ویکی‌پدیا:دیدگاه بی‌طرف/پرسش‌های رایج: تفاوت میان نسخه‌ها

{{مکمل|pages=سیاست [[ویکی‌پدیا:دیدگاه بی‌طرف]] .|وپ:دبطپر}}

این هااین‌ها بعضی پرسش‌های رایج درباره یدربارهٔ ''' [[ویکی‌پدیا:دیدگاه بی‌طرف]]''' هستند.<ref>{{یادکرد-ویکی|پیوند=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ&oldid=956827991|عنوان=Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ|زبان=انگلیسی|بازیابی=}}</ref>

This most common objection to the neutrality policy also reflects the most common ''misunderstanding'' of the policy. The NPOV policy says nothing about objectivity. In particular, the policy does ''not'' say that there is such a thing as [[عینی‌گرایی (فلسفه)]]—a "view from nowhere" (to use [[تامس نیگل]]'s phrase), such that articles written from that viewpoint are consequently objectively true. That is not the policy, and it is not our aim! Rather, to be neutral is to describe debates rather than engage in them. In other words, when discussing a subject, we should report ''what people have said about it'' rather than ''what is so''. This is not to say anything philosophically contentious; indeed, philosophers describe debates all the time. Even sophisticated [[نسبی‌گرایی]] will immediately recognize that "neutrality", in this sense, is perfectly consistent with their philosophy.

Now, '' is it possible'' to characterize disputes fairly? This is an empirical issue, not a philosophical one: can we edit articles so that all the major participants will be able to look at the resulting text, and agree that their views are presented accurately and as completely as the context permits? It may not be possible to describe all disputes with perfect objectivity, but it is an aim that thousands of editors strive towards every day.

==== Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete ====

Editors have different ideas about how Wikipedia should look "today". Some want it to be as fault-free as possible, even if that means cutting mediocre content; others think that all but the most serious flaws should be allowed to stand so they can be improved.

While the [[ویکی‌پدیا:تأییدپذیری]] of establishing [[ویکی‌پدیا:تأییدپذیری]] and [[ویکی‌پدیا:منابع معتبر]] rests on those who are challenged about it, there is usually no need to immediately delete text that can instead be rewritten as necessary over time. Obvious exceptions are articles about [[ویکی‌پدیا:زندگی‌نامه زندگان]] or clear [[ویکی‌پدیا:خرابکاری]],، but generally there is no need for text to meet the highest standards of neutrality ''today'' if there's a reasonable chance of getting there.

Also, determining whether a claim is true or useful, particularly when few people know about the topic, often requires a more involved process to get the opinions of other editors. It's a good idea to raise objections on a [[ویکی‌پدیا:رهنمودهای صفحه بحث]] or at a relevant [[ویکی‌پدیا:ویکی‌پروژه]]. Discussing contentious claims helps editors to evaluate their accuracy and often leads to better sourcing and clearer phrasing.

''When writing a long series of articles on some general subject, e.g. , in writing about evolution, do we have to hash out the evolution-vs. -creationism debate on every page?''