Wikipedia:中立嘅觀點

維基百科嘅政策
文章嘅標準
中立嘅觀點 有根有據 非原創研究 唔啱維基百科嘅嘢 講在生嘅人
同維基友合作
假定善意 文明嘅編輯方式 共識 唔好人身攻擊 處理拗撬

睇埋：meta:Neutral point of view

中立嘅觀點（英文：Neutral point of view，縮寫NPOV）係維基媒體嘅基本根基，亦係維基百科嘅五大支柱之一。所有維基百科嘅文同埋其他維基媒體嘅內容必須以中立嘅觀點寫成，盡可能喺冇任何偏見嘅前提之下，平等噉表達出任何求證得到嘅重要觀點。根據維基百科創辦人Jimmy Wales嘅解釋，中立、客觀嘅原則即係：「無得拗 (non-negotiable)」

「中立嘅觀點」係維基百科三大核心內容方針之一。另外兩大方針分別係「求證得到」同「唔係原創」。呢幾樣政策對維持維基百科嘅質素同公信力都好重要，所以對每一篇文都唔會有例外，寫嘢嘅人一定要留意返自己寫嘅嘢有無跟呢幾樣政策，其他人亦有責任幫手令所有文達到呢三個政策嘅目的。

點算係中立觀點

中立觀點

中立觀點即係指一啲有分歧嘅嘢，甚至有衝突、矛盾嘅觀點，都唔可以用有偏見嘅方法處理，而應該要公平、客觀咁去對待唔同嘅觀點。處理呢啲有衝突或矛盾嘅觀點時，唔可以企圖用一啲引導嘅手法，去令人覺得是但邊一方先係堅而另一方係流。亦應該儘可能提供多啲唔同嘅角度同觀點，唔可以因為某種觀點比較多人同意，就唔理其他相反嘅觀點。至於邊一種觀點係正確或者值得相信，呢方面應該留返畀讀者自己諗，維基百科只需要交代返唔同觀點就夠。

下面段文未譯好，歡迎你幫手。

好似個名咁，中立嘅觀點係一個觀點，唔係缺乏或者鏟除觀點。佢只係一點中立嘅觀點－佢唔係sympathetic，亦唔係in opposition to its subject.

Debates are described, represented, and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but studiously refrain from stating which is better. One can think of unbiased writing as the cold, fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate. When bias towards one particular point of view can be detected, the article needs to be fixed.

偏見

內文：偏見

下面段文未譯好，歡迎你幫手。

NPOV requires views to be represented without bias. A bias is a prejudice in a general or specific sense, usually in the sense of having a 偏好 for one particular point of view or ideology. One is said to be biased if one is influenced by one's biases. A bias could, for example, lead one to accept or not-accept the truth of a claim, not because of the strength of the claim itself, but because it does or does not correspond to one's own preconceived ideas.

偏見嘅種類包括：

• Class bias, including bias favoring one social class and bias ignoring social or class divisions.

• Commercial bias, including advertising, coverage of political campaigns in such a way as to favor corporate interests, and the reporting of issues to favor the interests of the owners of the news media.

• Ethnic or racial bias, including racism, nationalism and regionalism.

• Gender bias, including sexism and heteronormativity.

• Geographical bias which may for example describe a dispute as it is conducted in one country without knowing that the dispute is framed differently elsewhere.

• Nationalistic bias: favoring the interests or views of a particular nation.

• 政治偏見，包括支持或反對特定政黨、政策或人士嘅偏見。

• Religious bias, including bias in which one religious viewpoint is given preference over others.

• Sensationalism, which is bias in favor of the exceptional over the ordinary. This includes the practice whereby exceptional news may be overemphasized, distorted or fabricated to boost commercial ratings.

簡單嘅formulation

We sometimes give an alternative formulation of the non-bias policy: assert facts, including facts about opinions — but do not assert opinions themselves. There is a difference between facts and opinions. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." For example, that a survey produced a certain published result would be a fact. That there is a planet called Mars is a fact. That Plato 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 value or opinion, on the other hand, we mean "a piece of information about which there is some dispute." There are bound to be borderline cases where we are not sure if we should take a particular dispute seriously; but there are many propositions that very clearly express values or opinions. That stealing is wrong is a value or opinion. That the Beatles was the greatest band is a value or opinion. That the United States was wrong to drop the atomic bomb over Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a value or opinion.

維基百科係devoted to stating事實in the sense as described above. Where we might want to state an opinion, we convert that opinion into a fact by attributing the opinion to someone. So, rather than asserting, "The Beatles were the greatest band," we can say, "Most Americans believe that the Beatles were the greatest band," which is a fact verifiable by survey results, or "The Beatles had many songs that made the Billboard Hot 100," which is also fact. In the first instance we assert an opinion; in the second and third instances we "convert" that opinion into fact by attributing it to someone. It is important to note this formulation is substantially different from the "some people believe..." formulation popular in political debates. The reference requires an identifiable and objectively quantifiable population or, better still, a name (with the clear implication that the named individual should be a recognised authority).

In presenting an opinion, moreover, it is important to bear in mind that there are disagreements about how opinions are best stated; sometimes, it will be necessary to qualify the description of an opinion or to present several formulations, simply to arrive at a solution that fairly represents all the leading views of the situation. 但係佢係未夠去express the維基百科non-bias policy,只係話我哋需要陳述事實而唔係意見.當asserting a fact about an opinion, assert facts about competing opinions 係同樣重要嘅。 to, and to do so without implying that any one of the opinions is correct. It is also generally important to give the facts about the reasons behind the views, and to make it clear who holds them. It is often best to cite a prominent representative of the view.

Situations and handling

觀點分叉

内頁：Wikipedia:Content forking

A POV fork 係一個attempt to迴避中立觀點政策by 開新文about a certain subject that is already treated in嗰個文, 去迴避或者強調正面或負面觀點或事實. This is generally considered unacceptable. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and majority Points of View on a certain subject are treated in one article.

唔合理比重

中立觀點要求文章要公平噉表達可靠來源發表過嘅所有主要觀點，並且應該同每個觀點嘅重要性成比例。呢個係好重要嘅條件：一般嚟講，對少數觀點嘅描述唔應該同更受歡迎嘅觀點嘅一樣咁多，而極少數嘅觀點更加唔應該有。例如文章地球對而家冇乜人信嘅地平說觀點描述得極之少。

維基百科唔應該表現到對少數觀點嘅陳述同多數觀點嘅一樣咁多。而極少數人持有嘅觀點係唔應該表現，除非篇文係為咗呢啲觀點而設。為明顯少數觀點提供唔合理的比重，或者納入極少數嘅觀點，可能會誤導讀者，令佢哋誤解爭議嘅實際情況。維基百科旨在按比例表達專業人士同相關團體對某個主題嘅競爭觀點。呢個唔單止適用於文章內容，對圖像、出面網頁、分類以及所有其他內容都適用。

唔合理比重唔淨止適用於觀點。正如令觀點擁有唔合理比重係唔中立一樣，令其他查證得到嘅陳述有唔合理比重都一樣係唔中立。文章唔應該畀主題嘅任何一方面唔合理比重，而應該根據每方面喺主題中嘅重要性去合理安排。要注意，唔合理比重可以有多種呈現方式，包括但不限於：描述嘅深度、文字嘅數量、佈局嘅突出以及陳述嘅並列。

唔係代表極少數人持有嘅觀點唔可以受到重視，因為喺特別為呢啲觀點而設嘅頁係可以提及嘅，因為維基百科唔係紙。不過就算喺呢啲頁，啲觀點可以寫到幾詳細都好，都唔好當正佢哋係真嘅。

根據占美威爾斯2003年9月喺英文維基百科嘅郵寄清單畀出嘅解釋：

• 如果係多數觀點，佢喺普遍接受嘅參考文字入面會好易證實到；
• 如果係重要嘅少數觀點，噉畀出知名嘅擁護者都唔係難事；
• 如果係極少數（或極有限）觀點，噉無論係啱定錯，又或者係證唔證明得到，佢都唔屬於維基百科（除咗補充文章）。

換句話講，極少數人持有嘅觀點嘅陳述，唔應該同重要嘅少數觀點嘅一樣咁多，又或者係提都唔好提。

如果您想證明一個重未被廣泛認可嘅嘢，維基百科唔係發表證明嘅第一場所。只可以喺第二度發表同埋討論過呢個證明之後，先可以喺維基百科提及。睇Wikipedia:非原創研究同埋Wikipedia:查證得到。

下面段文未譯好，歡迎你幫手。

A vital component: good research

Disagreements over whether something is approached the Neutral Point Of View (NPOV) way can usually be avoided through the practice of good research. Facts (as defined in the A simple formulation section above) are not Points Of View (POV, here used in the meaning of "opposite of NPOV") in and of themselves. A good way to build a neutral point of view is to find a reputable source for the piece of information you want to add to Wikipedia, and then cite that source. This is an easy way to characterize a side of a debate without excluding that the debate has other sides. The trick is to find the best and most reputable sources you can. Try the library for good books and journal articles, and look for the most reliable online resources. A little bit of ground work can save a lot of time in trying to justify a point later.

The only other important consideration is that sources of comparable reputability might contradict. In that case the core of the NPOV policy is to let competing approaches of the same topic exist on the same page: work for balance, that is: divide space describing the opposing viewpoints according to reputability of the sources. And, when available, give precedence to those sources that have been the most successful in presenting facts in an equally balanced manner.

公平嘅語調

If we are going to characterize disputes neutrally, we should present competing views with a consistently fair and sensitive tone. Many articles end up as partisan commentary even while presenting both points of view. 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 along 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, bearing in mind the important qualification about extreme minority views. We should present all significant, competing views sympathetically. We can write with the attitude that such-and-such is a good idea, except that, in the view of some detractors, the supporters of said view overlooked such-and-such a detail.

Characterizing opinions of people's work

一個特別的例子係the expression of aesthetic opinions.維基百科嘅文係關於畫、畫家和其他創作的文(好似音樂家、演員、書本等等)have tended toward the effusive. This is out of place in an encyclopedia. We might not be able to agree that so-and-so is the greatest guitar player in history, but it may be important to describe how some artist or some work has been received by the general public or by 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 widely acknowledged as one of the greatest playwrights of the English language is a bit of knowledge that one should learn from an encyclopedia. However, in the interests of neutrality, one should also learn that a number of reputable scholars argue that there is a strong case to make that the author of much of the work still attributed to Shakespeare was his contemporary Christopher Marlowe. Notice that determining how some artist or work has been received publicly or critically might require research — but once determined, a clear statement of that reception (unlike an idiosyncratic opinion by a Wikipedia article writer) is an opinion that really matters.

等事實自辯

Karada對英維薩達姆侯賽因嘅行文提出過以下建議：

你唔需要話佢係邪惡。呢個就係希特拉篇文唔會開宗明義寫明「希特拉係個衰人」嘅原因——我哋唔使，佢嘅作為已經判佢有罪幾千次。我哋只而要不偏不倚噉列出猶太人大屠殺嘅事實，重新喊出死者嘅聲音，去令辱罵顯得冇意義而冇需要。請做同樣嘅嘢：列出薩達姆嘅罪，同時畀根據。

要記住啲讀者唔一定會對說教友善。如果你唔畀事實自辯，可能會疏導讀者同埋令佢哋反對你嘅觀點。

下面段文未譯好，歡迎你幫手。

Attributing and substantiating biased statements

Sometimes, a potentially biased statement can be reframed into an NPOV statement by attributing or substantiating it.

For instance, "John Doe is the best baseball player" is, by itself, merely an expression of opinion. One way to make it suitable for Wikipedia is to change it into a statement about someone whose opinion it is: "John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by baseball insiders such as Al Kaline and Joe Torre," as long as those statements are correct and can be verified. The goal here is to attribute the opinion to some subject-matter expert, rather than to merely state it as true.

A different approach is to substantiate the statement, by giving factual details that back it up: "John Doe had the highest batting average in the major leagues from 2003 through 2006." Instead of using the vague word "best," this statement spells out a particular way in which Doe excels.

There is a temptation to rephrase biased or opinion statements with weasel words: "Many people think John Doe is the best baseball player." But statements of this form are subject to obvious attacks: "Yes, many people think so, but only ignorant people"; and "Just how many is 'many'? I think it's only 'a few' who think that!" By attributing the claim to a known authority, or substantiating the facts behind it, you can avoid these problems.

History and rationale

歷史

中立嘅觀點係維基百科最早嘅方針之一。

• Nupedia嘅「Non-bias policy」喺2000年春季由Larry Sanger起草。
• 占美威爾士喺維基百科成立嘅頭幾個月 posted a statement about "中立嘅觀點": see copy in web archive (note: that page also contains comments by other Wikipedians up to 12 April 2001) – in subsequent versions of the NPOV page, Jimbo's statement was known as the "original formulation" of the NPOV policy.
• A more elaborate version of the NPOV policy was written by Larry Sanger, at Meta-Wiki in December 2001: see "Neutral point of view--draft," Larry Sanger's version of 20 December 2001.
• After several transformations (see edit history of "draft" at Meta) the version by Larry Sanger et al. was moved to this page on 25 February 2002 [1], and was further edited (see edit history of this page), resulting in the current version.
• Another short formulation was introduced by Brion Vibber in meta,2003年3月17號: see Meta's "Neutral point of view," version of 17 March 2003

中立觀點嘅背後原因

維基百科係一個general百科全書，即係話佢係一個representation of人類嘅知識 at some level of generality. But human beings disagree about specific cases; for any topic on which there are competing views, each view represents a different idea 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. Where there is disagreement about what is true, there is disagreement about what constitutes knowledge. Wikipedia works because it is a collaborative effort; but, while 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 not-p?

A solution is that我哋accept, for the purposes of working on Wikipedia, that "human knowledge" 包括all different significant theories on all different topics. We are committed to the goal of representing human knowledge in that sense, surely a well-established meaning of the word "knowledge". What is "known" changes constantly with the passage of time, and so when we use the word "know," we often enclose it in so-called scare quotes. Europeans in the Middle Ages "knew" that demons caused diseases; we now "know" otherwise.

我哋會sum up human knowledge (in this sense) in a biased way: we could state a series of theories about topic T and then claim that the truth about T is such-and-such. But then again, consider that Wikipedia is an international collaborative project, and that nearly every view on every subject will be found among our authors and readers. To avoid endless edit wars, we can agree to present each of the significant views fairly and not assert any one of them as correct. That is what makes an article "unbiased" or "neutral" in the sense presented here. 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. Disputes are characterized in Wikipedia; they are not re-enacted.

To sum up the primary reason for this policy: 維基百科係百科全書, a compilation of human knowledge.但係因為維基百科is a community-built, international resource, we cannot expect collaborators to agree in all cases, or even in many cases, on what constitutes 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 "knowledge." We should, both individually and collectively, make an effort to present these conflicting views fairly, without advocating any one of them — with the qualification that views held only by a tiny minority of people should not be represented as though they are significant minority views and perhaps should not be represented at all.

There is another reason to commit ourselves to this policy, that when it is clear to readers that we do not expect them to adopt any particular opinion, this leaves them free to make up their minds for themselves, thus encouraging intellectual independence. Totalitarian governments and dogmatic institutions everywhere might find reason to oppose Wikipedia, if we succeed in adhering to our non-bias policy: the presentation of many competing theories on a wide variety of subjects suggests that we, the editors of Wikipedia, trust readers to form their own opinions. Texts that present multiple viewpoints fairly, without demanding that the reader accept any particular one of them, are liberating. Neutrality subverts dogmatism. Nearly everyone working on Wikipedia can agree this is a good thing.

例：墮胎

下面段文未譯好，歡迎你幫手。

佢might幫助分辨一個例of how維基百科人have improved a biased text.

2001年喺en:abortion頁, some advocates had used the page to exchange 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 aspects 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 easier to organize and understand the arguments surrounding the topic of abortion, which were 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.

Common objections and clarifications

See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ for answers and clarifications on the issues raised in this section

Common objections or concerns raised by newcomers to Wikipedia's Neutral point of view policy include the following.

Being neutral

• There's no such thing as objectivity
  Everybody with any philosophical sophistication knows that. So how can we take the "neutrality" policy seriously?

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

• Making necessary assumptions
  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?

Balancing different views

• Giving "equal validity"
  I find the optimism about science vs. pseudoscience to be baseless. History has shown that pseudoscience can beat out facts, as those who rely on pseudoscience use lies, slander, innuendo and numerical majorities of followers to force their views on 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 occurred, the result is that it will (inadvertently) legitimize and help promote that which only can be termed evil.

• Writing for the "enemy"
  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 represent the view I disagree with?

• Religion
  Disrespecting my religion or treating it like a human invention of some kind, is religious discrimination, inaccurate, or wrong. And what about beliefs I feel are wrong, or against my religion, or outdated, or non-scientific?

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

• Pseudoscience
  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?

Editorship disputes

• Dealing with biased contributors
  I agree with the non-bias 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?

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

Other

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

• Other objections
  I have some other objection - where should I complain?

Because the neutral-point-of-view policy is often unfamiliar to newcomers, and is so central to Wikipedia's approach, many issues surrounding the neutrality policy have been covered before very extensively. If you have some new contribution to make to the debate, you could try Talk:Neutral point of view, or bring it up on the Wikipedia-l mailing list. Before asking it, please review the links below.

其他

下面段文未譯好，歡迎你幫手。

• NPOV tutorial
• en:Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Examples
• en:Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Examples Debate
• Understand Bias
• List of controversial issues
• Words to avoid
• en:Talk:Creationism and Larry 嘅大回答
• Meta:Positive tone
• 對有爭議文章嘅指引
• Subject-object problem
• Consensus reality
• 鼬鼠字唔用
• {{NPOV}} - message used to warn of problems
• {{NPOV-section}} - tags only a single section as disputed
• {{POV check}} - message used to mark articles that may be biased.（亦可以用縮寫{{bias}}）
• {{POV-title}} - when the article's title is questionable
• {{POV-statement}} - when only one sentence is questionable
• {{noncompliant}} - When the article as a whole fails to abide by the content policies of Wikipedia
• WikiProject Countering Systemic Bias
• One-sided argument
• Wikipedia:Criticism
• NPOV Disputes

拎

• On MeatballWiki:
  • AssumeGoodFaith
  • NeutralPointOfView
• Blinded By Science: How ‘Balanced’ Coverage Lets the Scientific Fringe Hijack Reality - Chris Mooney, Columbia Journalism Review. A valuable warning to Wikipedians about how some methods used to balance coverage can lead to biased, inaccurate and misleading reporting.
• Multiple points of view: see religion-wiki: Multiple points of view