Biocrawler:Guidelines for controversial articles
From Biocrawler, the free encyclopedia.
| This page is considered a guideline on Biocrawler. It illustrates standards or behaviors which some or many editors agree with in principle. However, it is not policy. Feel free to update the page as needed, but please use the discussion page to propose major changes. |
Controversial articles, by their very nature, require far greater care to achieve neutral point of view.
| Contents |
Don't forget what the article is about
An article about a controversial person or group should accurately describe their views, no matter how misguided or repugnant. It is not usually necessary to also describe opposing views.
Be careful with attribution
When writing an article on most topics in Biocrawler, simple declarations of fact and received opinion do not need to be sourced; indeed, it would be cumbersome to burden a writer with the onus of providing documentary proof for every assertion.
However, when dealing with potentially contentious topics, such as in the field of religion or current affairs, a lot more care has to be taken. The more at variance from commonly accepted notions an assertion is, the more rigorously it should be documented. Keep the following things in mind:
Be careful with weaselspeak
The term Weaselspeak refers to expressions such as "is claimed", "is thought to be", and "is alleged". While these may be legitimate rhetorical devices, they should be carefully scrutinized to ensure that they are not used to insert hidden bias, since claimed implies that the claim may not be true and that there is some reason to doubt it. For example:
- ...is widely thought to be the work of... (good)
- ...who claimed they were forced from their homes... (bad)
Attribute facts
When establishing events or actions, reference should be made to a reliable source. Ideally, this would be an independent scholarly work, but most of us don't have access to this kind of material. For most events since 1995, and some before, Web-based news reports can be cited to establish basic facts. These should be from the mainstream media (CNN, BBC, etc.) or independent organizations such as the UN, taking into account that they have their bias as well.
Attribute assertions
When characterizing people, events, or actions, assertions likewise should be attributed to an acceptable source. An editorial from a mainstream centrist media organization is best, because it can usually be assumed to represent the opinion of a meaningful segment of the population, but don't rely on the journalist to always accurately report the bias of its sources. Alternately, a text from conservative or alternative media or a focus group can be cited, provided the source is accurately labeled in neutral terms. For example,
- The conservative American churchgroup...
- The right-wing pro-Israel advocacy group...
- The radical Islamic group...
- The indigenous rebel movement...
Identify the possible bias of the source (including organisational, financing, and/or personal ties with biased, interested parties). If the status of the source itself is disputed, it is best to avoid such characterizations altogether; instead, a link to an article on the source, where those conflicting viewpoints are discussed, should be used (if possible). (One example is the much-disputed distinction between a terrorist and a freedom fighter, but other disputes are certainly possible.) In the event that non-centrist points of view are presented, it is desirable to include assertions from multiple perspectives.
See also
- neutralizing accusations and insinuations (from the Neutral Point Of View tutorial)
- List of controversial issuesja:Biocrawler:論争のある記事に関するガイドライン
