Wikibooks:NPOV dispute
From Wikibooks, the open-content textbooks collection
Modules in Category:NPOV disputes are the subject of an NPOV dispute. This means that in the opinion of the person who added this link the module in question does not conform to a neutral point of view.
An NPOV (Neutral Point Of View) module is one that has been written without advocating a particular viewpoint on a subjective issue. This is especially important when dealing with controversial issues. In a neutral representation, differing points of view are presented as such, not as facts and falsehoods.
An NPOV label not only indicates that the module is perceived as biased by one or more contributors (which in itself is a strong indicator that it is), but that consensus is lacking. Should consensus be reached, the content is fixed or deleted.
If you find a module that you think is biased, you can add {{npov}} to the top of the page and leave a note with your rationale on the talk page. The label is meant to indicate that a discussion is ongoing, and hence that the module contents are disputed and volatile.
If a module that you think is objective has been tagged with the template message, don't panic. Views differ, and Wikibooks caters to everyone. As long as the module complies with Wikibooks:What is Wikibooks and can be backed by sources, there should be a way to represent it in a way that is fair to all sides. It may be tricky and compromises are probably needed, but it should be manageable. Keep in mind that no edits are unrevertable. All versions are in the page history. Be civil and assume good faith.
[edit] Common themes
Those critisising content as biased, often do so on grounds that viewpoints are expressed as facts. In this case, citing sources to back these facts should solve the dispute.
There may also be a disagreement over what the facts represent. It should be noted that factual statements do not equal neutral statments. Neutrality implies presenting competing versions fairly. Our personal conviction has no relevance. If a significant number of other interested parties really does disagree with us, no matter how wrong we think they are, the discussion be recast as a fair presentation of the dispute between the parties.
Wording (including page titles), selective use of viewpoints or undue weight given to one are also versions of bias. This may be a harmless case of a book being still in progress, or limited expertise on the behalf of current contributors. Adding the missing content or making a note of it (for example in the {{npov}} template) would constitute an acceptable interim solution.
[edit] See also
- Wikibooks:Neutral point of view is an official policy and must be followed.
- Category:NPOV disputes
- Wikibooks:List of controversial issues
- Wikibooks:Accuracy dispute
