Wikipedia:Writing for the enemy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This essay contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Consider these views with discretion. |
Writing for the enemy is the process of explaining another person's point of view as clearly and fairly as you can, similar to devil's advocate. The intent is to satisfy the adherents and advocates of that perspective that you understand their claims and arguments.
It's a great way to end an argument in real life, and it can often halt an edit war in an instant. It also can result in you having a greater understanding of the enemy's position, and ideally not viewing them as an "enemy" anymore, but rather just an individual with different assumptions about the world.
Writing for the enemy is also the process of editing an article from the perspective of a viewpoint opposed to your own. By doing so, you can sharpen and apply your NPOV editing skills.
For example it is possible to explain Nikita Khrushchev's view of the USA, without either agreeing or disagreeing with it. Likewise, it is possible to explain why certain individuals did terrible things, without either endorsing them or adding one's own proofs that they were evil or wrong. The expression therefore means the ability to communicate another viewpoint without any elaboration.
Note that writing for the enemy does not necessarily mean one believes the opposite of the "enemy" POV. The writer may be unsure what position he wants to take, or simply have no opinion on the matter. What matters is that you try to "walk a mile in their shoes" and on this occasion, not judge them.
Writing for the enemy contributes to the neutral point of view of Wikipedia. Wikipedians do not need to "sacrifice" their own viewpoints but simply to acknowledge that another viewpoint than their own may be possible:
- "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." Aristotle
- It is the mark of good Wikipedia editors to be able to understand and present various POV, including those they find distasteful.
Editors must either create edits for the opposing POV themselves, or at least allow it. Wikipedia's NPOV policy must not be misused so it becomes synonymous with revisionism, censorship, whitewashing, or political correctness. Editors must present both sides of any controversy. To leave out one side amounts to promoting the other side's POV. Wikipedia should include more information than other encyclopedias, not less.
[edit] See also
- Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
- Wikipedia:POVs
- Principle of charity (used in philosophy and rhetoric)
