Colonel William A. Phillips

A general purpose encyclopedia is a collection of synthesized knowledge presented from a neutral point of view. To whatever extent possible, encyclopedic writing should steer clear of taking any particular stance other than the stance of the neutral point of view.

The neutral point of view attempts to present ideas and facts in such a fashion that both supporters and opponents can agree. Of course, 100% agreement is not possible; there are ideologues in the world who will not concede to any presentation other than a forceful statement of their own point of view. We can only seek a type of writing that is agreeable to essentially rational people who may differ on particular points.

Some examples may help to drive home the point I am trying to make.

1. An encyclopedic article should not argue that corporations are criminals, even if the author believes it to be so. It should instead present the fact that some people believe it, and what their reasons are, and then as well it should present what the other side says.

2. An encyclopedia article should not argue that laissez-faire capitalism is the best social system. (I happen to believe this, by the way.) It should instead present the arguments of the advocates of that point of view, and the arguments of the people who disagree with that point of view.

Perhaps the easiest way to make your writing more encyclopedic, is to write about what people believe, rather than what is so. If this strikes you as somehow subjectivist or collectivist or imperialist, then ask me about it, because I think that you are just mistaken. What people believe is a matter of objective fact, and we can present that quite easily from the neutral point of view. --Jimbo Wales

---

Contents of the following document:

Executive summary. Introduction: the basic concept of neutrality and why Wikipedia must be unbiased. What is the neutral point of view? What do we mean by "unbiased" and "neutral"? Alternative formulation of the policy: assert facts, including facts about opinions--but don't assert opinions themselves. Fairness and sympathetic tone. Characterizing opinions of people's artistic and other work. A consequence: writing for the enemy. An example. Objections and clarifications.

---

Wikipedia has an important policy: roughly stated, you should write

articles without bias, representing all views fairly. This is easily

misunderstood. The policy doesn't assume that it's possible to write an

article from just one point of view, which one be the one

neutral (unbiased, "objective") point of view. The Wikipedia policy is that

we should fairly represent all sides of a dispute, and not make an

article state, imply, or insinuate that any one side is correct.

It's crucial that we work together to make articles unbiased. It's one of

the things that makes Wikipedia work so well.

Writing unbiased text is an art that requires practice.

The following essay explains this policy in depth, and is the result of

much discussion. We strongly encourage you to read and edit it.

A key Wikipedia policy is that

articles should be "unbiased," or written from a "neutral point of view."

We use these terms in a precise way that is different from the common

understanding. It's crucial to grasp what it means to be neutral (in this

sense)--a careful reading of this page will help.

Basically, to write without bias (from a neutral point of view) is to write

so that articles do not advocate any specific points of view; instead, the

different viewpoints in a controversy are all described fairly. This is

a simplistic definition and we'll add nuance later. But for now, we can say

just that to write articles without bias is to try to describe debates

rather than taking one definite stand.

Why should Wikipedia be unbiased?

Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, which means it is a representation of

human knowledge at some level of generality. But we (humans) disagree about

specific cases; for any topic on which there are competing views, each view

represents a different theory of what the truth is, and insofar as that view

contradicts other views, its adherents believe that the other views are

false, and therefore not knowledge. Indeed, Wikipedia, there are many

opinionated people who often disagree with each other. Where there is

disagreement about what is true, there's disagreement about what constitutes

knowledge. Wikipedia works because it's a collaborative effort; but, whilst

collaborating, how can we solve the problem of endless "edit wars" in which

one person asserts that p, whereupon the next person changes the text so

that it asserts that not-p?

A solution is that we accept, for purposes of working on Wikipedia, that

"human knowledge" includes all different (significant, published)

theories on all different topics. So we're committed to the goal of

representing human knowledge in that sense. Something like this is

surely a well-established sense of the word "knowledge"; in this sense, what

is "known" has changes constantly with the passage of time, and when we use

the word "know" in the sense, we often use so-called scare quotes. In the

Middle Ages, we "knew" that the Earth was flat. We now "know" otherwise.

We could sum up human knowledge (in this sense) in a biased way: we'd state

a series of theories about topic T, and then claim that the truth about T is

such-and-such. But again, consider that Wikipedia is an international,

collaborative project. Probably, as we grow, nearly every view on every

subject will (eventually) be found among our authors and readership. To

avoid endless edit wars, we can agree to present each of these views

fairly, and not make our articles assert any one of them as correct. And

that is what some people believe makes an article "unbiased" or "neutral." To write from a

neutral point of view, one presents controversial views without asserting

them; to do that, it generally suffices to present competing views in a

way that is more or less acceptable to their adherents, and also to

attribute the views to their adherents.

To sum up the primary reason for this policy: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia,

a compilation of human knowledge. But since Wikipedia is a community-built,

international resource, we surely cannot expect our collaborators to agree

in all cases, or even in many cases, on what constitutes human knowledge in

a strict sense. We can, therefore, adopt the looser sense of "human

knowledge" according to which a wide variety of conflicting theories

constitute what we call "human knowledge." As a collective, we shall make an effort to

present these conflicting theories fairly, without advocating any one of

them.

There is another reason to commit ourselves to a nonbias policy. Namely,

when it is clear to readers that we do not expect them to adopt any

particular opinion, this is conducive to our readers' feeling free to make

up their own minds for themselves, and thus to encourage in them

intellectual independence. So totalitarian governments and dogmatic

institutions everywhere have reason to be opposed to Wikipedia, if we

succeed in adhering to our nonbias policy: the presentation of many

competing theories on a wide variety of subjects suggests that we, the

creators of Wikipedia, trust readers' competence to form their own opinions

themselves. Texts that present the merits of multiple viewpoints fairly,

without demanding that the reader accept any one of them, are liberating.

Neutrality subverts dogmatism. This is something that nearly everyone

working on Wikipedia can agree is a good thing, though some working on Wikipedia

may question whether such totalitarian opposition is entirely mythical, now

and in the future.

The answer isn't obvious or entirely agreed upon.

Essentially, a definition for "unbiased writing" is "presenting controversial views

without asserting them." Unfortunately, not everyone agrees with this definition. So we

offer the following clarifications with the hope that they will clear away

the many possible different interpretations of what unbiased writing, or writing

from a neutral point of view, amounts to.

First, and most importantly, consider what it means to say that unbiased

writing presents controversial views without asserting them. Unbiased

writing does not present only the most popular view; it does not

assert the most popular view as being correct after presenting all

views; it does not assert that some sort of intermediate view among the

different views is the correct one (as if the intermediate view were "the

neutral point of view"). Presenting all points of view says, more or less, that

p-ists believe that p, and q-ists believe that q, and that's

where the debate stands at present. Ideally, presenting all points of view also gives a

great deal of background on who believes that p and q and why, and

which view is more popular (being careful, here, not to word the statement

so as to imply that popularity implies correctness). Detailed

articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of the p-ists and the

q-ists, allowing each side to give its "best shot" at the other, but

studiously refraining from saying who won the exchange.

A point here bears elaboration. We said that the neutral point of view is

not, contrary to the seeming implication of the phrase, some actual point

of view on a controversial issue that is "neutral," or "intermediate,"

among the different positions. That represents a particular understanding of

what "neutral point of view" means. The prevailing Wikipedia understanding is that the neutral point of

view is not a point of view at all, because, under the "many points of view" doctrine, when one writes neutrally,

one is very careful not to state (or imply or insinuate or carefully but

subtly massage the reader into believing) that any particular view at

all is correct.

Another point bears elaboration as well. Writing unbiasedly can be

conceived very well as representing disputes, characterizing them,

rather than engaging in them. One can think of unbiased writing as the

cold, fair, analytical description of debates. Of course, one might well

doubt that this can be done at all without somehow subtly implying or

insinuating that one position is correct. But experienced academics,

polemical writers, and rhetoricians are well-attuned to bias, so that they

can usually spot a description of a debate that tends to favor one side; not

to say that they do not operate under certain hidden biases.

Now an important qualification. No individual needs to give minority views as much

or as detailed a description as more popular views, in articles comparing

the views. We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held

by only a small minority of people deserved as much attention as a very

popular view. That may be misleading as to the shape of the

dispute. If we are to represent the dispute fairly, we may choose to, collectively, (in most if

not all cases) present various competing views in proportion to their

representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties.

None of this, however, is to say that minority views cannot receive as much

attention as we can possibly give them on pages specifically devoted to

those views. There is no size limit to Wikipedia. But even on such pages, though the content of a view is

spelled out possibly in great detail, we still make sure that the view is

not represented as the truth.

Bias per se need not be conscious or particularly partisan. For

example, beginners in a field often fail to realize that what sounds like

uncontroversial common sense is actually biased in favor of one

controversial view. (So we not infrequently need an expert in order to

render the article entirely unbiased.) To take another example, writers

can, without intending it, propagate "geographical" bias, by for example

describing a dispute as it is conducted in the United States (or some

other country) without stating so or knowing that the dispute is framed differently

elsewhere.

Objection: impossible to remove all bias. Indeed, it seems that if we can

detect bias, we can, if we are creative, remove it as well.

We sometimes give an alternative formulation of the nonbias 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 the Mars is a planet is a fact.

That 2+2=4 is a fact. That Socrates was a philosopher is a fact. No one

seriously disputes any of these things. So Wikipedians 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 serious dispute."

There's bound to be 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 God exists is an opinion. That the

Beatles were the greatest rock and roll group is an opinion. That

intuitionistic logic is superior to ordinary logic is an opinion. That the

United States was wrong to drop the atomic bomb over Hiroshima and Nagasaki

is an opinion.

For determining whether something is fact or opinion in this sense, it does

not matter what the actual truth of the matter is; there can at least in

theory be false "facts" (things that everybody agrees upon, but which

are, in fact, false), and there are very often true "opinions," though

necessarily, it seems, more false ones than true.

Wikipedia is devoting to stating facts and only facts, in this sense. Where

we might want to state opinions, we convert that opinion into a fact by

attributing the opinion to someone. So, rather than asserting, "God

exists," which is an opinion, we can say, "Most Americans believe that God

exists," which is a fact, or "Thomas Aquinas believed that God exists,"

which is also a fact. In the first instance we assert an opinion; in the

second and third instances we convert that opinion into a fact by

attributing it to someone. However, both of those facts are colored by what

evidence supports those facts and the semantics behind both statements: the

first is a statement gleaned from polls and is thus subject to the facts

behind poll-taking; the second is gleaned from the writings of Aquinas, which

are very different from polls. And the conception of God in the modern era

is very different from that of the age of Aquinas. Fortunately, Wikipedia

can have entries on God, Thomas Aquinas, polls, etc., to elucidate these points.

But it's not enough, to express the Wikipedia nonbias policy, just to

say that we should state facts and not opinions. When asserting a fact

about an opinion, it is important also to assert facts about

competing opinions, and to do so without implying that any one of the

opinions is correct. It's also generally important to give the facts about

the reasons behind the views, and to make it clear who holds them. (It's

often best to cite a prominent representative of the view.)

If we're going to characterize disputes fairly, fairness demands we present

competing views with a consistently positive, sympathetic tone. A fair

number of articles end up as fairly partisan commentary even while

presenting both points of view; this is wrong. Even when a topic is

presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still

radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to

present, or more subtly their organization--for instance, refuting opposing

views as one goes makes them look a lot worse than collecting them in an

opinions-of-opponents section.

We should, instead, write articles with the tone that all positions

presented are at least plausible. Let's present all competing views

sympathetically. We can write with the attitude that such-and-such is a

good idea, except that, on the view of some detractors, the supporters of

said view overlooked such-and-such a detail. If we can't do that, we will

probably write stuff with so much contempt that subsequent edits are going

to have a hard time doing anything but veiling it.

A special case is the expression of aesthetic opinions. Some Wikipedia

articles about art, artists, and other creative topics (e.g., musicians,

actors, books, video games, etc.) have tended toward the effusive. This is,

we can agree, out of place in an encyclopedia; we might not all be able to

agree that so-and-so is the greatest bass guitar player in history. But it

is very important information indeed how some artist or some work has been

received by the general public, by reviewers, or by some very prominent

experts. Providing an overview of the common interpretations of a creative

work, preferably with citations or references to notable individuals holding

that interpretation, is appropriate. For instance, that Shakespeare is one

of the greatest authors of the English language is an important bit of

knowledge a schoolchild might need to learn from an encyclopedia. Notice,

determining how some artist or work has been received publicly or critically

might require research; but that reception, unlike the idiosyncratic opinion

of the Wikipedia article writer, is an opinion that really matters, for

purposes of an encyclopedia.

Those who constantly attempt to advocate their own views on politically

charged topics (for example), who seem not to care at all about whether

other points of view are represented fairly, are violating the nonbias

policy ("write unbiasedly"). This entails that it is our job to speak for

the other side, and not just represent our own views. If we don't commit

ourselves to doing that, Wikipedia will be much, much weaker for it. We

should all be engaged in explaining each other's points of view as

sympathetically as possible.

In saying this, we are explicitly spelling out what might have been obvious

to some people from an initial reading of the policy. If each of us

individually is permitted to write totally biased stuff in our Wikipedia

contributions, then how is it possible that the policy is ever violated?

The policy says, "Go thou and write unbiasedly" (or something to that

effect). If that doesn't entail that we should fairly represent views

with which we disagree, then what does it mean? Maybe you think it

means, "Represent your own view fairly, but if you must only grudgingly

allow others to have a say, please allow them to do so." Maybe that makes a

bit of sense as an interpretation--not a lot, but a bit. But consider, if

we each take responsibility for the entire article when we hit that

"save" button, then when we make a change to an article that represents

our own views but not contrary views, or represents contrary views

unfairly or incompletely (etc.), surely we are adding bias to Wikipedia.

And does it really ever make sense not to take responsibility for the

entire article? Does it make sense to prise out sentences and say, "These

are mine, those are yours"? Perhaps, but in the context of a project that

is so strongly and explicitly committed to neutrality, that sort of attitude

seems totally out of place!

The other side might very well find your attempts to characterize their

views substandard, but it's the thought that counts. In resolving disputes

over neutrality issues, it's far better that we acknowledge that all sides

must be presented fairly, and make at least a college try at presenting the

other sides fairly. That will be appreciated much more than not trying at

all.

"Writing for the enemy" might make it seem as if we were adding

deliberately flawed arguments to Wikipedia, which would be a very

strange thing to do. But it's better to view this (otherwise

puzzling)behavior 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. Academics, e.g., philosophers, do this all the

time.

It might help to consider an example of a biased text and how Wikipedians

have rendered it at least relatively unbiased.

On the abortion page, early in

2001, some advocates had used the page to exchange rhetorical barbs, being

unable to agree about what arguments should be on the page and how the

competing positions should be represented. What was needed--and what was

added--was an in-depth discussion of the different positions about the moral

and legal viability of abortion at different times. This discussion of the

positions was carefully crafted so as not to favor any one of the positions

outlined. This made it rather easier to organize and understand the

competing arguments surrounding the topic of abortion, which were each then

presented sympathetically, each with its strengths and weaknesses.

There are numerous other "success stories" of articles that began life as

virtual partisan screeds but were nicely cleaned up by people who concerned

themselves with representing all views clearly and sympathetically.

What follows is a list of common objections, or questions, regarding

Wikipedia's nonbias policy, followed by replies.

There's no such thing as objectivity. Everybody with any philosophical sophistication knows that. So how can we take the "neutrality" policy seriously? Neutrality, lack of bias, isn't possible.

This is probably the most common objection to the neutrality policy. It

also reflects the most common misunderstanding of the policy (which, by

the way, was drafted originally for Nupedia by a philosopher). The misunderstanding is that the policy says

something controversial about the possibility of objectivity. It simply

does not. In particular, the policy does not say that there is even

is such a thing as objectivity, a "view from nowhere" (in

Thomas Nagel's phrase)--such

that articles written from that point of view are consequently

objectively true. That isn't the policy and it is not our aim! Rather, we

employ a different understanding of "neutral" and "unbiased" than many of us

might be used to. The policy is simply that we should do our best to

characterize disputes rather than engage in them. To say this is not to

say anything contentious, from a philosophical point of view; indeed, this

is something that philosophers are doing all the time, even strongly

relativist philosophers. (They are virtually required to be able to first

characterize their opponents' views fairly, in order to avoid being accused

of setting up straw men to knock down.) Sophisticated relativists will

immediately recognize that the policy is perfectly consistent with their

relativism.

If there's anything possibly contentious about the policy along these

lines, it is the implication that it is possible to characterize

disputes fairly, so that all the major participants will be able to look at

the resulting text, agreeing that their views are presented sympathetically

and as completely as possible (within the context of the discussion). It is

an empirical question, not a philosophical one, whether this is possible;

and that such a thing is indeed possible is evident simply by observing

that such texts are being written daily by the most capable academics,

encyclopedists, textbook writers, and journalists.

How are we to write articles about pseudoscientific topics, about which majority scientific opinion is that the pseudoscientific opinion is not credible and doesn't even really deserve serious mention?

If we're going to represent the sum total of "human knowledge"--of what we

believe we know, essentially--then we must concede that we will be

describing views repugnant to us without asserting that they are false.

Things are not, however, as bad as that sounds. The task before us is not

to describe disputes fairly, on some bogus view of fairness that would

have us describe pseudoscience as if were on a par with science; rather, the

task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and

the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view, and,

moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories.

This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly.

There is a minority of Wikipedians who feel so strongly about this problem,

however, that they believe Wikipedia should adopt a "scientific point of

view" rather than a "neutral point of view." What these people have failed

to establish, however, is that there is really a need for such a policy,

given that the scientists' view of pseudoscience can be clearly, fully,

and fairly explained to those who might be misled by pseudoscience.

What about views that are morally offensive to most Westerners, such as racism, sexism, and Holocaust denial, that some people actually have? Surely we are not to be neutral about them?

We can certainly include long discussions that present our moral repugnance

to such things; in doing so, we can maintain a healthy, consistent support

for the neutral point of view by attributing the view to some prominent

representatives or to some group of people. Others will be able to make up

their own minds and, being reasonable, surely come around to our view.

Those who harbor racism, sexism, etc., will surely not be convinced to

change their views based on a biased article, which only puts them on the

defensive; on the other hand, if we make a concerted effort to apply our

nonbias policy consistently, we might give those with morally repugnant

beliefs insight that will change those views.

But wait. I find the optimism about science vs. pseudo-science to be baseless. History has shown that pseudo-science can beat out facts, as those who rely on pseudo-science use lies, slander, innuendo and numercial majorities of its followers to force their views on the anyone they can. If this project gives equal validity to those who literally claim that the Earth is flat, or those who claim that the Holocaust never occured, the result is that it will (inadvertently) legitimize and help promote that which only can be termed evil.

Please be clear on one thing: the Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly

does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to

completely repugnant views. It does state that we must not take a stand on

them qua encyclopedia writers; but that does not stop us from

representing the majority views as such; from fairly explaining the

strong arguments against the repugnant views; from describing the strong

moral repugnance that many decent people feel toward them; and so forth.

Hence, on the one hand, Wikipedia does not officially take a stand even on

such obvious issues, but on the other, it will not look as though we (the

authors of Wikipedia) had accorded equal credibility to morally repugnant

views. Given that the authors of Wikipedia represent a rough cross-section

of the educated public, our readers can expect us to have a similar

cross-section of opinion about extremism: most of us abhor it.

Wikipedia seems to have an Americo-centric point of view. Isn't this contrary to the neutral point of view?

Yes, it certainly is, and it has no defenders on Wikipedia. The presence of

articles written from an exclusively United States point of view is merely a

reflection of the fact that there are many Americans working on the project,

which in turn is merely a reflection of the fact that the (English) project

is being conducted in English and that so many Americans are online.

This is an ongoing problem that can be corrected by active collaboration

from people outside of the U.S., of whom there are many.

The neutrality policy is used sometimes as an excuse to delete texts that are perceived as biased. Isn't this a problem?

In many cases, yes. Most of us believe that the mere fact that some

text is biased is not enough, by itself, to delete the text outright. If it

contains perfectly valid information, the text should simply be edited

accordingly, and certainly not deleted.

There's sometimes trouble determining whether some claim is true or useful,

particularly when there are few people on board who know about the topic.

In such a case, it's a good idea to raise objections on a talk page; if

one has some reason to believe that the author of the biased material will

not be induced to change it, we have sometimes taken to removing the text to

the talk page itself (but certainly not deleting it entirely). But the

latter should be done more or less as a last resort, never merely as a way

of punishing people who have written something biased.

I agree with the nonbias policy but there are some here who seem completely, irremediably biased. I have to go around and clean up after them. What do I do?

This is a very difficult question.

Unless the case is really egregious, maybe the best thing is to call

attention to the problem publicly, pointing the perpetrators to this page

(but politely--one gets

more flies with honey) and asking others to help. If the problem is

really serious, Larry Sanger might be enlisted to

beat the person over the head (so to speak) and, in the most recalcitrant

cases, ask them to leave the project. There must surely be a point beyond

which our very strong interest in being a completely open project is

trumped by the interest the vast majority of our writers have, in being able

to get work done without constantly having to fix the intrusions of people

who do not respect our policy.

How can we avoid constant and endless warfare over neutrality issues?

Would that people asked this question more often. We should never

debate about how Wikipedia should be biased. It shouldn't be biased

at all.

The best way to avoid warfare over bias is to remember that we are all

reasonably intelligent, articulate people here, or we wouldn't be working on

this and caring so much about it. We have to make it our goal to

understand each others' perspectives and to work hard to make sure that

those other perspectives are fairly represented. When any dispute arises as

to what the article "should" say or what is "true," we must not adopt an

adversarial stance; we must do our best to step back and ask ourselves,

"How can this dispute be fairly characterized?" This has to be asked

repeatedly as each new controversial point is stated. It is not our job to

edit Wikipedia so that it reflects our own idiosyncratic views and then

defend those edits against all comers; it is our job to work together,

mainly adding new content, but also, when necessary, coming to a compromise

about how a controversy should be described, so that it is fair to all

sides.

What about the case where, in order to write any of a long series of articles on some general subject, we must make some controversial assumptions? That's the case, e.g., in writing about evolution. Surely we won't have to hash out the evolution-vs.-creationism debate on every such page?

No, surely not. There are virtually no topics that could not proceed

without making some assumptions that someone would find controversial.

This is true not only in evolutionary biology, but also philosophy, history,

physics, etc.

It is difficult to draw up general principles on which to rule in specific

cases, but the following might help: there is probably not a good reason to

discuss some assumption on a given page, if an assumption is best discussed

in depth on some other page. Some brief, unobtrusive pointer might be

apropos, however. E.g., in an article about the evolutionary development of

horses, we might have one brief sentence to the effect that some

creationists do not believe that horses (or any other animals) underwent any

evolution, and point the reader to the relevant article. If there is much

specific argumentation on some particular point, it might be placed on a

special page of its own.

I'm not convinced by what you say about "writing for the enemy." I don't want to write for the enemy. Most of them rely on stating as fact many things which are demonstrably false. Are you saying that, to be neutral in writing an article, I must lie, in order to faithfully represent the view I disagree with?

This is a misunderstanding what the neutrality policy says. You aren't

claiming anything, except to say, "So-and-so argues that such-and-such,

twiddle dee dee, and therefore, QED." This can be done with a straight

face, with no moral compunctions, because you are attributing the claim

to someone else. That's the important thing here! If we are summing up

human knowledge on a subject, in the sense above-defined, then you are

leaving out important information when you omit so-and-so's

argument.

It's worth observing that, at least in the humanities, scholars are trained

so that, even when trying to prove a point, one must bring forth

counter-arguments that seem to disprove one's thesis, so that one can

explain why the counter-arguments fail. Such scholarly training also gives

one a better knowledge of source material and what may have been rejected

over the years. Something very much like the neutral point of view is just

an assumption (more or less) among scholars--if it isn't adhered to, or if

only those facts that prove a particular point are used, one might lose

one's position and reputation.

I have some other objection. Where should I ask it?

Before asking it, please review the links below. The issues have been very

extensively covered before. If you have some new contribution to make to

the debate, you could try /Talk.

---

See also:

Neutral point of view--older version and commentary

The Nupedia policy on lack of bias

Meta-Wikipedia draft and commentary

/Examples

/Examples Debate

Most controversial subjects in wikipedia

Words that should not be used in wikipedia articles

Creationism/Talk

Wikipedia commentary/Faith vs science with regard to the Wikipedia

Positive tone