Wikipedia:Editing controversial subjects

As a compendium of all available knowledge, Wikipedia inevitably covers many topics that are considered especially sensitive, controversial, or even distasteful among the public. If an editor finds themselves editing in such an area, especially when feeling an unpopular viewpoint has not received its due weight, it is important for all parties to understand the potential judgments they may face.

While it is essential to maintain a reasonably clear threshold for inappropriate behavior, it is also necessary to remain vigilant in ensuring that editors are not misunderstood due to the high tension levels in a particular topic area.

Don't shoot the messenger
If you observe another editor adding content that you disagree with, particularly controversial material, do not assume that the editor personally holds the beliefs stated in their added content, or that they are attempting to highlight that viewpoint over others. As obvious as it may seem to you that this is the case, it may very well be that the editor is merely attempting to give an unpopular viewpoint its due weight.

While an editor adding content on a popular viewpoint across articles is not given a second thought, editors will usually invite scrutiny for doing so regarding the unpopular viewpoint. This is a result of basic human nature, but nevertheless, the scrutinizing editors should take great care in realizing that notable unpopular viewpoints must be represented just the same, and that an editor who chooses to add content to that effect across articles does not necessarily warrant any more suspicion than the former. The principle being applied to editor scrutiny should not favor any particular viewpoint, regardless of the political correctness or level of public support one viewpoint has over another.

Instead of relying primarily on an examination of an editor's contribution history, the resulting states of the articles in question should be examined first. If the resulting articles give all viewpoints their due weight, it should actually not matter if a single editor was responsible for adding the same viewpoint to each one, nor is there any reason to cast suspicions on that editor.

While a pattern of damaged articles, or behavioral issues on discussion pages, may be a reason to act, a pattern of anti-[popular viewpoint] edits alone should not be reason to feel damage has been done.

WP:UNDUE should be observed and enforced, but it is important to remember that that policy applies to an article, rather than an editor. Editors are allowed to have an unbalanced editing history, so long as their edits did not unbalance individual articles. If the balance of individual articles has shifted unduly as a result, then there may be cause to act.

Just as an artist may write poems from the perspective of an unpopular figure, editors should be careful not to assume a POV edited into, or expanded in articles, is necessarily indicative of an agenda to use Wikipedia to promote that POV.

When to seek dispute resolution or topic bans
If you conclude that an editor is being disruptive because they are making edits without providing reliable sources to back them up, or that have caused articles to become unduly unbalanced towards a particular viewpoint, dispute resolution measures can be considered. Start by trying to resolve the conflict through discussion by addressing it as good-faith content. The dispute resolution process outlines several tools, such as WP:Request for comment, WP:Requests for mediation, and WP:Content noticeboard.

As a final resort, consider requesting formal sanctions at WP:AN or WP:ANI. If edits are repeatedly being undone, for example, and shown to have been inappropriate, then the result should presumably be the same regardless of the editor's perceived motives.