Wikipedia:Advocacy

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 authorities
  or substantiate the facts behind an argument.
• Let the facts speak for themselves
  and let the reader decide.

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!

Wikipedia is

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