IR393BradenSmith

Welcome to Wikipedia!
Welcome! My name is GorillaWarfare, and I'm one of the Online Ambassadors assisting students who are contributing to WikiProject United States Public Policy. We're excited to work with you, and we hope you'll stick around. If you haven't already, take a few minutes and check out the handy links below to start sharing your knowledge with the world. Welcome! Your class is part of a pilot project for bridging the gap between Wikipedia and the academic world; as you learn how to edit Wikipedia, we'll be learning how to better help newcomers. So it will be a fun learning experience all around! You'll find links below for leaving feedback or getting help. If you need anything further, feel free to contact me at my user talk page. And don't forget: have fun! — GorillaWarfare talk 16:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Editing cheatsheet Forgot how that code worked?	Summary of policies and guidelines A quick reference for Wikipedia's "rules"
Find the page for your course Forgot the link to your course's page?	Find a mentor Contact an ambassador to work with
Help with article assessment Help us assess these articles!	Starting an article Guide to starting your first article
Comments or suggestions? Need help?
Chat with us: Ask a question on the Public Policy IRC channel or on the regular help chat

— GorillaWarfare ^talk 16:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia on Campus Facebook page

Hi IR393BradenSmith,

Thanks for being part of the Wikipedia Public Policy Initiative! I'm LiAnna Davis, the communications associate for the Initiative, and I wanted to let you know that we have a Facebook page, facebook.com/WikipediaOnCampus designed to keep students like you up to date on the latest news, events, photos, videos, and hints to help you edit. If you're on Facebook, please check it out!

Happy editing! Ldavis (Public Policy) (talk) 21:27, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Messages at GorillaWarfare's talk page

Hello. You have a new message at GorillaWarfare's talk page.

Your question

Hello there! I saw your question here and decided to respond to you on your talk page, as there hasn't been a direct response to your question there. I've reposted it below just for clarity's sake:

So is the decision to juxtapose an "objectionable" article with the opposing side of the disagreement the decision of various editors, or are editors reached out to provide information on the opposing side?

I feel that the neutral point of view policy explains this well, but your question is a good one. An article is meant to be written to be neutral -- so that there is no bias one way or another on a disagreement at all. However, the article should cover both sides of a bias if one exists. For example, take Evolution. Some people believe it is how the human race came to be, while others believe in creationism. There is huge contention over this, and therefore the article is difficult to write without bias. However, you can see that it has been done quite well. This article is written from a scientific standpoint, but contains other sections. For example, the History of evolutionary thought section details how the views on the subject have changed over time. The Evolutionary history of life section has a link to Evolutionary history of life, which scientifically details the evolution of life on earth. However, it states that "there is no scientific consensus on how life began". So far, the article has been written more or less without detailing the controversy. The final section, Social and cultural responses, is where these are found. Here can be found mention of things such as creationism, theistic evolution, and intelligent design, as well as mention of some of the more notable conflicts regarding the topic, such as the Scopes Trial, Epperson v. Arkansas, and Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. At the top of the section is a link to Objections to evolution, an article going into more detail on the controversies.

So, using this article as an example, you can see how NPOV should be worked in. The article should be written neutrally and without bias, but the notable conflicting viewpoints should be recognized and explained. Do notice that I say "notable conflicting viewpoints". This is important. There can be many conflicting viewpoints on a single subject, but not all are worthy of inclusion. To use another example, if you look at the article on September 11 attacks, you'll see that the controlled demolition hypothesis is included, as well as a link to the 9/11 conspiracy theories article, but not every conflicting view on the cause of the attacks is listed.

I hope this answers your question! Sorry it became a little long-winded. If you have any more questions, do ask! Hope your work is going well. — GorillaWarfare ^talk 19:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)