Americans believe that the Beatles were the greatest band," which is a fact verifiable by survey results, or "The Beatles had many songs that made the Billboard Hot 100," which is also fact. In the first instance we assert an opinion; in the second and third instances we "convert" that opinion into fact by attributing it to someone. It is important to note this formulation is substantially different from the "some people believe..." formulation popular in political debates.  The reference requires '''an identifiable and objectively quantifiable population''' or, better still, '''a name''' (with the clear implication that the named individual should be a recognised authority).
+The RuneScape Wiki is devoted to stating facts in the sense as described above. Where we might want to state an opinion, we convert that opinion into a fact by ''attributing'' the opinion to someone. So, rather than asserting, "R4ng3rno0b889 was the greatest ranger," we can say, "Most players believe that R4ng3rno0b889 was the greatest ranger," which is a fact verifiable by survey results, or "R4ng3rno0b889 had the most xp on the high scores list for Ranged," which is also fact. In the first instance we assert an opinion; in the second and third instances we "convert" that opinion into fact by attributing it to someone. It is important to note this formulation is substantially different from the "some people believe..." formulation popular in political debates.  The reference requires '''an identifiable and objectively quantifiable population''' or, better still, '''a name''' (with the clear implication that the named individual should be a recognised authority).
 In presenting an opinion, moreover, it is important to bear in mind that there are disagreements about how opinions are best stated; sometimes, it will be necessary to qualify the description of an opinion or to present several formulations, simply to arrive at a solution that fairly represents all the leading views of the situation.
-But it is not ''enough,'' to express the Wikipedia non-bias policy, just to say that we should state facts and not opinions. When asserting a fact ''about an opinion,'' it is important ''also'' to assert facts ''about competing opinions,'' and to do so without implying that any one of the opinions is correct. It is also generally important to give the facts about the reasons behind the views, and to make it clear who holds them. It is often best to cite a prominent representative of the view.
+But it is not ''enough,'' to express the RuneScape Wiki non-bias policy, just to say that we should state facts and not opinions. When asserting a fact ''about an opinion,'' it is important ''also'' to assert facts ''about competing opinions,'' and to do so without implying that any one of the opinions is correct. It is also generally important to give the facts about the reasons behind the views, and to make it clear who holds them. It is often best to cite a prominent representative of the view.
 ==Situations and handling==
-=== POV forks ====
-A ''POV fork'' is an attempt to evade NPOV guidelines by creating a new article about a certain subject that is already treated in an article, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. This is generally considered unacceptable. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major Points of View on a certain subject are treated in one article.
 === Undue weight ===
-NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. '''Now an important qualification:''' Articles that compare views need not give minority views ''as much'' or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all (by example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority).  We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. This applies not only to article text, but to images, external links, categories, and all other material as well.
+NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. '''Now an important qualification:''' Articles that compare views need not give minority views ''as much'' or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all (by example, the article on [[Bounty Hunter (historical)|Bounty Hunter]] doesn't mention praising it over the [[Wilderness]], only because a distinct minority of players actually have such views).  We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute.
 Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.
-None of this is to say that tiny-minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can give them on pages specifically devoted to them.  Wikipedia is not paper. But even on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it should not be represented as ''the truth''.
+None of this is to say that tiny-minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can give them on pages specifically devoted to them.  The RuneScape Wiki is not paper. But even on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it should not be represented as ''the truth''.
-: From Jimbo Wales, paraphrased from [http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-September/006653.html this post from September 2003 on the mailing list]:
-:* If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference text
-:* If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name ''prominent'' adherents;
-:* If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.
 In other words, views held only by a tiny minority of people should not be represented as though they are significant minority views, and perhaps should not be represented at all.
-In particular, to elaborate on the last comment above, if you are able to prove something that nobody currently believes, Wikipedia is not the place to premiere such a proof.  Once a proof has been presented and discussed elsewhere, however, it may be referenced.
 === A vital component: good research ===
-Disagreements over whether something is approached the ''Neutral Point Of View'' (NPOV) way can usually be avoided through the practice of good research. Facts (as defined in the ''[[#A simple formulation|A simple formulation]]'' section above) are not ''Points Of View'' (POV, here used in the meaning of "opposite of NPOV") in and of themselves. A good way to build a neutral point of view is to find a reputable source for the piece of information you want to add to Wikipedia, and then cite that source. This is an easy way to characterize a side of a debate without excluding that the debate has other sides.  The trick is to find the best and most reputable sources you can.  Try the library for good books and journal articles, and look for the most reliable online resources.  A little bit of ground work can save a lot of time in trying to justify a point later.
+Disagreements over whether something is approached the ''Neutral Point Of View'' (NPOV) way can usually be avoided through the practice of good research. Facts (as defined in the ''[[#A simple formulation|A simple formulation]]'' section above) are not ''Points Of View'' (POV, here used in the meaning of "opposite of NPOV") in and of themselves. A good way to build a neutral point of view is to find a reputable source for the piece of information you want to add to ''RuneScape'' Wiki, and then cite that source. This is an easy way to characterise a side of a debate without excluding that the debate has other sides.  The trick is to find the best and most reputable sources you can.  Try the library for good books and journal articles, and look for the most reliable online resources.  A little bit of ground work can save a lot of time in trying to justify a point later.
-The only other important consideration is that sources of comparable reputability might contradict. In that case the core of the NPOV policy is to let competing approaches of the same topic exist on the same page: work for ''balance'', that is: divide ''space'' describing the opposing viewpoints according to reputability of the sources. And, when available, give precedence to those sources that have been the most successful in presenting facts in an equally balanced manner.
 === Fairness of tone ===
-If we are going to characterize disputes neutrally, we should present competing views with a consistently fair and sensitive tone. Many articles end up as partisan commentary ''even while'' presenting both points of view. Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization — for instance, refuting opposing views as one goes along makes them look a lot worse than collecting them in an opinions-of-opponents section.
+If we are going to characterise disputes neutrally, we should present competing views with a consistently fair and sensitive tone. Many articles end up as partisan commentary ''even while'' presenting both points of view. Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organisation — for instance, refuting opposing views as one goes along makes them look a lot worse than collecting them in an opinions-of-opponents section.
+=== Let the facts speak for themselves ===
-We should, instead, write articles with the tone that ''all'' positions presented are at least plausible, bearing in mind the important qualification about extreme minority views. We should present all significant, competing views sympathetically. We can write with the attitude that such-and-such is a good idea, except that, in the view of some detractors, the supporters of said view overlooked such-and-such a detail.
+A piece of advice is given about [[Lucien]] (not that this has not been actually stated, but is to remove the Wikipedia aspect of this policy on the RuneScape Wiki):
+: You won't even ''need'' to say he was evil. That is why the article on Zamorak does not start with "Zamorak was a bad [[Mahjarrat]]" — we don't need to, his deeds convict him a thousand times over. We just list the facts of his deeds dispassionately, and the voices of the dead cry out afresh in a way that makes name-calling both pointless and unnecessary. Please do the same: list Lucien's crimes, and cite your sources.
-=== Characterizing opinions of people's work ===
-Wikipedia articles about art, artists, and other creative topics (''e.g.'', musicians, actors, books, ''etc.'') have tended toward the effusive. This is out of place in an encyclopedia. We might not be able to agree that so-and-so is the greatest guitar player in history, but it may be important to describe how some artist or some work has been received by the general public or by prominent experts. Providing an overview of the common interpretations of a creative work, preferably with citations or references to notable individuals holding that interpretation, is appropriate. For instance, that Shakespeare is [http://absoluteshakespeare.com/william_shakespeare.htm widely acknowledged] as one of the greatest playwrights of the English language is a bit of knowledge that one should learn from an encyclopedia. However, in the interests of neutrality, one should also learn that a number of reputable scholars argue that there is a [http://www2.localaccess.com/marlowe/pamphlet/pamphlet.htm strong case] to make that the author of much of the work still attributed to Shakespeare was his contemporary Christopher Marlowe. Notice that determining how some artist or work has been received publicly or critically might require research — but once determined, a clear statement of that reception (unlike an idiosyncratic opinion by a Wikipedia article writer) is an opinion that really matters.
-=== Let the facts speak for themselves ===
-User:Karada offered the following advice in the context of the Saddam Hussein article:
-: You won't even ''need'' to say he was evil. That is why the article on Hitler does not start with "Hitler was a bad man" — we don't need to, his deeds convict him a thousand times over. We just list the facts of the Holocaust dispassionately, and the voices of the dead cry out afresh in a way that makes name-calling both pointless and unnecessary. Please do the same: list Saddam's crimes, and cite your sources.
 Remember that readers will probably not take kindly to moralising. If you do not allow the facts to speak for themselves you may alienate readers and turn them against your position.
@@ Line 94: / Line 63: @@
 Sometimes, a potentially biased statement can be reframed into an NPOV statement by ''attributing'' or ''substantiating'' it.
-For instance, "John Doe is the best baseball player" is, by itself, merely an expression of opinion. One way to make it suitable for Wikipedia is to change it into a statement about someone whose opinion it is: "John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by baseball insiders such as Al Kaline and Joe Torre," as long as those statements are correct and can be verified. The goal here is to ''attribute'' the opinion to some subject-matter expert, rather than to merely state it as true.
+For instance, "[[Elfinlocks]] is the best [[PKer]] in RuneScape" is, by itself, merely an expression of opinion. One way to make it suitable for the RuneScape Wiki is to change it into a statement about someone whose opinion it is: "Elfinlocks' combat skills have been praised by many players such as [[Cow1337killr]] and [[R4ng3rno0b889]]," as long as those statements are correct and can be verified. The goal here is to ''attribute'' the opinion to some subject-matter expert, rather than to merely state it as true.
-A different approach is to ''substantiate'' the statement, by giving factual details that back it up: "John Doe had the highest batting average in the major leagues from 2003 through 2006." Instead of using the vague word "best," this statement spells out a particular way in which Doe excels.
-There is a temptation to rephrase biased or opinion statements with weasel words: "Many people think John Doe is the best baseball player." But statements of this form are subject to obvious attacks: "Yes, many people think so, but only ignorant people"; and "Just how many is 'many'? I think it's only 'a few' who think that!" By ''attributing'' the claim to a known authority, or ''substantiating'' the facts behind it, you can avoid these problems.
+A different approach is to ''substantiate'' the statement, by giving factual details that back it up: "Elfinlocks had the highest killcount in Bounty Hunter from 2003 through 2006." Instead of using the vague word "best," this statement spells out a particular way in which Elfinlocks excels.
 == Common objections and clarifications ==
+*Does this apply to [[Guides]]?  Should we be giving weight to less effective strategies?
-:''See [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ]] for answers and clarifications on the issues raised in this section''
+**In most cases, no.  Guides, when well-written, illustrate the best paths to accomplishing something.  For instance, while saying "it's possible to defeat Elvarg with a steel scimitar so you can try if u want to" does give lesser strategies "weight" in the [[Elvarg]] article, readers can feel deceived by the content.  This lowers our credibility for our guides.
-Common objections or concerns raised by newcomers to Wikipedia's Neutral point of view policy include the following.
-;[[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Being neutral|Being neutral]]:
-* ''[[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#There's no such thing as objectivity|There's no such thing as objectivity]]''<br />Everybody with any philosophical sophistication knows that. So how can we take the "neutrality" policy seriously?
-* ''[[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete|Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete]]''<br />The neutrality policy is used sometimes as an excuse to delete texts that are perceived as biased. Isn't this a problem?
-* ''[[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Making necessary assumptions|Making necessary assumptions]]''<br />What about the case where, in order to write any of a long series of articles on some general subject, we must make some controversial assumptions? That's the case, e.g., in writing about evolution. Surely we won't have to hash out the evolution-vs.-creationism debate on every such page?
-;[[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Balancing different views|Balancing different views]]:
-* ''[[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Giving "equal validity"|Giving "equal validity"]]''<br />I find the optimism about science vs. pseudoscience to be baseless. History has shown that pseudoscience can beat out facts, as those who rely on pseudoscience use lies, slander, innuendo and numerical majorities of followers to force their views on anyone they can. If this project gives equal validity to those who literally claim that the Earth is flat, or those who claim that the Holocaust never occurred, the result is that it will (inadvertently) legitimize and help promote that which only can be termed evil.
-* ''[[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Writing for the "enemy"|Writing for the "enemy"]]''<br />I'm not convinced by what you say about "writing for the enemy." I don't want to write for the enemy. Most of them rely on stating as fact many things which are demonstrably false. Are you saying that, to be neutral in writing an article, I must ''lie,'' in order to represent the view I disagree with?
-* ''[[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Religion|Religion]]''<br />Disrespecting my religion or treating it like a ''human'' invention of some kind is religious discrimination, inaccurate, or wrong. And what about beliefs I feel are wrong, or against my religion, or outdated, or non-scientific?
-* ''[[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Morally offensive views|Morally offensive views]]''<br />What about views that are morally offensive to most Westerners, such as racism, sexism, and Holocaust denial, that some people actually hold? Surely we are not to be neutral about ''them''?
-* ''[[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Pseudoscience|Pseudoscience]]''<br />How are we to write articles about [[Wikipedia:Category:Pseudoscience|pseudoscientific topics]], about which majority scientific opinion is that the [[Wikipedia:Pseudoscience| pseudoscientific]] opinion is not credible and doesn't even really deserve serious mention?
-;[[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Editorship disputes|Editorship disputes]]:
-* ''[[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Dealing with biased contributors|Dealing with biased contributors]]''<br />I agree with the non-bias policy but there are some here who seem completely, irremediably biased. I have to go around and clean up after them. What do I do?
-* ''[[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Avoiding constant disputes|Avoiding constant disputes]]''<br />How can we avoid constant and endless warfare over neutrality issues?
-;[[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Other|Other]]:
-* ''[[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Anglo-American focus|Anglo-American focus]]''<br />Wikipedia seems to have an Anglo-American focus. Is this contrary to the neutral point of view?
-* ''[[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Other objections|Other objections]]''<br />I have some other objection - where should I complain?
-Because the neutral-point-of-view policy is often unfamiliar to newcomers, and is so central to Wikipedia's approach, many issues surrounding the neutrality policy have been covered before very extensively. If you have some new contribution to make to the debate, you could try [[Runescape Talk:Neutral point of view]].
 ==Notes==
@@ Line 140: / Line 75: @@
 == Other resources ==
-* [[Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial|NPOV tutorial]]
+* [[Wikipedia:wikipedia:NPOV tutorial|Wikipedia NPOV tutorial]]
+* [[Wikipedia:wikipedia:List of controversial issues | List of controversial issues]]
-* [[M:Responses to How to Build Wikipedia, Understand Bias|Understand Bias]]
-* [[Wikipedia:List of controversial issues | List of controversial issues]]
+* [[Wikipedia:wikipedia:Words to avoid|Words to avoid]]
-* [[Wikipedia:Words to avoid | Words to avoid]]
+* [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Controversial articles|Guidelines for controversial articles]]
-* [[Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles|Guidelines for controversial articles]]
+* [[Wikipedia:wikipedia:Avoid weasel words|Avoid weasel words]]
+* [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias|WikiProject Countering Systemic Bias]]
-* [[Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words]]
+* [[Wikipedia:wikipedia:Criticism|Wikipedia:Criticism]]
-* [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering Systemic Bias|WikiProject Countering Systemic Bias]]
+* [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:WikiProject Neutrality|Wikipedia:WikiProject Neutrality]]
-* [[Wikipedia:Criticism]]
-* [[Wikipedia:Neutrality Project|Wikipedia Neutrality Project]]
 == External links ==
@@ Line 154: / Line 88: @@
 ** [[MeatBall:AssumeGoodFaith|AssumeGoodFaith]]
 ** [[MeatBall:NeutralPointOfView|NeutralPointOfView]]
+* Multiple points of view: see [[w:c:religion:Religion-wiki:Multiple points of view|religion-wiki: Multiple points of view]]
-* [http://www.cjr.org/issues/2004/6/mooney-science.asp Blinded By Science: How ‘Balanced’ Coverage Lets the Scientific Fringe Hijack Reality] - Chris Mooney, Columbia Journalism Review. A valuable warning to Wikipedians about how some methods used to balance coverage can lead to biased, inaccurate and misleading reporting.
-* Multiple points of view: see [[WikiCities:c:religion-wiki:Religion-wiki:Multiple points of view|religion-wiki: Multiple points of view]]
 [[Category:Policies|Neutral point of view]]