Jump to navigation Jump to search
Issuepedia uses the word viewpoint to refer to one of multiple possible conclusions regarding a given issue.
- Prime Directive: People must be able to say what they think. Any point of view must be able to make its case.
- It is somewhat important, therefore, that the site not appear to be favoring one particular viewpoint or ideology overall.
- The normal processes of discussion and judgement which come into play in the writing of pages on Issuepedia will inevitably result in support for some conclusions over others; this is an essential part of Issuepedia's function.
- Another part of that function is the gradual "homing in" on truth by successive approximation -- of which dissenting opinions are a necessary part.
- Therefore, although we do want to make the effort to invite dissenting conclusions and opinions, we don't need to feel obligated to "hand-hold" opposing viewpoints into expressing themselves. We leave the door open as wide as possible; it's up to them to walk through it.
Some style guidelines which may help prevent the dialogue from being (or appearing) too one-sided:
- Wherever possible, give your assumptions. State the obvious.
- Wherever possible, give sources for your facts.
- Statements of opinion should be stated as judgements, not as self-evident facts. "Gostakinarians are all deluded hypocrites" would be bad; "Gostaknarians seem to have a tendency towards hypocrisy and self-delusion" is better, and "The Gostaknarians quoted in the articles below are all being hypocritical or possibly delusional. (Does anyone have examples of Gostaknarians behaving in a reasonable manner?)" is closer to ideal, though still not perfect; it does at least explicitly open the door for a conflicting opinion. Think of yourself as an alien evaluating what you are seeing, not as a member of one group criticizing another.