User:Valjean/Alignment of article titles and content with RS

Under development

A properly constructed article will have alignment between the title, content, and the narrative(s) in RS for that specific topic. Editorial POV and biases should not skew that alignment as skewing violates NPOV.

Alignment
The three factors in the Alignment Pyramid (need several drawings)

A normal pyramid based on this reverted pyramid and the fourth image here.


 * 1) Title
 * 2) Body/content
 * 3) Specific RS for a specific topic

The specific topic pyramid is narrow and can move. It is placed somewhere on the broader topic foundation, possibly far from the center.

The broader topic foundation is very broad and does not move as it contains all knowledge about the topic.


 * Proper alignment is NPOV-compliant

.........................Title........................

.................Body/Content.................

....Specific topic: Reliable sources....

Broader topic...Broader topic...Broader topic...Broader topic...Broader topic...Broader topic...


 * Skewed alignment (the title does not describe the contents accurately)

..............Title........................

.................Body/Content.................

....Specific topic: Reliable sources....

Broader topic...Broader topic...Broader topic...Broader topic...Broader topic...Broader topic...


 * "Neutrality is not the average between bollocks and reality. In science, any compromise between a correct statement and an incorrect statement, is an incorrect statement." User:JzG, November 2019, on Talk:Craniosacral therapy.

RS are the foundation of all content, and all content, including titles, must be brought into alignment with those RS.

Editors are editing neutrally in relation to the RS when their edits are aligned with them. Our job is to relay the message from RS.

When the content and title are aligned with RS, no matter whether the RS are left, right, up, or down, the content and title are "neutral". When editors edit in a way that deviates from the RS, the editors are not editing neutrally and are violating NPOV.

Mainstream opinions that are most aligned with the facts have more due weight.

When editors step back and look at the broader aspects of a topic, rather than just the specific article, they will often see a philosophical median, a "neutral" center point. While that's interesting, their job is to zero in on the exact topic and the exact sources, and then realign their "neutral center" to the sources used. This means they should slide their relevant neutral center to the left or right, up or down. This means it will not be "neutral" and unbiased in relation to the broader topic, but that's okay. The article, its content, and the sources are not neutral, but biased. Again, that's okay.

Neutrality, balance, and false balance
In the broad spectrum of opposing points of view, "neutral" occupies the exact middle position between opposing points of view and takes no side in the matter, ergo, neutral has no opinion because it is not a "point of view". Such a position is extremely rare in real life and reliable sources. As such, it is a position we rarely document or include. NPOV does not mean neutral or neutered content, nor does it mean that there should be a false balance between opposing points of view. All opinions are not equal, so they must not be given equal weight.

Attempts to keep an article or its lead balanced and neutral (free of non-neutral opinions) are necessarily based on the subjective opinions and judgement of editors. They are therefore most often an expression of forbidden original research and are usually based on a misunderstanding of NPOV and "due and undue weight". This does not mean that no attempt should ever be made to rectify gross imbalance, but don't react to it by seeking a completely equal balance:


 * "The pursuit of balance can create imbalance because sometimes something is true." — Daniel Okrent, first public editor of The New York Times


 * "Apply and interpret WP:NPOV with due care and caution, please. Devoting equal time and space to all 'sides' of a controversy only makes sense if all sides are equally credible. Where a preponderance of evidence – or an outright consensus among experts – exists, we fail as editors if our coverage does not accurately reflect that understanding." — TenOfAllTrades

The due weight distribution in an article should always mirror the unequal balance usually found between reliable sources. This will usually favor the mainstream point of view, and that should be the impression received by readers. They should learn that the best sources favor a certain point of view, even when it may not align with their own opinions of what is true. So be it. Wikipedia is more interested in the documentation of reliably verifiable human knowledge, than the determination of subjective "truth". Any attempt to do the latter is a futile endeavor to maintain balance on a slippery slope greased by conflicting opinions. Proven scientific facts, on the other hand, are another matter; they can be nailed down.

The balance found in reliable sources will also affect how we cover weird, odd, and sensational information, stuff we often dub "trivia". Because we document the "sum of all human knowledge" as it's found in reliable sources, if something is weird, odd, or sensational, it will often receive "even more" coverage in RS, and that's why we must cover it "even more", rather than treat it as trivia. It's what we do. We don't cover it because we think it's weird, we cover it because reliable sources think it's notably weird. If they think it's trivia, they will ignore it, and so should we. On the other hand, if they cover it, and we then treat it as trivia and ignore it, we have violated NPOV by using editorial bias to give it a weight that differs from the weight it is given in reliable sources. We must always be guided (governed) by RS, and our idea of "trivia" may not be their idea of trivia, or, alternatively, they just feel like giving trivia a lot of attention, which for us translates to greater "weight".

Dump

 * Yes. Editors are neutral in relation to the RS when their edits are aligned with them. Our job is to relay the message from RS. We state the facts and attribute their opinions. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 06:22, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Hob Gadling, I mention falsehoods, pseudoscience, and conspiracy theories. Other loaded terms like "propaganda" and "disinformation" could also be mentioned. The research mentioned "debunked myths and controversies". Loaded terms that are easily seen as very biased are often used by RS, so when a source uses such terms, so can we. When in doubt, just attribute it. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 14:59, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, "neutral point of view" does not mean "no point of view" or that we do not use biased words from the sources if they are true. It is editors, not sources or words, who must be neutral. We must neutrally and faithfully document biased words and biased sources without neutralizing or censoring their words or meaning. When the content and title are aligned with RS, no matter whether they are left, right, up, or down, the content and title are "neutral". When editors edit in a way that deviates from the RS, the editors are not editing neutrally. We must not make facts sound like opinions or opinions sound like facts. We follow the scientific method. If reliable sources discover that they have made mistakes, we will update our content accordingly. Many of Wikipedia's rules follow the scientific method and the rules of logic.


 * Good point. Also, mainstream opinions that are most aligned with the facts have more due weight. Politically speaking, at just this time in American history, left-wing opinions fill that role, largely due to Trump capturing the GOP and right-wing media and dragging it all beyond the reach of facts and truth. He has built a bubble that keeps them in the dark.
 * At another time in history it could be the left that abandons truth. Politics is more wedded to power, and neither the right nor left have a patent on truth. Neither is immune to leaders who manipulate them and lie to them.
 * Feel free to develop all those thoughts into a coherent section and install it. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 17:52, 22 June 2023 (UTC)