|
- Objectivity
This is the correct application (by for example scientific method) of current knowledge. Truth, science, knowledge relates here. By far the easiest to prove.
- Equaling the Balance, Unique Neutral point of view
Very difficult to achieve, and impossible to prove in reality because relations are everywhere. Law and judiciary are often examples of getting an appropriate judgment by "proofs" which are relative and do not fulfill a absolute objectivity. The time clearly is relevant (many "history" pages in Wikipedia), needs balance and often makes me lamenting ;-).
- Yours, mine, any personal viewpoint
May be any of the above, but is by far mostly (we do not have the time to make an investigation about every statement we have to give) biased. For example even the most serious, earnest scientist prefers some kind of food (without proof, probably biased ;-) ).
Fictitious Example of Viewpoints about 1+1=?
| Number of humans stating viewpoints | "Biased" viewpoints | Neutral viewpoint | Objective journalism | Objective viewpoints | Reality |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10 humans state 1+1=3 | Any, but faction "3" is dominating | 1+1=3 | 1+1=3 | 1+1=3 | 1+1=2 |
| 10 humans state 1+1=3 10 humans state 1+1=4 |
Any, but often faction "3" is fighting with "4" | "3", "4" presented | A) "3", "4" presented B) 1+1=3.5 |
A) "3", "4" presented B) 1+1=3.5 C) Result unknown |
1+1=2 |
| 10 humans state 1+1=3 10 humans state 1+1=4 1 human claims to know 1+1=2 |
Any, but often faction "3" is fighting with "4", and/or both together against "anti-democratic", "know-all" "2" |
"2", "3", "4" presented | A) "2", "3", "4" presented B) "2" is outlier: 1+1=3.5 C) Average: 1+1=3.4 D) "2" is true: 1+1=2 |
A) "2", "3", "4" presented B) "2" is unproven: 1+1=3.5 C) Average: 1+1=3.4 D) "2" recognized: 1+1=2 E) Result unknown |
1+1=2 |
| 10 humans state 1+1=3 10 humans state 1+1=4 100 humans claim to know 1+1=2 |
Any, but mostly faction "2" is suppressing "3" and "4" as inappropriate, and "3" and "4" feeling suppressed, claiming minority rights, are not able to join |
"2", "3", "4" presented | 1+1=2 | A) "2", "3", "4" presented B) 1+1=2 C) "2" is disproven: 1+1=3.5 D) Average: 1+1=2.3 E) Result unknown |
1+1=2 |
| 10 humans state 1+1=3 (Two humans are unknown, five are female (one of them aged over 65, 3 below 18), one is a mayor of a small town and has previously often stated that 1+1=6, but after being accused of receiving money from "Company 6" he quickly changed to 1+1=1, was quickly accused that his wife has shares from "The one and only" company, and finally changed to 1+1=3, the two others are his wife and his assistant) 10 humans state 1+1=4 (Eight humans are presented in a poll published in an article of "Publisher of the final Truth", which claims to have many scientists and experts, one has several academic degrees and published many books, some of them at "Publisher of the final Truth", and one is a known homosexual) 100 humans claim to know 1+1=2 (42 are unknown, one has a Ph-D degree, two are known believers of the "2 by 2" church (previously they believed 1+1=1[1][2], and are continuing support for this belief), three are...., one is...., others are.....) |
Any, but mostly faction "2" is suppressing "3" and "4" as inappropriate, and "3" and "4" feeling suppressed, claiming minority rights, are not able to join |
"2", "3", "4" presented in the UNIQUE neutral viewpoint | Difficult, but mostly 1+1=2 is seen as appropriate |
A) "2", "3", "4" presented B) 1+1=2 C) "2" is disproven: 1+1=3.5 D) Average: 1+1=2.3 E) Result unknown |
1+1=2 |
Journalism can have any of these viewpoints, and has mostly mixed viewpoints. Good, serious journalism (which includes somehow Wikipedia) is often seen as a mixture of objectivity and neutrality:
- Viewpoints which are seen as "wrong" by most "reliable sources", are excluded; violating neutrality.
- "Unknown" is nearly ever no new and even if, no interesting message; although some journalists will have this viewpoint, they do not publish, and others will post different viewpoints which violate neutrality.
Note that "violating neutrality" is valuated neutral: neither "positive" nor "negative". Reason is that it may present an unreal viewpoint, to give 1+1=3 and 1+1=4 similar room than 1+1=2, even if in the second last example the room is weighted per human percentage. The "right" result: 1+1=2 may be questioned "inappropriately" in the view of the reader by "wrong" results. So that depends on:
- a) who are the readers,
- b) in which manner will they read the text and
- c) which result represents reality.