 | This is an explanatory essay about the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not § Opinion pieces policies. This page provides 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. |
At Wikipedia, points of view (POVs) – cognitive perspectives – are often essential to articles which treat controversial subjects. Wikipedia's official "Neutral Point of View" (NPOV) policy does not mean that all the POVs of all the Wikipedia editors have to be represented. Rather, the article should represent the POVs of the main scholars and specialists who have produced reliable sources on the issue.
In Thought du Jour Harold Geneen has stated:[1]
The reliability of the person giving you the facts is as important as the facts themselves. Keep in mind that facts are seldom facts, but what people think are facts, heavily tinged with assumptions.
Hard facts are really rare. What we most commonly encounter are opinions from people (POVs). Inherently, because of this, most articles on Wikipedia are full of POVs. An article which clearly, accurately, and fairly describes all the major, verifiable points of view will – by definition – be in accordance with Wikipedia's NPOV policy.
Each POV should be clearly labeled and described, so readers know:
- Who advocates the point of view
- What their arguments are (supporting evidence, reasoning, etc.)
- ^ Harold Geneen in his "Thought du Jour", cited by Michael Kesterton in The Globe and Mail on February 20, 2006, at page A14 in the Section of Social Studies, subsection A daily miscellany of information.