This is an
Neutral point of view pages.
This page is intended to provide additional information about concepts in the page(s) it supplements. This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community.
|This page in a nutshell: Wikipedia is not a venue for raising the visibility of an issue or agenda. Cooperate with other editors to neutrally summarize notable topics using reliable sources without advocating any particular position or giving undue weight to minority views.|
Advocacy is the use of Wikipedia to promote personal beliefs or agendas at the expense of
Wikipedia is first and foremost an
Advocacy is closely related to
Some editors come to Wikipedia with the goal of raising the visibility or credibility of a specific viewpoint. It may be a hypothesis which they feel has been unduly dismissed or rejected by the scientific community; it may be alternate or revisionist interpretation of a historical event or personage; it may be additions to an article about an organization to portray it in a positive or negative light. The essential problem is that these goals conflict with Wikipedia's mission. Wikipedia is
If an editor appears to be advocating for a particular point of view, this can be brought to their attention with reference to the
Something worth noting is that there is often a "fine line" between being an Advocate and being a
In particular, editors that appear to be advocating for a particular point of view may employ
- Assert facts, including facts about opinions, but do not assert the opinions themselves.
- Attribute claims to known authoritiesor substantiate the facts behind an argument.
- Let the facts speak for themselvesand let the reader decide.
Dealing with advocates
Polite advocacy can often be controlled by informing the editor of Wikipedia's mission and asking them to refrain from editing topics that they cannot cover neutrally.
Advocates sometimes employ defenses, such as:
I only want to help Wikipedia!
Good intentions do not excuse actual disruption. If a significant number of editors protest that an editor is biased, the editor should listen to feedback and either change their editing style, or refrain from editing topics where they cannot be sufficiently neutral.
An example of a good answer: "You might have all the best intentions in mind, but that doesn't mean your editing breaks WP:NPOV guidelines any less"
What I am writing is true!
Wikipedia does not indiscriminately collect "true" information, but aims to synthesize such information into an accurate, proportionate representation of the state of human knowledge. Our responsibility is not just to
The public needs to know this!
Articles on X should be written or edited by believers in X and not Y.
An oft-repeated argument holds that people who subscribe to a particular viewpoint are those best qualified to write about it. This argument takes forms such as: "We need AIDS-denialist editors to write a good article about
The best articles on Wikipedia are written by people who value the encyclopedia's policies on
Experience and expertise
Editors are not expected to have no opinions about a subject. The Community encourages editors with experience or expertise in particular topics to edit the relevant articles. Expertise alone is not advocacy, but if an expert consistently gives
Productive ways for advocates to participate
Advocates may place suggestions for new topics, content, or useful
- Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion
- Wikipedia is not an anarchy or forum for free speech
- WP:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point
- Wikipedia:Advocacy articles
- Wikipedia:Avoid academic boosterism
- Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing
- Wikipedia:Criticisms of society may be consistent with NPOV and reliability
- Wikipedia:No holy wars
- Wikipedia:Paid editing (essay)
- Wikipedia:Writing for the opponent