User:MjolnirPants/Improper distancing

Improper distancing is a common phenomenon on Wikipedia, in which editors will phrase articles in nominal accordance with policy, but with an end result that makes consensus views look like contentious views. As a aspect of our overall policy on a neutral point of view, this is an issue with broad ranging concerns. It is essentially a misuse of our guidelines on how to use voices, for the purpose, or with the effect of pushing a non-neutral POV onto an article.

Causes

The use of improper distancing is usually accomplished by a convenient interpretation of the "avoid stating opinions as facts" clause of the NPOV policy. Editors will see a statement, usually repeated in a wide variety of reliable sources and to which there exists almost no discussion or debate among reliable sources, find that it contradicts their own beliefs, and thereby conclude that it is an opinion, not a fact. After all, it must be contentious if they don't agree with it, right? Generally, there are a few other editors who also disagree with it. So the argument goes; since this is obviously a contentious statement, it must be an opinion. Since this is obviously an opinion, it must be presented in the article as such.

The problem with this line of reasoning is that it ignores the possibility that people can be mistaken (willfully or otherwise, though we should always presume "otherwise") about facts. Indeed, a great number of people (and by extension, editors) believe some commonly-known fact to be false. Sometimes it's as obvious as someone believing that the Apollo moon landings were faked on a sound stage or that the earth is flat. But other times, it's much less obvious. Someone may believe that an undercover police officer must identify themselves as an officer if asked, or that Sherlock Holmes ever uttered the phrase "Elementary, my dear Watson".

Another reason for an editor improperly distancing WP from the statements is when the facts in questions can't ever be proven beyond any doubt. Editors may dispute statements in theological articles that presuppose the existence of a deity, or statements in an article about a scandal that presuppose the guilt or innocence of the parties involved. It can seem obvious to them that Wikipedia cannot make such claims in Wikivoice, even if there is little disagreement among the sources about the claim. This sort of rationale can be especially difficult to contend with, as in a purely logical sense, the editor pushing for the use of improper distancing is accurate. Allegations -no matter how well supported by evidence or widely believed- remain allegations even after being proven. The presupposition of certain conditions (such as the existence of a deity) cannot ever be proven, even in theory.

Effects

Thought not always obvious, the use of improper distancing can have a serious impact on an article's neutrality. In cases where a single editor, a small group or even a clear faction of editors are all concerning themselves with the voices used for various claims, an article can quickly degenerate from a balanced outing of all relevant viewpoints to a highly unbalanced propaganda article, clearly favoring one particular view.

Handling improper distancing

The best way to handle editors pushing the use of improper distancing is to demonstrate a consensus. Remember, from the perspective of these editors, they are correcting an NPOV violation. Whether the cause was the editor's own beliefs, or the editor's insistence upon an almost mathematical level of certainty behind any claim of fact, the line of reasoning is sound but for a single point of error. It can be very difficult for an editor engaged in this practice to even understand the negative consequences of their editing, let alone to be convinced of it by another editor. This becomes especially true in heated discussions, where all involved double down on their own positions.

When you encounter an editor insisting, for example, that we attribute all statements about the mechanisms of Evolution to the scientists who made them because they haven't been proven, do not attempt to convince them of how wrong they are. Instead, point them to the broad ranging consensus among editors to relay statements which represent the scientific consensus without qualifiers. Do not engage in an argument over whether their position is correct or incorrect, as this is highly unlikely to change their minds.

Avoiding improper distancing

In avoiding the use of improper distancing yourself, ask yourself the following questions when trying to decide what voice to put a statement of fact in:

• Is the statement widely made by different sources?
• Are there many sources who explicitly deny the truth of this statement?
• What do sources that deny the statement have in common?
• What do sources that affirm the statement have in common?
• Are the sources making or affirming the statement experts, or journalists?
• Are the sources making the statement blogs or other expressions of opinion, or are they fact-checked by editorial staff?
• Are the sources making or affirming the statement using evidence to support their claims?

Weigh the answers to those questions when decided what voice to put a statement in. If a scientific statement is endorsed by the scientific community, but repudiated by politicians, then no matter how many politicians deny it, it should be stated in wikivoice. Similarly, if many politicians write about a way of garnering votes, but psychologists deny this method as inconsistent with the dominant theories, then it too, should be stated in wikivoice. Conversely, if the scientific statement were endorsed by politicians and repudiated by scientists, or if the claim about gathering votes is endorsed by psychologists but dismissed by politicians, it should be put into source voice.