Βικινέα:Ουδέτερη οπτική γωνία: Διαφορά μεταξύ των αναθεωρήσεων

 

Στα Βικινέα, χρησιμοποιούμε τους όρους "αμερόληπτο" και "ουδέτερη οπτική γωνία" με έναν συγκεκριμένο τρόπο:

 

====Η αρχική διατύπωση του NPOV====

 

 

===Για τα Βικινέα οφείλουν να είναι αμερόληπτα;===

 

 

 

<!--

==Τι είναι η ουδέτερη οπτική γωνία;==

 

 

There are many other possible valid understandings of what "unbiased," "neutral," etc. mean. The notion of "unbiased writing" that informs Wikinews's policy is "presenting conflicting views without asserting them." This needs further clarification:

The policy of having a neutral point of view is not to ''hide'' different points of view, but to show the diversity of viewpoints. In case of controversy, the strong points and weak points will be shown according to each point of view, without taking a side. The neutral point of view is not a "separate but equal" policy. The facts, in themselves, are neutral, but the simple accumulation of them cannot be the neutral point of view. If only the favourable facts of a point of view are shown in an article, the article will still be non-neutral.

 

 

We sometimes give an alternative formulation of the non-bias policy: assert facts, including facts about opinions--but don't assert opinions themselves. By "fact," on the one hand, we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." In this sense, that a survey produced a certain published result is a fact. That Mars is a planet is a fact. That Socrates 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 "opinion," on the other hand, we mean "a piece of information about which there is some dispute." There's bound to be [[meta:borderline case|borderline cases]] where we're not sure if we should take a particular dispute seriously; but there are many propositions that very clearly express opinions. That the Beatles was the greatest band ever is an opinion. That the United States was wrong to drop the atomic bomb over Hiroshima and Nagasaki is an opinion.

"Writing for the enemy" might make it seem as if we were adding ''deliberately'' flawed arguments to Wikinews, which would be a very strange thing to do. But it's better to view this (otherwise puzzling) behaviour as adding the ''best'' (published) arguments of the opposition, preferably citing some prominent person who has actually made the argument in the form in which you present it, stating them as sympathetically as possible.

 

 

''Wikinews seems to have an Anglo-American focus. Is this contrary to the neutral point of view?''