User:Monsieur Crow/SmashWiki:Neutral Point of View

This page is a draft. Feel free to contribute to this page as you would a mainspace 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.

Basics

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.

Some methods to avoid bias, as outlined by Wikipedia's own policy on NPoV, include:

• 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. 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.
• 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, and place the tone template on any pages or sections that may require rewriting for imbalances in neutrality.

Achieving neutrality

Article structure

As odd as it may seem, the structure of an article itself can cause violations of neutrality. If two opposing viewpoints are presented in completely different paragraphs or sections of a page, it can result in inadvertently introducing a "hierarchy" of facts, where the first present material is depicted as a "true" viewpoint, while the later material is viewed as "less important" or even "disputed".

Due and undue weight

As outlined earlier on this page, users should attempt to give greater weight to sides of a debate that have greater bodies of evidence to support their claims. However, on some pages, a specific viewpoint may have to be given more or less weight, as to help understand a viewpoint better.

Good research

See also: SmashWiki:Citation

In order to back up certain viewpoints, editors may have to provide sourcing for their edits. In general, sources should be considered reliable or at least widely-acknowledged. Information from several top-level smashers, for instance, would be considered more reliable than that of amateur smashers.

Balance

In the event that there is equal weight and/or prominence between two viewpoints on an article, SmashWiki should attempt to describe both points of view, drawing on as many sources as possible to describe the disagreement.

Impartial tone

SmashWiki only describes disputes and different viewpoints, and does not engage or support such matters. While editors should make note of disputes on articles, they should not attempt to paint one side as being "right".