Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing is a myth

This is an essay on the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Civility policies. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article or a Wikipedia policy, as it has not been reviewed by the community.

Shortcuts WP:PUSHMYTHWP:PUSHMYTH WP:CRUSHMYTHWP:CRUSHMYTH

Wikipedia articles are meant to be neutral: NPOV in WikiSpeak. Some Wikipedia articles are not neutral. Sometimes, articles lack balance or give undue weight to certain viewpoints. Someone who edits to improve these articles, following Wikipedia policies, is not POV pushing. Someone who remains civil while editing to improve articles is following policy. Making an issue of another editor's adherence to civility is bad faith editing. Editors who accuse other editors of "civil POV pushing" (AKA WP:CRUSH and WP:PUSH) are attempting to draw focus away from content issues and to make an issue of the editor who is proposing a change or changes. Civil POV pushing is a myth.

Civility is Wikipedia policy, though it does not outweigh the NPOV policy. If an editor civilly proposes to expand an article using language or sources that are incompatible with NPOV, that expansion can be legitimately declined on content policy alone. If an editor civilly proposes to remove from an article language or sources that are compatible with NPOV, that too can be legitimately declined on content policy alone. But many Wikipedia articles fall below the "good article" (GA) grade. (And even good articles can be improved.) If an editor or group of editors cannot give legitimate policy reasons for opposing another editor's proposals or reverting an editor's edits, what should be examined is the POV of the section in question, perhaps even the article.

Editors who accuse others of "civil POV pushing" often have more editing history and/or they may be part of an editorial majority in the topic area in question; they know what comprises true POV pushing. They also know that "civil POV pushing" is an essay. Editors who are accused of WP:CRUSH or WP:PUSH are often newer editors to a topic area, perhaps to Wikipedia itself. Newer editors may not distinguish between essays, behavioral guidelines, and policies, causing them to become confused or frightened by the alphabetti spaghetti. This places them in a defensive position, which can lead to disruptive editing or even the loss of an editor.

To reiterate, if an editor or group of editors cannot give legitimate policy reasons for opposing an editor's proposals or reverting another editor's edits, the problem is not the other editor's composure. In such a situation, the proposals, the edits, perhaps even the whole article, should be properly, politely opened to outside review.

Behaviors

Editors who accuse others of "civil POV pushing" (wikilinks WP:CRUSH and WP:PUSH) have forgotten or chosen to ignore Wikipedia's third pillar: Wikipedia is free content that anyone can edit. They are often editors or groups of editors who are also primary contributors to an article or topic area. Because they feel a sense of ownership they wish to defend an article's point of view. However, unless an article's grade is "good article" (GA) or better, there is always ample room for improvement. Behaviors of editors who accuse others of WP:CRUSH or WP:PUSH may include these:

Locus, principles and suggested remedies

Topic areas most affected by this problem make for a long list, but what they have in common is their controversial nature.

The most important Wikipedia principle is collaborative editing to improve content. This requires following both the civility policy and NPOV. Expertise in a topic area, experience or standing in the community, and being part of an editorial majority do not exempt editors from policy.

Suggested remedies:

• Accounts, whether individuals or groups, that use Wikipedia for the sole or primary purpose of advocating a specific agenda at the expense of collaborative editing to improve the encyclopedia should be warned, restricted, or ultimately blocked by any uninvolved administrator, regardless of their expertise in a topic area, their experience or standing in the community, or their being part of an editorial majority.
• Accounts, whether individuals or groups, that treat a topic as their own at the expense of collaborative editing to improve the encyclopedia should be warned, restricted, or ultimately blocked by any uninvolved administrator, regardless of expertise in a topic area, experience or standing in the community, or being part of an editorial majority.
• If an editor or group of editors insists on accusing another editor of "civil POV pushing" they should be reminded that civility is a Wikipedia policy and advised to review the try to fix problems section of the editing policy.
• If the editor or group of editors continues to accuse the other editor of WP:CRUSH or WP:PUSH, or to otherwise cast aspersions, they should be warned, restricted and ultimately blocked by any uninvolved administrator.

See the "Involved admins" section of the Administrators policy page.

See also