Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 5:
Line 5: − +
many people come to Wikipedia unaware of its neutrality policy (Wikipedia:NPOV) or simply do not wish to abide by it
It is often necessary to examine a topic from more than one perspective. This is especially so with controversial topics, such as politics, morality, and religion.
It is often necessary to examine a topic from more than one perspective. This is especially so with controversial topics, such as politics, morality, and religion.
But many people come to Wikipedia unaware of its neutrality policy ([[Wikipedia:NPOV]]) or simply to not wish to abide by it. They routinely and deliberately seek to evade, circumvent and undermine this policy by creating and editing articles so that they show only one [[Wikipedia:point of view|point of view]].
But many people come to Wikipedia unaware of its neutrality policy ([[Wikipedia:NPOV]]) or simply do not wish to abide by it. They routinely and deliberately seek to evade, circumvent and undermine this policy by creating and editing articles so that they show only one [[Wikipedia:point of view|point of view]].
Probably the reason they do this is that they believe that a neutral comparison of the views '''they''' advocate will look bad in comparison with opposing views. And the best way to win an argument is to prevent the other side from getting any time to make '''their argument'''. Failing that, just make them look bad ([[ad hominem]]) or distort their views.
Probably the reason they do this is that they believe that a neutral comparison of the views '''they''' advocate will look bad in comparison with opposing views. And the best way to win an argument is to prevent the other side from getting any time to make '''their argument'''. Failing that, just make them look bad ([[ad hominem]]) or distort their views.