Africa Growth Pilot/Online self-paced course/Module 3/describing greatness neutrally using relevant opinions

So is there no way to somehow describe how great Pelé is, how great Messi is, on Wikipedia? And the answer is no, there is a way: we don't have to describe everyone the same way. There are ways to convey, to express, someone's importance or achievements, *without using promotional language* and without grade-giving in Wikipedia's voice. I'm stressing *Wikipedia's voice* should not give this grade of "greatest" or "worst" or anything like that, but we can still express it. Look at this text, from the English Wikipedia article about Pelé. And it says:

"Real Madrid former player Alfredo Di Stéfano opined: 'the best player ever? Pelé. Lionel Messi and Cristiano Ronaldo are both great players with specific qualities, but Pelé was better." End quote. And at the end of the quote, there is this number here in brackets, 91. What does that mean? This number in brackets is a citation, a reference; it's a link. If we click it or hover over it we can see where this quote is taken from. So it's not just a quote, it's a quote *with a source*.

In other words, this is a way of *citing an opinion*. It's an opinion; it's not a fact. But it *is* a fact that this is the opinion of this person. And the person with the opinion is shown to be relevant. It would not be okay to say "Asaf opined: 'the best player ever is Pelé'" because *my* opinion is irrelevant. *I* have no particular competence or expertise in football. Nobody should care who *I* think is the best player ever. But a former player of Real Madrid, for example, which is a very successful team, could be said to have a relevant opinion.

Obviously not the *only* one with a relevant opinion. We could quote any number of football players, football coaches, football referees, FIFA officials, all kinds of people whose opinion may be relevant. And I'm stressing here that this quote isn't just brought as "Alfredo Di Stéfano thinks this way". These words before it: "Real Madrid former player Alfredo Di Stéfano" are *framing* this opinion as a relevant one. I'm not just bringing *an* opinion; I'm explaining to the reader *why* this opinion is relevant. I am also bringing the opinion within quotes. I *attribute* the quotation to its author, Alfredo Di Stéfano, and I provide a *citation* so that you can verify it. The reader can *verify* that di Stéfano did indeed say what Wikipedia says that he said.

So this is a way -- one way -- to express an indication of the greatness of Pelé using a quoted and cited opinion. Now, does that prove that Pelé was the greatest? No! It's just this guy's opinion. We could have two or three such opinions about Pelé's greatness. We could even have, in the article about Pelé, a different opinion! We could say: "However," I don't know, say, "Johan Cruyff thinks that [some other player] was greater." That's also okay, in order to show that there is, in fact, no consensus on who was the greatest ever. We can bring a selection of opinions, but they need to be *relevant* opinions, and they need to come with *citations* and with a framing *showing* why they are relevant. Don't assume that everybody knows who Alfredo Di Stéfano is.

One last thing: Note the word 'opined'. It's a fancy verb meaning 'expressed an opinion', right? And in this way, by saying 'opined' instead of just 'said', we're signaling to our reader: "please note the following is an opinion!". Just in case they didn't notice the quotes, I also warn the reader in advance: "I'm about to give you one person's opinion. Not a fact." Not Wikipedia's Voice. Someone *else's* voice.