SmashWiki:Neutral point of view
|
This page documents an official SmashWiki policy, a widely accepted standard that all users should follow. When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. If in doubt, consider discussing changes on the talk page. |
All encyclopaedic content on SmashWiki must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV). As such, all topics and content on all mainspace and smasherspace articles should represent all sides of an issue as fairly and proportionately as possible, without bias from editors.
Achieving a neutral tone
At its core, NPOV dictates that editors on SmashWiki must attempt their best to describe disputes, but not engage in them. While editors may have their own points of view on a topic or subject, users should strive for good faith in providing accurate, complete information, and should not attempt to actively promote one point of view over another.
Outlined below are some general rules to help avoid bias:
- Avoid stating opinions as facts. While the Smash community or editors may have a collective opinion on a certain topics, these opinions should not be stated in SmashWiki's voice. Rather, attribution of a particular source, or being described as a widespread should be used, alongside other such actions. For example, on Kirby (SSBM), editors should not state that "Kirby is the worst character in Melee", but it may state that "Kirby is widely considered one of the worst characters in the game due to his poor approach, combo ability, and KO ability, among other factors."
- Avoid stating contested assertions as facts. If a number of different viewpoints exist on an issue, treat each of these as dissenting opinions, and do not present them as facts. For instance, Roy's true tournament viability has been heavily contested, and as a result, both viewpoints should be treated as dissenting opinions, with neither side being presented as the "truth"; compare this with Fox, whose true tournament viability is well-established in the current Melee metagame.
- Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested assertions that was widely supported can be made in SmashWiki's voice, provided such facts are given appropriate sourcing and wording. For instance, it would be unacceptable to merely state that Meta Knight is the best character in Brawl without any reasoning; it would, however, be acceptable to state that Meta Knight is the most viable character in Brawl due to having numerous advantages over other characters, having the best matchup spread in the game, and having been constantly on the top of the tier list.
- Avoid judgemental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathises with nor disparages its subject or what sources may say about a subject; avoid using words such as "best", "worst", "fantastic", and "gimmicky", especially without an appropriate context or comparison. Saying that Villager has an excellent zoning game means little and is judgemental; saying that Villager's has an excellent zoning game due to his fast and effective forward and back aerials, alongside Lloid Rocket, would be acceptable. For more information, see our guidelines about what words to watch. When dealing with real-world controversies and allegations, they must be presented as such, and absolute claims must be avoided, even in the face of what appears to be overwhelming evidence. Controversies are to be reported on by presenting the relevant allegations levied against the parties involved, along with supporting evidence and counters. No attempts to draw conclusions in SmashWiki's voice should be made, particularly when dealing with sensitive issues.
- Avoid giving undue prominence to certain views. Reporting on opinions should reflect the relative level of support they have. For instance, it is widely accepted among players that the tier list holds true and that tiers exist; while some players may oppose the concept of tiers or believe that tiers do not exist, this view is ultimately in the minority in the present day, and it should not be presented as a mainstream view or as being equal to the larger argument.
In the event that an article does not appear to feature a neutral point of view, remember to always assume good faith from editors. Try using a talk page to discuss why the article does not appear neutral in tone, or place the NPOV template on any pages or sections that may require rewriting for imbalances in neutrality.
