CZ:Neutrality Policy

|width=10% align=center style="background:#F5F5F5"|  |}

The Citizendium has an important policy: roughly stated, you should write articles without bias, representing all views fairly. The Citizendium uses the words "bias" and "neutral" in a special sense. Our policy is that we should fairly represent all sides of a dispute, and not make an article state, imply, or insinuate that any one side is correct. It's crucial that we work together to make articles unbiased. Writing unbiased text together is a social art, and one that requires practice.

Introduction: the basic concept of neutrality and why the Citizendium must be unbiased

A key Citizendium policy is that articles should be "unbiased" or "neutral." We use these terms in a precise way that is different from the common understanding. It's crucial to grasp what it means to be neutral (in this sense)--a careful reading of this page will help.

Basically, to write without bias (neutrally) is to write so that articles do not advocate any specific points of view; instead, the different viewpoints in a controversy are all described fairly. This is a simplistic definition and we'll add nuance later. But for now, we can say just that to write articles without bias is to try to describe debates rather than taking one definite stand.

Why should the Citizendium be unbiased?

The Citizendium aims to become a general encyclopedia, which means it should contain a representation of human knowledge at some level of generality. But we (humans) disagree about specific cases; for any topic on which there are competing views, each view represents a different theory of what the truth is, and insofar as that view contradicts other views, its adherents believe that the other views are false, and therefore not knowledge. Indeed, in the Citizendium there are many opinionated people who often disagree with each other. Where there is disagreement about what is true, there's disagreement about what constitutes knowledge. The Citizendium works because it's a collaborative effort; but, whilst collaborating, how can we solve the problem of endless "edit wars" in which one person asserts that p, whereupon the next person changes the text so that it asserts that not-p?

The solution is that we accept, for purposes of working on the Citizendium, that "human knowledge" includes all different (significant, published) theories on all different topics that are parts of human knowledge. So we're committed to the goal of representing human knowledge in that sense. Something like this is surely a well-established sense of the word "knowledge"; in this sense, what is "known" changes constantly with the passage of time, and when we use the word "know" in that sense, we often use so-called scare quotes. In the Middle Ages, we "knew" that the Earth was flat. We now "know" otherwise.

We could sum up human knowledge (in this sense) in a biased way: we'd state a series of theories about topic T, and then claim that the truth about T is such-and-such. But again, consider that the Citizendium is an international, collaborative project. Probably, as we grow, nearly every view on every subject will (eventually) be found among our authors and readership. To avoid endless edit wars, we should agree to present each of these views fairly, and not make our articles assert any one of them as correct. And that is what makes an article "unbiased" or "neutral." To write neutrally, one presents controversial views without asserting them; to do that, it generally suffices to present competing views in a way that is more or less acceptable to their adherents, and also to attribute the views to their adherents.

To sum up the primary reason for this policy: the Citizendium is an encyclopedia, a compilation of human knowledge. But since the Citizendium is a community-built, international resource, we surely cannot expect our collaborators to agree in all cases, or even in many cases, on what constitutes human knowledge in a strict sense. We should, therefore, adopt the looser sense of "human knowledge" according to which a wide variety of conflicting theories constitute what we call "human knowledge." We must make an effort to present these conflicting theories fairly, without advocating any one of them.

There is another reason to commit ourselves to a neutrality policy. Namely, when it is clear to readers that we do not expect them to adopt any particular opinion, this is conducive to our readers' feeling free to make up their own minds for themselves, and thus to encourage in them intellectual independence. So totalitarian governments and dogmatic institutions everywhere have reason to be opposed to the Citizendium, if we succeed in adhering to our neutrality policy: the presentation of many competing theories on a wide variety of subjects suggests that we, the creators of the Citizendium, trust readers' competence to form their own opinions themselves. Texts that present the merits of multiple viewpoints fairly, without demanding that the reader accept any one of them, are liberating. Neutrality subverts dogmatism. This is something that nearly everyone working on the Citizendium can agree is a good thing.

What do we mean by "unbiased" and "neutral"?

The answer isn't obvious.

Essentially, "unbiased writing" means "presenting controversial views without asserting them." Unfortunately, this is often misunderstood. So we offer the following clarifications with the hope that they will clear away the many possible misunderstandings of what unbiased writing, or writing neutrally, amounts to.

First, and most importantly, consider what it means to say that unbiased writing presents controversial views without asserting them. Unbiased writing does not present only the most popular view; it does not assert the most popular view as being correct after presenting all views; it does not assert that some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Unbiased writing says, more or less, that p-ists believe that p, and q-ists believe that q, and that's where the debate stands at present. Ideally, unbiased writing also gives a great deal of background on who believes that p and q and why, and which view is more popular (being careful, here, not to word the statement so as to imply that popularity implies correctness). Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of the p-ists and the q-ists, allowing each side to give its "best shot" at the other, but studiously refraining from saying who won the exchange.

A point here bears elaboration. Writing unbiasedly can be conceived very well as representing disputes, characterizing them, rather than engaging in them. One can think of unbiased writing as the cold, fair, analytical description of debates. Of course, one might well doubt that this can be done at all without somehow subtly implying or insinuating that one position is correct. But experienced academics, polemical writers, and rhetoricians are well-attuned to bias, so that they can usually spot and remove a description of a debate that tends to favor one side.

Now an important qualification. We need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, in articles comparing the views. We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by only a small minority of people deserved as much attention as a very popular view. That would in fact be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. If we are to represent the dispute fairly, we should (in most if not all cases) present various competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. None of this, however, is to say that minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can possibly give them on pages specifically devoted to those views. But even on such pages, though the content of a view is spelled out possibly in great detail, we still make sure that the view is not represented as the truth.

Bias per se need not be conscious or particularly partisan. For example, beginners in a field often fail to realize that what sounds like uncontroversial common sense is actually biased in favor of one controversial view. (So we not infrequently need an expert in order to render the article entirely unbiased.) To take another example, writers can, without intending it, propagate "geographical" bias, by for example describing a dispute as it is conducted in the United States (or some other country), without knowing that the dispute is framed differently elsewhere.

Alternative formulation of the policy: assert facts, including facts about opinions--but don't assert opinions themselves

We sometimes give an alternative formulation of the neutrality policy: assert facts, including facts about opinions--but don't assert opinions themselves. By "fact," on the one hand, we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." In this sense, that a survey produced a certain published result is a fact. That the Mars is a planet is a fact. That 2+2=4 is a fact. That Socrates was a philosopher is a fact. No one seriously disputes any of these things. So Citizens can feel free to assert as many of them as we can. By "opinion," on the other hand, we mean "a piece of information about which there is some serious dispute." There's bound to be borderline cases where we're not sure if we should take a particular dispute seriously; but there are many propositions that very clearly express opinions. That God exists is an opinion. That the Beatles were the greatest rock and roll group is an opinion. That intuitionistic logic is superior to ordinary logic is an opinion. That the United States was wrong to drop the atomic bomb over Hiroshima and Nagasaki is an opinion.

For determining whether something is fact or opinion in this sense, it does not matter what the actual truth of the matter is; there can at least in theory be false "facts" (things that everybody agrees upon, but which are, in fact, false), and there are very often true "opinions," though necessarily, it seems, more false ones than true.

The Citizendium is devoted to stating facts and only facts, in this sense. Where we might want to state opinions, we convert that opinion into a fact by attributing the opinion to someone. So, rather than asserting, "God exists," which is an opinion, we can say, "Most Americans believe that God exists," which is a fact, or "Thomas Aquinas believed that God exists," which is also a fact. In the first instance we assert an opinion; in the second and third instances we convert that opinion into a fact by attributing it to someone.

But it's not enough, to express the Citizendium neutrality policy, just to say that we should state facts and not opinions. When asserting a fact about an opinion, it is important also to assert facts about competing opinions, and to do so without implying that any one of the opinions is correct. It's also generally important to give the facts about the reasons behind the views, and--especially--to make it clear who holds them, and whether they are experts. (It's often best to cite a prominent representative of the view.)

Expert knowledge and neutrality

We should clarify the precise relationship between expert knowledge and the requirements of neutrality.

A few general remarks are in order. First, the Citizendium is committed to credibility, and to this end it solicits the leadership of bona fide experts. But, second, we are also committed to a broad-based neutrality, so we do not assume that the true view of a topic can be found among only experts; we do endorse a "scholarly mainstream point of view," because we do not endorse any from among competing points of view. So, third, partly in order to broaden our perspective, we are and will remain open to contributions from the general public. Clearly, there is a tension between expert guidance, which might have us dismiss certain opinions held mainly by nonexperts as ignorant nonsense, and the requirements of neutrality, which would have us include that "ignorant nonsense."

We resolve the tension between expert knowledge and neutrality pragmatically. Expert knowledge and opinion receives top billing and the most extensive exposition. But, where it is or would be contradicted by some significant portion of the populace (not just a tiny percentage), the contrary popular view, as well as its grounds, should be noted as well. In this case, the attitudes of experts toward the popular views should be fully explored, because that is, after all, a very important part of the whole dialectic about the topic.

Let's illustrate these points. The topic of Intelligent Design, or Scientific Creationism, has had many scientists up in arms, saying that criticisms that religiously motivated non-scientists make of evolutionary theory do not deserve any serious consideration, whether in schools or elsewhere. The Citizendium officially does not take a position on Evolution vs. Creationism; but scientists should perhaps take heart that this is not as bad as it may sound. There is, as you should expect, "something for both sides."

On the one hand, religious-based criticisms of evolutionary theory may indeed appear in the evolution article--just as the Encyclopedia Britannica "Evolution" article has an "Additional Reading" section about such criticisms. On the other hand, the religiously-motivated critical views of evolution make up no, or an extremely small proportion of, expert scientific opinion about evolution. So it is not necessary to give equal amounts of space to treatment of Intelligent Design within the evolution article--or, for that matter, within any article about a topic about which the relevant experts are indeed mainstream scientists. Furthermore, while there is an intelligent design article, a large proportion (not necessarily the majority) of that article can and should concern the critical reception that the view has had among biologists and philosophers, for the simple reason that a large proportion of the expert commentators on intelligent design are, in fact, critics of the view. In short, while the Citizendium does not take the position that evolution is the true theory, this position is nevertheless very well represented in the Citizendium precisely because it is the common expert view.

Fairness and sympathetic tone

If we're going to characterize disputes fairly, fairness demands we present competing views with a consistently positive, sympathetic tone. It is possible for an article to end up as partisan commentary even while presenting both points of view; this is wrong. Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization--for instance, refuting opposing views as one goes makes them look a lot worse than collecting them in an opinions-of-opponents section.

We should, instead, write articles conveying the tone that all positions presented are at least plausible.

Characterizing opinions of people's artistic and other work

A special case is the expression of aesthetic opinions. Some characterizations of art, artists, and other creative topics tend toward the effusive. This is, we can agree, out of place in an encyclopedia; we might not all be able to agree that so-and-so is the greatest bass guitar player in history. But it is very important information indeed how some artist or some work has been received by the general public, by reviewers, and by experts. Providing an overview of the common interpretations of a creative work, preferably with citations or references to notable individuals holding that interpretation, is appropriate. For instance, that Shakespeare is one of the greatest authors of the English language is an important bit of knowledge a schoolchild might need to learn from an encyclopedia. Notice, determining how some artist or work has been received publicly or critically might require research; but that reception, unlike the idiosyncratic opinion of the Citizendium article writer, is an opinion that really matters, for purposes of an encyclopedia.

To write neutrally is to write for the enemy, too

Those who constantly attempt to advocate their own views on politically charged topics (for example), who seem not to care at all about whether other points of view are represented fairly, are violating the neutrality policy ("write unbiasedly"). This entails that it is our job to speak for the other side, and not just represent our own views. If we don't commit ourselves to doing that, the Citizendium will be much, much weaker for it. We should all be engaged in explaining each other's points of view as sympathetically as possible.

In saying this, we are explicitly spelling out what might have been obvious to some people from the initial statement of the policy. If each of us individually is permitted to write totally biased stuff in our Citizendium contributions, then it is impossible that the policy is ever violated. Hence, you actually must balance the statement of your own views with the sympathetic description of views you disagree with.

This is difficult, but possible, and attempts are helpful even when you fail. The other side might very well find your attempts to characterize their views substandard, but it's the thought that counts. In resolving disputes over neutrality issues, it's far better that we acknowledge that all sides must be presented fairly, and make at least a college try at presenting the other sides fairly. That will be appreciated much more than not trying at all.

"Writing for the enemy" might make it seem as if we were adding deliberately flawed arguments to the Citizendium, which would be a very strange thing to do. But it's better to view this perhaps puzzling behavior as adding the best (published) arguments of the opposition, stating them as sympathetically as possible. Academics, e.g., philosophers, do this all the time; if we did not, we would always behave like one-sided propagandists.

Objections and clarifications

What follows is a list of common objections, or questions, regarding the Citizendium's neutrality policy, followed by replies.

There's no such thing as objectivity

Objection: there's no such thing as objectivity. Everybody with any philosophical sophistication knows that. So how can we take the "neutrality" policy seriously? Neutrality, lack of bias, isn't possible.

This is probably the most common objection to the neutrality policy. It also reflects the most common misunderstanding of the policy (which, by the way, was drafted originally for Nupedia by a philosopher). The misunderstanding is that the policy says something controversial about the possibility of objectivity. It simply does not. In particular, the policy does not say that there is even is such a thing as objectivity, a "view from nowhere" (in Thomas Nagel's phrase)--such that articles written from that point of view are consequently objectively true. That isn't the policy and it is not our aim! Rather, we employ a different understanding of "neutral" and "unbiased" than many of us might be used to. The policy is simply that we should do our best to characterize disputes rather than engage in them. To say this is not to say anything contentious, from a philosophical point of view; indeed, this is something that philosophers are doing all the time, even strongly relativist philosophers. (They are virtually required to be able to first characterize their opponents' views fairly, in order to avoid being accused of setting up straw men to knock down.) Sophisticated relativists will immediately recognize that the policy is perfectly consistent with their relativism.

If there's anything possibly contentious about the policy along these lines, it is the implication that it is possible to characterize disputes fairly, so that all the major participants will be able to look at the resulting text, agreeing that their views are presented sympathetically and as completely as possible (within the context of the discussion). It is an empirical question, not a philosophical one, whether this is possible; and that such a thing is indeed possible is evident simply by observing that such texts are being written daily by the most capable academics, encyclopedists, textbook writers, and journalists.

"Pseudoscience"

Objection: how are we to write articles about pseudoscientific topics, about which majority scientific opinion is that the pseudoscientific opinion is not credible and doesn't even really deserve serious mention?

If we're going to represent the sum total of "human knowledge"--of what we believe we know, essentially--then we must concede that we will be describing views repugnant to us without asserting that they are false. Things are not, however, as bad as that sounds. The task before us is not to describe disputes fairly, on some bogus view of fairness that would have us describe pseudoscience as if were on a par with science, "giving equal time"; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view, and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. After all, this is precisely what describing a dispute fairly requires.

Morally offensive views

Objection: what about views that are morally offensive to most Westerners, such as racism, sexism, and Holocaust denial, that some people actually have? Surely we are not to be neutral about them?

We can certainly include long discussions that present our moral repugnance to such things; in doing so, we can maintain a healthy, consistent support for the neutrality policy by attributing the view to some prominent representatives or to some group of people. The group might in fact be "nearly all scholars" or even "nearly everyone." Others will be able to make up their own minds and, being reasonable, surely come around to our view. Those who harbor racism, sexism, etc., will surely not be convinced to change their views based on a biased article, which only puts them on the defensive; on the other hand, if we make a concerted effort to apply our neutrality policy consistently, we might give those with morally repugnant beliefs insight that will change those views.

Giving equal validity is wrong

Objection: but wait. I find this optimism about science vs. pseudo-science, or about morally offensive views, to be baseless. History has shown that pseudo-science can beat out facts, as those who rely on pseudo-science use lies, slander, innuendo and numercial majorities of its followers to force their views on the anyone they can. If this project gives equal validity to those who literally claim that the Earth is flat, or those who claim that the Holocaust never occurred, the result is that it will (inadvertently) legitimize and help promote that which only can be termed evil.

Please be clear on one thing: the Citizendium neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to completely repugnant views. It does state that we must not take a stand on them qua encyclopedia writers; but that does not stop us from representing the majority views as such; from fairly explaining the strong arguments against the repugnant views; from describing the strong moral repugnance that many decent people feel toward them; and so forth.

Hence, on the one hand, the Citizendium does not officially take a stand even on such obvious issues, but on the other, it will not look as though we had accorded equal credibility to purportedly unscientific or morally repugnant views. Instead, they will be placed into their full context. That context will make it impossible to conclude that Citizendium authors have any special affection for wrongheaded views.

Dealing with ideologues

Objection: I agree with the neutrality policy but there are some people who are completely, irremediably biased. Will I have to go around and clean up after them. What do I do?

Irremediably biased people, if they engage consistently in biased writing, will be removed from the project. See Constabulary Blocking Procedures.

Resolving disputes about neutrality

Objection: how can we avoid constant and endless warfare over neutrality issues?

Would that people asked this question more often. We should never debate about how the Citizendium should be biased. It shouldn't be biased at all.

The best way to avoid warfare over bias is to conceive of our roles as diplomats, not ideological warriors. We are all reasonably intelligent, articulate people here, or we wouldn't be working on the project and caring so much about it. We have to make it our goal to understand each others' perspectives and to work hard to make sure that those other perspectives are fairly represented. When any dispute arises as to what the article "should" say or what is "true," we must not adopt an adversarial stance; we must do our best to step back and ask ourselves, "How can this dispute be fairly characterized?" This has to be asked repeatedly as each new controversial point is stated. We are actively undermining the credibility and peace of the Citizendium if we edit it so that it reflects our own idiosyncratic views, and we then defend those edits against all comers; instead, we must, when necessary, come to a reasonable compromise about how a controversy should be described.

See Dispute Resolution.

Biased background assumptions

Objection: what about the case where, in order to write any of a long series of articles on some general subject, we must make some controversial assumptions? That's the case, e.g., in writing about evolution. Surely we won't have to hash out the evolution-vs.-creationism debate on every such page?

No, surely not. There are virtually no topics that could not proceed without making some assumptions that someone would find controversial. This is true not only in evolutionary biology, but also philosophy, history, physics, etc.

It is difficult to draw up general principles on which to rule in specific cases, but the following might help: there is probably not a good reason to discuss some assumption on a given page, if an assumption is best discussed in depth on some other page. Some brief, unobtrusive pointer might be apropos, however. E.g., in an article about the evolutionary development of horses, we might have one brief sentence to the effect that some creationists do not believe that horses (or any other animals) underwent any evolution, and point the reader to the relevant article. If there is much specific argumentation on some particular point, it might be placed on a special page of its own.

"Writing for the enemy"

Objection: I'm not convinced by what you say about "writing for the enemy." I don't want to write for the enemy. Most of them rely on stating as fact many things which are demonstrably false. Are you saying that, to be neutral in writing an article, I must lie, in order to faithfully represent the view I disagree with?

This is a misunderstanding what the neutrality policy says. You aren't claiming anything, except to say, "So-and-so argues as follows." This can be done with a straight face, with no moral compunctions, because you are attributing the claim to someone else. That's the important thing here! If we are summing up human knowledge on a subject, in the sense above-defined, then you are leaving out important information when you omit so-and-so's argument.

It's worth observing that, at least in the humanities, scholars are trained so that, even when trying to prove a point, one must bring forth counter-arguments that seem to disprove one's thesis, so that one can explain why the counter-arguments fail. Such scholarly training also gives one a better knowledge of source material and what may have been rejected over the years. Something very much like the neutrality policy is just an assumption (more or less) among scholars, in some contexts--and in those contexts, if it isn't adhered to, or if only those facts that prove a particular point are used, one might lose one's position and reputation.