User:Mrt3366/Experience/Neutrality

Giving equal validity doesn't necessarily imply neutral inclinations. Validity/weight bestowed on certain arguments should be in right proportion to their credibility as determined by the coverage in reliable sources. A priori conjectures that inveigles, or rather, goads a person to give more weight to an argument than it really deserves, are malicious and this sort of sanctimonious display of premeditated even-handedness is useless and, in and of itself, an extremely elusive bias. One shouldn't make a virtue of the floundering based on a tacit inability to admit contentious reality.

To be neutral is to assign weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. It prescribes, as opposed to proscribing, the inclusion of any verifiable assertions even though it may look horrendous to some. Calling a spade a spade is not bias in itself.
 * Neutrality

Some still hold to the vacuous concept that neutrality inherently obligates one to pussyfoot around and sugar-coat horrendous reality as reported by the reliable sources. I humbly but firmly disagree. Forthright explication of the subject in a dispassionate tone is a precondition for neutrality.

(In descending order with regards to their frequency of occurrence)
 * Motives
 * 1) An utterly misguided understanding of the idea of neutrality. Prejudicial and idiosyncratic rejection of the distinction between act of blindly giving equal validity and act of being neutral while reporting controversial things.
 * Applies mostly to those who presuppose that contentions of both the sides of any dispute, no matter how serious, are equally worthless. While it's not impossible, renouncing the reflexive temptation to include petty squabbles into the purview of the definition of "serious dispute", I believe such a scenario is extremely rare on Wikipedia.
 * 1) To ostentatiously prove the depth of one's neutrality to oneself (esp. to his own self).
 * This is sometimes the motive of those who, by virtue of incoherent qualms, mistake needless generosity for neutrality. Make no mistake, this peccadillo can lead to things that are antithetical to project itself.
 * 1) Ornery one-upmanship.
 * This sometimes seems to be the motive of those (esp. incident admins) who unscrupulously misconstrue pragmatic candour as bias and eventually turn the discussion into a war of nerves.
 * 1) and last but not the least is flat-out bias.