>
Thune Moves Forward With 'Nuclear Option' To Confirm Trump's Nominees
Father Of Ukrainian Girl Brutally Murdered In US Missed Funeral Due To Martial Law
The Assassination of Charlie Kirk
Shell promises 10-minute EV charging with its magical battery fluid
Tesla Megapack Keynote LIVE - TESLA is Making Transformers !!
Methylene chloride (CH2Cl?) and acetone (C?H?O) create a powerful paint remover...
Engineer Builds His Own X-Ray After Hospital Charges Him $69K
Researchers create 2D nanomaterials with up to nine metals for extreme conditions
The Evolution of Electric Motors: From Bulky to Lightweight, Efficient Powerhouses
3D-Printing 'Glue Gun' Can Repair Bone Fractures During Surgery Filling-in the Gaps Around..
Kevlar-like EV battery material dissolves after use to recycle itself
Laser connects plane and satellite in breakthrough air-to-space link
Lucid Motors' World-Leading Electric Powertrain Breakdown with Emad Dlala and Eric Bach
Murder, UFOs & Antigravity Tech -- What's Really Happening at Huntsville, Alabama's Space Po
This is essential policy, believe it or not. Maybe that will be hard to believe, if you have read many Wikipedia articles on controversial topics lately. But it is true: neutrality is the second of the "Five Pillars" policies that define Wikipedia's approach to the craft of encyclopedia-writing. Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales made a statement that Wikipedia now regards as definitive. "Doing The Right Thing takes many forms," he wrote, "but perhaps most central is the preservation of our shared vision for the NPOV and for a culture of thoughtful diplomatic honesty."
Yes, Wikipedia is very earnest about its neutrality.
But what does "neutral" mean? This is easy to misunderstand; many people think it means the same as "objective." But neutrality is not the same as objectivity. If an encyclopedia is neutral about political, scientific, and religious controversies—the issues that define the ongoing culture war—then you will find competing sides represented carefully and respectfully, even if one side is "objectively" wrong. From a truly neutral article, you would learn why, on a whole variety of issues, conservatives believe one thing, while progressives believe another thing. And then you would be able to make up your own mind.
Is that what Wikipedia offers? As we will see, the answer is No.
What Is "Neutrality," Anyway?
"Now wait a second," I can already hear some people saying. "I reject this distinction between objectivity and neutrality. Neutrality does not mean giving equal weight to all opinions. Neutrality means approaching issues without emotion, following standards of logic and science. The neutral approach seeks hard facts and assembles hard-won truths for a critical audience."