Sudut pandang netral

This page is a translated version of the page Neutral point of view and the translation is 57% complete.
Other languages:
Bahasa Indonesia • ‎Bahasa Melayu • ‎British English • ‎Canadian English • ‎Deutsch • ‎English • ‎Esperanto • ‎Nederlands • ‎Türkçe • ‎català • ‎dansk • ‎español • ‎français • ‎galego • ‎italiano • ‎lietuvių • ‎norsk bokmål • ‎occitan • ‎polski • ‎português • ‎português do Brasil • ‎română • ‎suomi • ‎svenska • ‎čeština • ‎Ελληνικά • ‎беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ • ‎български • ‎русский • ‎татарча/tatarça • ‎ייִדיש • ‎עברית • ‎العربية • ‎فارسی • ‎مصرى • ‎हिन्दी • ‎বাংলা • ‎ਪੰਜਾਬੀ • ‎தமிழ் • ‎తెలుగు • ‎ಕನ್ನಡ • ‎ភាសាខ្មែរ • ‎中文 • ‎日本語 • ‎한국어
Kebijakan dan pedoman Sudut pandang netral
Pintasan:
NPOV
Halaman ini menjelaskan "Sudut pandangan netral" kebijakan yang berlaku pada banyak proyek Wikimedia, sejarah, dan implikasinya.

Wikipedia, Wiktionary, WikiBuku, Wikiquote, and Wikinews – but not Wikimedia Commons, Wikisource, Wikiversity, Wikivoyage, Wikispecies, banyak "tahap sebelum" proyek, atau Meta – memiliki kebijakan sudut pandang netral (NPOV) yang ketat. Kebijakan ini menyatakan bahwa misi mereka paling baik dilayani bukan dengan memajukan atau mengurangi dari sudut pandang tertentu tentang subjek tertentu, tetapi dengan mencoba menyajikan yang adil, deskripsi netral tentang fakta - termasuk berbagai interpretasi dan sudut pandang yang ada. (Ada batasan mengenai sudut pandang dimana yang perlu disebutkan, yang dengan sendirinya dapat menjadi area konflik.) Kebijakan ini ada di semua proyek bahasa yang telah mengadopsinya, tetapi rincian kebijakan sangat bervariasi antar proyek dan antar bahasa yang berbeda dalam proyek tersebut.

Untuk menulis sesuai dengan NPOV dibutuhkan kesadaran bahwa suatu sudut pandang yang dihormati dan diterima secara luas belum tentu bisa mencakup semua hal.

Meskipun NPOV adalah tujuan akhir dalam menulis artikel, sulit untuk segera dicapai sebagai kontributor tunggal. Dengan demikian kadang-kadang dianggap sebagai proses berulang (seperti tulisan wiki secara umum), di mana sudut pandang yang berlawanan berkompromi pada bahasa dan presentasi untuk menghasilkan deskripsi netral yang dapat diterima oleh semua, menurut consensus pengambilan keputusan.

NPOV would not be possible without two features of MediaWiki: editors discuss; but only one page exists under a title. In other words, «(i) individuals interact directly to share information and convince each other, and (ii) they edit a common medium to establish their own opinions».[1]

This might be viewed as an adversarial system, but hopefully a polite one. Editors are expected to approximate NPOV to the best of their ability and to welcome improvements that have been brought by others in good faith; a failure of the system can lead to an edit war, in which two or more parties dig in and refuse to compromise, instead reverting each other's changes outright.

formulir asli NPOV

A general-purpose encyclopedia is a collection of synthesized knowledge presented from a neutral point of view. To whatever extent possible, encyclopedic writing should avoid taking any particular stance other than the stance of the neutral point of view.

A neutral point of view attempts to present ideas and facts in such a fashion that both supporters and opponents can agree. Of course, 100% agreement is rarely possible; there are ideologues in the world who will not concede to any presentation other than a forceful statement of their own point of view. We can only seek a type of writing that is agreeable to essentially rational people who may differ on particular points.

Beberapa contoh mungkin dapat membantu menjelaskan ini:

1. An encyclopedic article should not argue that a corporation is criminal, even if the author believes it to be so. It should instead present the fact that some people believe it, and what their reasons are; and then it should also present what the other side says.

2. An encyclopedia article should not argue that laissez-faire capitalism is the best social system. It should instead present the arguments of the advocates of that point of view, and the arguments of the people who disagree with that point of view.

Perhaps the easiest way to make your writing more encyclopedic is to write about what people believe, rather than what is so. If this strikes you as somehow subjectivist or collectivist or imperialist, then ask me about it, because I think that you are just mistaken. What people believe is a matter of objective fact, and we can present that quite easily from the neutral point of view.

— Jimbo Wales, pendiri Wikipedia, [1]

Lihat pula

  1. Modeling Social Dynamics in a Collaborative Environment (2014). The opposite system is ViewPoint, where each revision (i.e. opinion) is given the same visibility and an unlimited number of versions of a page co-exist.