User Created This site is a wiki - meaning that anyone can create or edit almost any page. If you see an error on a page, you can correct it instantly. Or if you want to add new content, or even new pages, you don't need to ask for permission first - you just go ahead and create it. (Please leave an edit note suggesting what you changed. That can be located otherwise, but with greater difficulty.)
.
This UU Wiki is an on-going project to build a user-created free scholarly commentary on the entire scope of religion.
.
Free The commentary is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License, sometimes known as copyleft. That is to say, it may be copied, modified, and redistributed so long as the new version grants the same freedoms to others and acknowledges the authors (a direct link back to the article satisfies our author credit requirement). The Wiki will therefore remain free forever and can be used by anybody subject to certain restrictions, most of which serve to ensure that freedom. By posting here you give permission for your posted material to be copied or changed.
. Scholarly
.The Wiki aims to avoid disputes over religious doctrine. The goal is for all commentary to be restricted to exegesis of the text, limited to an examination of the text and context. Eisegesis (reading into), or exhortation based on the text, is to be avoided. Encyclopedic articles do not involve "preaching" as such.
.
There is a comments section at the bottom of every page, where that can be done. In that case, please observe "good manners." That means no "ad homenim" arguments attacking another poster, no profanity, no libel. In other words, just common sense rules of good conduct.
.
There are, of course, many differences of opinion within exegesis, and no one can approach any religious document without bringing a range of personal opinion to bear on their examination.
.
The Wiki does not aim to portray a correct commentary, or adhere to any particular religious viewpoint: the general principle of Neutral point of view applies here. Opposing viewpoints should each be accurately represented and cited. When a UU point of view is presented, it is acknowledged as a point of view. (This is in the nature of UU philosophy and attitudes already.)
Commentary The primary focus of this site is to produce a commentary on religious and philosophical text, not necessarily just an encyclopedia of Biblical people, places, or doctrines. However, to avoid the significant redundancy involved in discussing people and places each time they are mentioned, it is also necessary to build articles on these topics that can be referred to in the body of the commentary.
.
Relevant
.
Entries must be directly or indirectly relevant in some way to UU'ism or religion in general. Indirect relevance might include reference to other views or religions, especially ideas that either support or contradict common UU views (such as trinitarianism, any philosophy, or inerrancy of the scriptures, for instance.) The ideas may relate to morality in general (such as articles on rights or torture) or to justice and decency (such as articles on Palestine politics.) Probably an article on hedge funds or the history of the circus would not be relevant in this venue. Obviously, commercial spam is not relevant, though we've already had some of that.
Moderated
This wiki is moderated, but only slightly so. That is, we want to interfere in the process as little as possible. Commercial spam, obscenity and vandalism will immediately be removed. Personal slights will immediately be removed. In the case of spam, blatant obscenity or vandalism, the sender will be blocked without notice. Personal attackers will be warned before this happens. We reason about or dispute the message, but we don't attack the messenger.
We realize there are ways to get around blocking, but we will deal with that when the time comes. Please note the warning below about prosecution.
Copyleft Policy
Material found on this Wiki may be repeated elsewhere, providing that credit is given to this source. That could be as simple as a link back to the website. Much of this wiki, at the time of this writing, is constituted of links to other websites. We do not have the authority to grant permission to copy what is found on those other websites. It is reasonable to copy a link to The Jewish Encyclopedia, but it is not so to copy what is found in that other source. Permission should either be granted by the original source, or the quote should be brief, and attributed, according to copyright law. Reasonable Use Explained You are implicitly giving permission for your material to be copied when you post here.
Survey -- Click here to tell us what you think -- |
|
The Commandments (borrowed from another wiki website: )
.
- Everything you post must be true and verifiable. Verifiable can simply mean posting a reference to your source. (True is a little trickier to define or describe. But we want at least to keep it "honest." )
- Always cite and give credit to your sources, even if in the public domain.
- Edits/new pages must be family-friendly, clean, concise, and without gossip or foul language. In other words, "encyclopedic" in nature.
- As much as is possible, except when quoting, American spelling of words should be used. [1]
- Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry without labeling it as opinion and supporting it with facts. Facts can be documented using footnotes for sources at the end of the article, with a number after each statement referring to the footnote. Links can also be used, allowing the reader to read from the source by clicking on a word. The source should not be opinion, or a person speaking on his own authority, unless it is an attribution to that person. Links can be created in the edit mode by clicking on the word "Link" in the toolbar.
- Attribution: There's a difference between stating flatly that "the earth is 6,000 years old" and reporting that "Young Earth creationists say that the earth is 6,000 years old." Likewise, there's a difference between saying "All living species of animals evolved from earlier species" and saying "Most biologists believe that all living species of animals evolved from earlier species".
English teachers call that attribution.
Here's another example:
- It was raining on Tuesday. (unattributed)
- John said it was raining on Tuesday. (attributed)
Newspaper report on a murder trial:
- Smith killed Jones.
- Judge Robinson found Smith guilty of killing Jones.
Simply by attributing a statement to the person who said it, we can turn bias into fact. That is, we convert a statement about something from a biased assertion into an attribution. We don't say "X". We say that "A said X."
Notice that at no point do these statements endorse any of the views. The sample text provided merely states what each view is, without saying whether any of them is correct or incorrect.
Thus, a good article "describes" - it does not "prescribe". [1]
In regards to attribution, always cite and give credit to your sources,[2] even if in the public domain. Conservapedia's Manual of Style assists new wiki users on how to put footnotes in an article.
- The operation of unauthorized wiki-bots is prohibited. [2] Edits which violate these rules will be deleted. Users who violate the rules repeatedly will be blocked.
- A blatantly inappropriate entry, such as vandalism or obscenity, can result in immediate blocking without warning. Vandalism or obscenity may also be prosecuted (see bottom of home page and this page.)
- Commercial advertisements are not allowed, other than those provided by the Wetpaint sponsor, who gives us this web site for free, in exchange for our tolerating their advertising at the edges of the screen.
.
- Please report abuse of this wiki by posting in the comments section below, or the comments section of the home (Welcome) page. You can also write to the administrator from the appropriate page.
| . Wiki Code of Conduct
(Borrowed from another website.)
. To foster the best possible experience for all, the Wetpaint Central community respectfully requests that its visitors and contributors honor this code of conduct. Failure to follow these rules will result in a deletion of your comment and/or content.
(1) Play nicely with others.
- Respect your peers — Treat others and their contributions with respect and foster considerate dialogue.
- Do not use offensive language — Inappropriate, crude, or abusive language is not only unacceptable, it’s a lousy way to convince anyone of your point. Remember, that tells more about the speaker than it does about his target.
- Remember, there are no stupid questions— “Flaming” others or demeaning their participation may build your self-esteem but it won’t help build community. And, it doesn't build high esteem from others for the writer, either.
- Report inappropriate behavior — Remove and/or report to the moderators disrespectful or provocative content, but refrain from seeking vigilante justice.
.
(2) Act in good faith.
- Don’t pilfer material — Don’t publish content to which you have no rights. Period. Full stop.
Not only does this violate the law, but it is just as easy to post a link to material on the web. Material taken from books can be paraphrased, and credit given to the source. This helps to support your comment, as well, as readers can then check for greater detail at the original source. . - It’s about you, but not about YOU — This site exists to support an organic and communal body of information. Shameless self-promotion and hawking of wares are strictly verboten, not to mention pathetic.
.
(3) Promote the community spirit.
- Use the Moderators as a resource — Reach out to the Moderators for guidance or advice on how best to leverage the site. They are there to help.
. - Share the experience — Be an ambassador of the community by enrolling others in the discussion, sponsoring a good debate, and setting a good, collaborative example.
.
(4) Keep It original.
- Don't copy the content from other sites because people will know what you are doing! A link to the other site will work just as well.
.
(5) Keep it legal
.
- Minors under 16 years of age use this site. Posting of obscenity here is punishable by up to 10 years in prison under 18 USC § 1470. Vandalism is punishable up to 10 years in prison per 18 USC § 1030.
.
One's ISP number is displayed on moderator pages after posting, even if s/he doesn't log in. Consequently, it is possible to trace a contributor, if need be, for either prosecution or simply automatic blocking.
- Note the Copyleft policy above. Quote this website with attribution freely, those found through links less so.
.
For a more exhaustive list of legal do’s and don’ts, refer to the site’s Terms & Conditions.
.
Taken from Wikipedia:
Types of vandalism.
Vandalism may fall into one or more of the following categorizations:
(This section is lifted from Wickipedia, so some statements may not correspond exactly with the technology of Wetpaint.)
.
Blanking-- Removing all or significant parts of pages, or replacing entire established pages with one's own version without first gaining consensus.
.
Consensus is gained by posting in the comments area at the bottom, and waiting for reply. Notice of your comment will appear on the Home page. When making a change, note in the proper blank in the form your reasons for the change.
.
Sometimes important verifiable references are deleted with no valid reason(s) given in the summary. However, significant content removals are usually not considered to be vandalism where the reason for the removal of the content is readily apparent by examination of the content itself, or where a non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content is provided, linked to, or referenced in an edit summary. Allowance can be made for amateurism and a novice skill level. . An example of blanking edits that could be legitimate would-be edits that blank all or part of a biography of a living person. We are especially concerned about providing accurate and non-biased information on the living, and this may be an effort to remove inaccurate or biased material. To do this in good faith, enter your complaint in the comments first. . Due to the possibility of unexplained good-faith content removal, {{ uw-test1}} or {{ uw-delete1}}, as appropriate, should normally be used as initial warnings for ordinary content removals not involving any circumstances that would merit stronger warnings. . Excessive lengthening: Adding copious repetitive or meaningless content to a page. Spam Continuing to add external links to non-notable or irrelevant sites (e.g. to advertise one's website) to pages after having been warned is vandalism. Common sense would tell anyone that commercial spam is not a good-faith change, and has no good intent, making it obvious vandalism. . Vandalbots A script or "robot" that attempts to vandalize or spam massive numbers of articles (hundreds or thousands). . Silly vandalism-- Adding profanity, graffiti, random characters, or other nonsense to pages; creating nonsensical and obviously non-encyclopedic pages, etc. Please note that the addition of random characters to pages is a common way that new users test edit and may not be intentionally malicious. Some of this is done by kids, but some adults behave like kids, too. . Sneaky vandalism: Vandalism which is harder to spot. This can include adding plausible misinformation to articles, (e.g minor alteration of dates), hiding vandalism (e.g. by making two bad edits and only reverting one), or reverting legitimate edits with the intent of hindering the improvement of pages. . Userspace vandalism: Adding insults, profanity, etc. to user pages or user talk pages (see also Wikipedia:No personal attacks). Again, kid stuff, but whether you are an adult or a kid, try not to act like one here, please. . Image vandalism: Uploading shock images, inappropriately placing sexually explicit images on pages, or simply using any image in ways that are disruptive. Please note though that Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors and that certain explicit images may be uploaded and/or placed on pages for legitimate reasons. (The Supreme Court has referred to "prurient interest" in defining obscenity. It is the intent that makes the difference.) . Abuse of tags: Bad-faith placing of {{ afd}}, {{ delete}}, {{ sprotected}}, or other tags on pages that do not meet such criteria. . This includes removal of long-standing {{ policy}} and related tags without forming consensus on such a change first. . Page-move vandalism: Changing the names of pages (referred to as "page-moving") to disruptive or otherwise inappropriate terms. Wikipedia now only allows registered users active for at least four days to move pages. . Link vandalism: Modifying internal or external links within a page so that they appear the same but link to a page/site that they are not intended to (e.g an explicit image; a shock site). Avoidant vandalism Removing {{ afd}}, {{ copyvio}} and other related tags in order to conceal deletion candidates or avert deletion of such content. . Note that this is often mistakenly done by new users who are unfamiliar with AFD procedures and such users should be given the benefit of the doubt and pointed to the proper page to discuss the issue. . Modifying users' comments: Editing other users' comments to substantially change their meaning (e.g. turning someone's vote around), except when removing a personal attack (which is somewhat controversial in and of itself). Signifying that a comment is unsigned is an exception. Please also note that correcting other users' typos is discouraged. . Improper use of dispute tags-- Dispute tags are an important way for people to show that there are problems with the page. Do not remove them unless you are sure that all stated reasons for the dispute are settled. . As a general rule, do not remove other people's dispute tags twice during a 24 hour period. Do not place dispute tags improperly, as in when there is no dispute, and the reason for placing the dispute tag is because a suggested edit has failed to meet consensus. . Instead, follow WP:Consensus and accept that some edits will not meet consensus. Please note that placing or removal of dispute tags does not count as simple vandalism, and therefore the reverting of such edits is not exempt from the three-revert rule. . Talk page vandalism-- Removing the comments of other users from talk pages other than your own, aside from removing internal spam, vandalism, etc. is generally considered vandalism. . An obvious exception is moving posts to a proper place (e.g. protection requests to WP:RFPP). Removing personal attacks is often considered legitimate, and it is considered acceptable to archive an overly long talk page by creating an archive page and moving the text from the main talk page there. . The above rules do not apply to a user's own talk page, where this policy does not itself prohibit the removal and archival of comments at the user's discretion. . Repeated uploading of copyrighted material . Uploading or using material on this website in ways which violate Wikipedia's copyright policies after having been warned is vandalism. Our own material isn't copyrighted, but bringing material here that is, is another matter. . Because users may be unaware that the information is copyrighted, or of policies on how such material may and may not be used, such action only becomes vandalism if it continues after the copyrighted nature of the material and relevant policy restricting its use have been communicated to the user. . Malicious account creation: Creating accounts with usernames that contain deliberately offensive or disruptive terms is considered vandalism, whether the account is used or not. This is more likely to be done by adolescents or pre-adolescents, so adults would not, in a sober state, be likely to do that. For our policy on what is considered inappropriate for a username, see Wikipedia:Username policy. See also Wikipedia:Sock puppet. . Deleted page re-creation-- Repeated re-creation of pages that have been legitimately deleted via process pages, or speedy deletion without discussion. . Re-creating a page once may be an understandable mistake - repeated re-creation after the user has been warned not to do so may constitute vandalism. Such re-creations can be requested and discussed on deletion review. . Hidden vandalism: Any form of vandalism that makes use of embedded text, which is not visible to the final rendering of the article but visible during editing. . Spam is vandalism, equivalent to graffiti. Please keep your posts relevant to the purpose of the wiki. Irrelevant posts are not quite spam, but they do constitute clutter. If your hobby is fly-bait casting, and if that has nothing to do with religion or philosophy, please don't post articles about that here. If you have something to sell, this is not the place to do it. Self Interest Editing -- Changing an entry to favor one's personal interest is inappropriate. The website Wiki Scanner locates posters who have altered Wikipedia to their own interest, such as deleting paragraphs critical of their corporation or entering negative information about a competitor. Other examples include altering wording to make a topic more attractive or more distasteful. That is a willful abuse of the wiki, though the perpetrator will be warned, on the assumption that he is naive to that fact. Pretended Editing -- Vandalizing an entry under pretense of editing, though thinly disguised. Sometimes even including a threat to block the previous poster, though the person actually has no such authority nor technical capability. The vandal clearly knows that his work is not sincerely in the interest of editing, and this is apparent to an outside observer as well. What vandalism is notAlthough at times incorrectly referred to as such, the following things are not considered "vandalism" and are therefore treated differently:
.
Tests by experimenting users: New users who discover the "edit this page" button sometimes want to experience editing a page and may add something unhelpful to a page (e.g., a few random characters) as a test. Such edits are not done in bad faith and are therefore not vandalism. Rather than be warned for vandalism, these users should be warmly greeted, and given a reference to the sandbox (e.g., using the test template message) where they can continue to make test edits without being unintentionally disruptive. . If a user has made a test edit and then reverted it, consider placing the message {{ test-self}} on their talk page. Using incorrect wiki markup and manual of style Inexperienced users often are unfamiliar with Wikipedia's formatting and grammatical standards (e.g. how to create internal and/or external links, when certain words should be bolded or italicized, etc.) Rather than label such users as vandals, just explain to them what our standard style is on the issue in hand - perhaps pointing them towards our documentation at Wikipedia:How to edit a page, and the like. . NPOV violations The neutral point of view is a difficult policy for many of us to understand, and even Wikipedia veterans occasionally accidentally introduce material which is non-ideal from an NPOV perspective. Indeed, we are all affected by our beliefs to a greater or lesser extent. Though inappropriate, this is not vandalism in itself unless persisted in after being warned. An easy way around this is simply to label a POV as being just that. . The writer should take the position of an outside observer. That is, rather than saying, "This is MY opinion,," s/he would say, "It is sometimes seen...," or, "In the view of some...," or, "Another view is...," and so on. Even better is, "According to...," which allows attribution of the opinion. . Making bold edits Wikipedians often make sweeping changes to pages in order to improve them - most of us aim to be bold when updating articles. While having large chunks of text you've written removed or substantially rewritten can be frustrating, simply making edits that noticeably alter the text or content of a pages should not be immediately labeled vandalism. . Unintentional misinformation-- Sometimes a user will add content to an article that is factually inaccurate, but in the belief that it is accurate. By doing so in good faith, they are trying to contribute to the encyclopedia and improve it rather than vandalize. If you believe inaccurate information has been added to an article in good faith, ensure that it is, and/or discuss its factuality with the user who has submitted it. . If information is a point of view, the comments section at the bottom of the page is a good place to put that. . Unintentional nonsense While intentionally adding nonsense to pages is a form of vandalism, sometimes honest editors may not have expressed themselves correctly (there may be an error in the syntax, particularly for writers who use English as a second language). . Also, sometimes connection errors or edit conflict unintentionally produces the appearance of nonsense or malicious edits. In either case, assume good faith. . Stubbornness-- Some users cannot come to agreement with others who are willing to talk to them about an editing issue, and repeatedly make changes opposed by everyone else. This is regrettable - you may wish to see our dispute resolution pages to get help. Repeated deletion or addition of material may violate the three-revert rule, but this is not "vandalism" and should not be dealt with as such. . Harassment or personal attacks-- We have a clear policy of no personal attacks, and harassing other contributors is not allowed. While some forms of harassment are also clear cases of vandalism, such as user page vandalism, or inserting a personal attack into an article, harassment in itself is not considered "vandalism" and should be handled differently. Courtesy should be observed in discussions, or in direct messages between users. . Unilateral official policy/guideline alteration-- While editors are encouraged to be bold, making edits to Wikipedia policy pages (such as this one), proposed policy pages, guideline pages, etc. which alter the intended meaning of the page or a section of the page without first making an effort to gain consensus is inappropriate, but in itself is not vandalism and should not be treated as such (consider using {{ Policyalteration}} as a warning). Continuing in such behavior after having been warned, however, may warrant a block. . If a user treats situations which are not clear vandalism as such, then it is he or she who is actually harming the encyclopedia by alienating or driving away potential editors.
How to spot vandalism
The best way to detect vandalism is through recent changes patrolling or keeping an eye on your watchlist. The what links here pages for Insert text, Link title, Headline text, Bold text, Image:Example.jpg and Media:Example.ogg are also good places to find many test edits and/or vandalism. Any vandalism found should be reverted to an earlier version of the page; remember to include any good edits that have happened since then! The auto-summary feature can help users detect vandalism.
.
Comments on the subject matter of this page can be placed at the bottom of the page. Comments on any other page can be placed at the bottom of each page.
.
Incidentally, the program tends to remove spaces between grafs and run them together, so I have placed a period (.) between the grafs so the machine will see there is something there and leave the space where it is. | .
Like Wikipedia, we aspire to a Neutral Point of View. Though we favor UU viewpoints, we feel the truth will speak for itself, if completely exposed. Below is Wikipedia's discussion of NPOV.
Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikipedia principle. According to Jimmy Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable." [1]
All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources). This is non-negotiable and expected on all articles, and of all article editors. For guidance on how to make an article conform to the neutral point of view, see the NPOV tutorial; For examples and explanations that illustrate key aspects of this policy, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ.
Wikipedia: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 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 viewThe neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, 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 to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed 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. The neutral point of view policy is often misunderstood. The acronym NPOV does not mean "no points of view". The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV". The neutral point of view is a point of view that is neutral, that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject.
Debates within topics 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 asserting which is better. One can think of unbiased writing as the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate, including the mutual perspectives and the published evidence. When editorial bias toward one particular point of view can be detected, the article needs to be fixed.[2]
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 favoring one social class and bias ignoring social or class divisions;
- Commercial: advertising, coverage of political campaigns favoring corporate interests, or reporting favoring media owner interests;
- Ethnic or racial: racism, nationalism, regionalism and tribalism;
- Geographical: describing a dispute as it is conducted in one country, when the dispute is framed differently elsewhere;
- Nationalistic: favoring the interests or views of a particular nation;
- Gender: including sexism and heteronormativity;
- Political: bias in favor of or against a particular political party, policy or candidate;
- Religious: bias for or against religion, faith or beliefs;
- Sensationalist: favoring the exceptional over the ordinary. This includes emphasizing, distorting, or fabricating exceptional news to boost commercial ratings;
- Scientific (including anti-scientific and scientific skepticism): favoring (or disfavoring) a scientist, inventor, or theory for non-scientific reasons. This can also include excessive favoring (or disfavoring) prevalent scientific opinion, if in doing so, notable viewpoints are no longer being treated neutrally.
A simple formulation
Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. 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.
By value or opinion, on the other hand, we mean "a matter which is subject to dispute." There are bound to be borderline cases where it is not clear if a particular dispute should be taken seriously and included.[3] However, there are many propositions that very clearly express values or opinions. That stealing is wrong is a value or opinion. That the Beatles were the greatest band in history is a value or opinion. That the United States was right or wrong to drop the atomic bomb over Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a value or opinion.
Wikipedia is devoted to stating facts in the sense described above. Therefore, where we want to discuss an opinion, we attribute the opinion to someone and discuss the fact that they have this opinion. For example, rather than asserting, "The Beatles were the greatest band," we can say: "Most people from Liverpool believe that the Beatles were the greatest band," which can be supported by references to a particular survey; or "The Beatles had many songs that made the Billboard Hot 100," which is also verifiable as fact. In the first instance we assert a personal opinion; in the second and third instances we assert the fact that an opinion exists, by attributing it to reliable sources.
It is not sufficient to discuss an opinion as fact merely by stating "some people believe..." as is common in political debates.[4] A reliable source supporting that a group holds an opinion must accurately describe how large this group is. In addition, this source should be written by named authors who are considered reliable.
Moreover, there are usually disagreements about how opinions should be properly stated. To fairly represent all the leading views in a dispute it is sometimes necessary to qualify the description of an opinion, or to present several formulations of this opinion and attribute them to specific groups.
A balanced selection of sources is also critical for producing articles with a neutral point of view. For example, when discussing the facts on which a point of view is based, it is important to also include the facts on which competing opinions are based since this helps a reader evaluate the credibility of the competing viewpoints. This should be done without implying that any one of the opinions is correct. It is also important to make it clear who holds these opinions. It is often best to cite a prominent representative of the view.
See also Wikipedia:Describing points of view, an essay on the topic.
Achieving neutrality
Article naming A Wikipedia article must have one definitive name.[5] The general restriction against POV forks applies to article names as well. If a genuine naming controversy exists, and is relevant to the subject matter of the article, the controversy should be covered in the article text and substantiated with reliable sources. Otherwise, alternative article names should not be used as means of settling POV disputes among Wikipedia contributors. Also disfavored are double or "segmented" article names, in the form of: Flat Earth/Round Earth; or Flat Earth (Round Earth).[6] Even if a synthesis can be found, like Shape of the Earth, or Earth (Debated shapes), it may not be appropriate, especially if it is a novel usage coined specifically to resolve a POV fork.
Sometimes the article title itself may be a source of contention and polarization. This is especially true for titles that suggest a viewpoint either "for" or "against" any given issue. A neutral article title is very important because it ensures that the article topic is placed in the proper context. Therefore, encyclopedic article titles are expected to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality. The article might cover the same material but with less emotive words, or might cover broader material which helps ensure a neutral view (for example, renaming "Criticisms of drugs" to "Societal views on drugs"). Neutral titles encourage multiple viewpoints and responsible article writing.
Where proper nouns such as names are concerned, disputes may arise over whether a particular name should be used. Wikipedia takes a descriptive rather than prescriptive approach in such cases, describing corporate entities such as cities and states by the names by which they describe themselves (or by the English-language equivalent). Where inanimate entities such as geographical features are concerned, the most common name used in English-language publications is generally used. See Wikipedia:Naming conflict for further guidance.
Article structure Sometimes the internal structure of an article may require additional attention to protect neutrality and avoid problems like POV forks and undue weight. Although specific article structures are not as a rule prohibited, in some cases the article structure itself may need attention; whilst some compromise may be necessary, care must be taken to ensure the overall presentation is broadly neutral.
Examples that may warrant attention include:
- "Segregation" of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself;[7]
- Arrangements of formatting, headers, footnotes or other elements that appear to unduly favor a particular "side" of an issue;[8] or
- Other structural or stylistic aspects that make it difficult for a neutral reader to fairly and equally assess the credibility of all relevant and related viewpoints.[9]
Undue weight
NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth notion, 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. 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.
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.
Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them—Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. But on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it must make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view.
From Jimbo Wales, paraphrased from 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 texts;
- 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.
Views held only by a tiny minority of people should not be represented as significant minority views, and perhaps should not be represented at all.
If you are able to prove something that no one or few currently believe, Wikipedia is not the place to premiere such a proof. Once a proof has been presented and discussed elsewhere, however, it may be referenced. See: Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability.
A vital component: good researchDisagreements over whether something is approached neutrally can usually be avoided through the practice of good and unbiased research, based upon the best and most reputable authoritative sources available. Try the library for reputable books and journal articles, and look for the most reliable online resources. A little ground work can save a lot of time justifying a point later.
BalanceWhen reputable sources contradict one another, the core of the NPOV policy is to let competing approaches exist on the same page: work for balance, that is: describe the opposing viewpoints according to reputability of the sources, and give precedence to those sources that have been the most successful in presenting facts in an equally balanced manner.
Fairness of toneIf 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.
We should 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 impartially.
Characterizing opinions of people's workA special case is the expression of aesthetic opinions. 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 is important indeed 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 one of the greatest authors of the English language is a bit of knowledge that one should learn from an encyclopedia. Public and scholarly critique of an artist or work, when well-researched and verifiable, helps to put the work into context and enhances the credibility of the article; idiosyncratic opinions of individual Wikipedia contributors, however, do not.
Neutrality disputes and handling
Neutrality and verifiabilityA common type of dispute is when an editor asserts that a fact is both verifiable and cited, and should therefore be included.
In these types of disputes, it is important to note that verifiability lives alongside neutrality, it does not override it. A matter that is both verifiable and supported by reliable sources might nonetheless be proposed to make a point or cited selectively; painted by words more favorably or negatively than is appropriate; made to look more important or more dubious than a neutral view would present; marginalized or given undue standing; described in slanted terms which favor or weaken it; or subject to other factors suggestive of bias.
Verifiability is only one content criterion. Neutral point of view is a core policy of Wikipedia, mandatory, non-negotiable, and to be followed in all articles. Concerns related to undue weight, non-neutral fact selection and wording, and advancing a personal view, are not addressed even slightly by asserting that the matter is verifiable and cited. The two are different questions, and both must be considered in full, in deciding how the matter should be presented in an article.
POV forks A POV fork is an attempt to evade NPOV policy 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.
Let the facts speak for themselvesKarada 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 moralizing. 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 statementsSometimes, 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.
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.[10]
History and rationale
History of NPOVNPOV is one of the oldest policies on Wikipedia.
Reasoning behind NPOV
Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, which means it is a representation of human knowledge at some level of generality. But human beings disagree about specific cases; for any topic on which there are competing views, each view represents a different idea of what the truth is, and insofar as that view contradicts other views, its adherents believe that the other views are false and therefore not knowledge. Where there is disagreement about what is true, there is disagreement about what constitutes knowledge. Wikipedia works because it is a collaborative effort; but, while collaborating, how can we solve the problem of endless "edit wars" in which one person asserts that p, whereupon the next person changes the text so that it asserts not-p?
A solution is that we accept, for the purposes of working on Wikipedia, that "human knowledge" includes all different significant theories on all different topics. We are committed to the goal of representing human knowledge in that sense, surely a well-established meaning of the word "knowledge". What is "known" changes constantly with the passage of time, and so when we use the word "know," we often enclose it in so-called scare quotes.
Europeans in the Middle Ages "knew" that demons caused diseases; we now "know" otherwise. We could sum up human knowledge (in this sense) in a biased way: we could state a series of theories about topic T and then claim that the truth about T is such-and-such.
But then again, consider that Wikipedia is an international collaborative project, and that nearly every view on every subject will be found among our authors and readers. To avoid endless edit wars, we can agree to present each of the significant views fairly and not assert any one of them as correct. That is what makes an article "unbiased" or "neutral" in the sense presented here.
To write from a neutral point of view, one presents controversial views without asserting them; to do that, it generally suffices to present competing views in a way that is more or less acceptable to their adherents, and also to attribute the views to their adherents. Disputes are characterized in Wikipedia; they are not re-enacted.
To sum up the primary reason for this policy: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a compilation of human knowledge. But because Wikipedia is a community-built, international resource, we cannot expect collaborators to agree in all cases, or even in many cases, on what constitutes knowledge in a strict sense. We can therefore adopt the looser sense of "human knowledge" according to which a wide variety of conflicting theories constitute what we call "knowledge."
We should, both individually and collectively, make an effort to present these conflicting views fairly, without advocating any one of them—with the qualification that 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.
There is another reason to commit ourselves to this policy, that when it is clear to readers that we do not expect them to adopt any particular opinion, this leaves them free to make up their minds for themselves, thus encouraging intellectual independence. Totalitarian governments and dogmatic institutions everywhere might find reason to oppose Wikipedia, if we succeed in adhering to our non-bias policy: the presentation of many competing theories on a wide variety of subjects suggests that we, the editors of Wikipedia, trust readers to form their own opinions.
Texts that present multiple viewpoints fairly, without demanding that the reader accept any particular one of them, are liberating. Neutrality subverts dogmatism. Nearly everyone working on Wikipedia can agree this is a good thing.
Example: AbortionIt might help to consider an example of how Wikipedians have improved a biased text.
On the abortion page, early in 2001, some advocates had used the page to exchange barbs, being unable to agree about what arguments should be on the page and how the competing positions should be represented. What was needed—and what was added—was an in-depth discussion of the different positions about the moral and legal aspects of abortion at different times.
This discussion of the positions was carefully crafted so as not to favor any one of the positions outlined. This made it easier to organize and understand the arguments surrounding the topic of abortion, which were then presented impartially, each with its strengths and weaknesses.
There are numerous other success stories of articles that began life as virtual partisan screeds but were nicely cleaned up by people who concerned themselves with representing all views clearly and impartially.
Common objections and clarificationsSee Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ for answers and clarifications on the issues raised in this section Common objections or concerns raised to Wikipedia's Neutral point of view policy include the following.
Being neutral - Making necessary assumptions
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? Balancing different views
- Giving "equal validity"
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. - Writing for the "enemy"
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? - Religion
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? - Morally offensive views
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? Editorship disputes
- Dealing with biased contributors
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? Other
- Anglo-American focus
Wikipedia seems to have an Anglo-American focus. Is this contrary to the neutral point of view? Since 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 Talk:Neutral point of view, or bring it up on the Wikipedia-l mailing list. Before asking it, please review the links below.
Notes
- ^ "A few things are absolute and non-negotiable, though. NPOV for example." in statement by Jimbo Wales in November 2003 and, in this thread reconfirmed by Jimbo Wales in April 2006 in the context of lawsuits.
- ^ Balancing detectable bias is also covered in this policy under: Undue Weight
- ^ See also "undue weight" in this policy.
- ^ This is often referred to as "mass attribution". (See e.g., Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms
- ^ Note, however, that redirects may be used to address this technical limitation in situations where non-controversial synonyms and variations in word morphology exist.
- ^ (See also: Choosing among controversial names, Choosing geographic names, Wikipedia:Naming conflict, Wikipedia:Naming conventions).
- ^ Article sections devoted solely to criticism, or "pro and con" sections within articles are two commonly cited examples. There are varying views on whether and to what extent such kinds of article structure are appropriate. (See e.g., Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Article_structure, Wikipedia:Pro_&_con_lists, Wikipedia_talk:Pro_&_con_lists, Template:Criticism-section).
- ^ For example, some contributors advise against article sections devoted entirely to "criticism," although some assert that such sections are not always inappropriate. For more on this issue, see Formatting criticism.
- ^ (Commonly cited examples include articles that read too much like a "debate", and content structured like a "resume". See also, Wikipedia:Guide to layout, Wikipedia:Edit war, WP Cleanup Templates, Template:Lopsided).
- ^ (See also, Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words, Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms).
Other resources
External links Listen to this article (3 parts) · (info) This audio file was created from an article revision dated 2006- 05-15, and may not reflect subsequent edits to the article. ( Audio help) Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to: .
And Finally--
(Borrowed from another Wiki and adapted -- some of the links may refer to the Orthodox church.)
What is this UU Wiki? - It's a wiki.
- It's a community. Opinions are welcome as long as they are marked and in the proper place.
- It's a place for UU's to share their knowledge and perspectives.
- It's an encyclopedia aimed at producing articles that can be used freely (with attribution), especially for religious education.
- It is intended for many audiences—as a resource for non-UU's, as well as clergy and laity.
- It's a discussion forum with attention to the development of documentation to help clarify / articulate some fundamental issues in religious thinking.
- It has a specific bias. (Preference for a general UU view.) A UU view is not a dogma, but relies on the ability to step back and view as an observer, allowing fair consideration and open exposition of any well-reasoned and factual outlook. It trusts the reader to be able to inspect all positions and draw his/her own conclusions.
. An objective, NPOV (neutral point of view) should be striven for, but where a UU POV is expressed, it should be justified with data. Where another POV is mentioned, any disagreement should be supported, or attributed to the POV of some group or person. Opinion not documented and presented as authoritative should be kept in the comments section at the bottom of every page.
.
As you can see, the initial version of this wiki involves links to competing sources of information. For now, one can inspect the views of several sources to determine varied positions on any subject. In time, we hope to have knowledgable commentary on this website itself.
.
Although this UU Wiki contains many links to external sites, it aspires to be much more than a human edited directory. Encyclopedia-like articles are considered a valuable part of this enterprise. The most fundamental aspect of all this is the consolidation of a "knowledge landscape" within a UU perspective.
.
This UU Wiki aspires to excel in the way difficult and/or divisive topics are worked out, articulated in descriptive pro-and-con formats, complete with outlines of different thinkers and their arguments. A solid descriptive overview of some of these controversies simply does not exist, at least not in English. In cases of disagreement, the Wiki hopes to motivate its users towards a constructive conversation on polemicized issues which divide religious thought. What this UU Wiki is not . - It is not an official voice of UU's—among other things, this means that quotes of official documentation from particular church offices does not constitute binding editorial policy for the Wiki. In other words, the UU Wiki project regards itself as a beneficiary of the freedom of the press granted by the constitution of the U.S.
. - It is not perfect—This UU Wiki is a work in progress. It's also a communal effort, which means that not every member of the community would agree with every statement made in an article. We try hard to weed out anything that is flatly inaccurate, unless one can observe the bias of the writer (such as an article from Catholic Encyclopedia, for example.)
Bias can be avoided by labeling a POV as a POV of some category of people, expressing an opinion to be an opinion, or by expressing two or more POV's. .
We press authors to provide sources and document diverging interpretations in a thorough and non-polemical manner. Nevertheless, it is certain that we don't catch or correct everything. If you see that something is lacking, please step in and fix it! (Leave an edit note so we can see what you changed, and why.) You may also simply note your disagreement on the article's discussion page.
. - It is not a battleground—you are free to state your opinions, but do not threaten, harass or intimidate those with whom you have a disagreement. Rather, we encourage everybody to approach matters in an intelligent manner and engage in polite discussion. Being here a long time doesn't give someone a superior position in regard to a "newbie."
. - It is not Wikipedia. We borrow heavily from Wikipedia's structure, we use similar software to Wikipedia, we link to Wikipedia, and a number of our articles find their initial source in Wikipedia, but the UU Wiki is completely unaffiliated with Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation. Some parts of this article come directly from Wikipedia, but that is simply for convenience.
Anti-Spam Policy
Per section 17538.45 of the United States Business and Professions code, we may set a policy regarding unsolicited electronic mail advertisements. Violations of this policy will result in damages of $2,500 per mail message.
This site's policy is: Unsolicited electronic mail advertisements are not accepted here. Harvesting of email addresses from this web site for the purposes of unsolicited emails is expressly prohibited.
It is the policy of The UU Encyclopedia to fight spam in any way available, including but not limited to:
Posting, forwarding and publicly displaying the spam, sending copies to any and all postmasters involved, sending copies to any and all persons listed as administrative, technical, and billing contact according to the current WHOIS database for the offending site(s), sending copies to upstream providers, blocking individual known spammers and blocking entire offending domains.
- Fraudulent and/or deceptive e-mail will be forwarded to the Federal Trade Commission for investigation and possible legal action.
- Unauthorized Bulk Emails that seem potentially illegal are reported to the FBI, to the attorney general of any state that the message claims as its origin, and to the local police.
- UBE (Unauthorized Bulk Email) is reported to your ISP and the email provider (e.g. abuse@yahoo.com)
Spam is unsolicited e-mail (or news postings) pushing a point. Be it an ad for a used PC, or an urge to vote on a proposition; if you didn't ask for it, didn't sign up on a mailing list related to it, and didn't leave your e-mail address on a web form asking for more information on it, it's spam! And if it's in your mailbox, the sender might be liable for a $5000 fine per instance. Some of those laws have been up held in court.
Most ISP's takes a zero tolerance approach to the sending of Unsolicited Bulk E-mail (UBE) or SPAM over the network. Violation of ISP's SPAM policy will result in severe penalties. Upon notification of an alleged violation of the SPAM policy, most ISP's will initiate an immediate investigation (within 48 hours of notification).
During the investigation, ISP's may restrict customer access to the network to prevent further violations. If a customer is found to be in violation of the SPAM policy, ISP's may, at its sole discretion, restrict, suspend or terminate customer's account.
Further, most ISP's reserve the right to pursue civil remedies for any costs associated with the investigation of a substantiated policy violation. ISPs will notify law enforcement officials if the violation is believed to be a criminal offense.
United States: Federal Laws: Unsolicited Commercial Electronic Mail Act of 2001 (H.R. 95)
http://www.spamlaws.com/federal/hr95.html
United States: Federal Laws: 107th Congress
http://www.spamlaws.com/federal/list107.html |
Share this
