Gebruiker:Dekuiper/NPOV

Hier een aantal tekstfragmenten van en:wikipedia

--Dekuiper 20 sep 2005 16:11 (CEST)

good faith

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Simplified_Ruleset

9. Particularly, don't revert good faith edits. Reverting is a little too powerful sometimes. Don't succumb to the temptation, unless you're reverting very obvious vandalism (like "LALALALAL*&*@#@THIS_SUXX0RZ", or someone changing "6+5*2=16" to "6+5*2=17"). If you really can't stand something, revert once, with an edit summary something like "(rv) I disagree strongly, I'll explain why in talk." and immediately take it to talk.

NPOV

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

Articles should be written without bias, representing all majority and significant minority views fairly. This is the neutral point of view policy.

The policy is easily misunderstood. It doesn't assume that writing an article from a single, unbiased, objective point of view is possible. Instead it says to fairly represent all sides of a dispute by not making articles state, imply, or insinuate that only one side is correct. Crucially, a great merit of Wikipedia is that Wikipedians work together to make articles unbiased.

Writing unbiased text requires practice. Contributors who have mastered the art of NPOV are invited to help develop the neutrality tutorial.

---

From Jimbo Wales, 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 doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not (see Wikipedia:Flat earth problem).

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial

Some Wikipedians, in the name of neutrality, try to avoid making any statements that other people find offensive or objectionable, even if objectively true. This is not the intent of striving for neutrality. Many groups would prefer that certain facts be stated euphemistically, or only in their own terminology, or suppressed outright; such desires need not be deferred to. On the other hand, these terms should be presented, explained and examples given, perhaps with views of other groups of why the term is used as well as the group itself.

---

personal attack

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NPA

Specific examples of personal attack include but are not limited to:

...

* Political affiliation attacks, such as calling someone a Nazi

---

vandalism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators#Rough_consensus

To be clear, however, a good faith attempt to write an encyclopedia article, no matter how poorly worded, biased, or otherwise flawed, will not be considered vandalism.