Jump to content

Ponto de vista neutro

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
This page is a translated version of the page Neutral point of view and the translation is 38% complete.
Shortcut :
Esta página descreve a política do "Ponto de vista neutro" de muitos projetos Wikimedia, seu histórico e suas implicações.

Os projectos Wikipédia , Wikcionário , Wikilivros , Wikiquote e Wikinotícias – mas não os projectos Wikisource, Wikiversidade , Wikivoyage, Wikispecies , Wikimedia Commons, os muitos projectos de apoio , ou Meta – têm uma estrita política de ponto de vista neutro (PDVN). Esta política determina que sua missão é melhor desenvolvida ao não avançar ou desviar de particulares pontos de vista, mas ao tentar representar uma descrição justa, neutra dos fatos - includindo as várias interpretações e pontos de vista que existem. (Existem limites para quando vale a pena mencionar determinados pontos de vista, os quais podem por si mesmos serem uma zona de conflito) Esta política existe em todos os idiomas dos projetos que a adotaram, mas os detalhes da política variam significativamente entre os projetos e seus diferentes idiomas.

Writing in NPOV style requires recognising that even widely held or widely respected points of view are not necessarily all-encompassing.

While NPOV is an ultimate goal in writing an article, it is difficult to achieve immediately as a single writer. It is thus sometimes regarded as an iterative process (as is wiki writing in general), by which opposing viewpoints compromise on language and presentation to produce a neutral description acceptable to all, according to consensus decision-making.

NPOV would not be possible without two features of MediaWiki: editors discuss; but only one page exists under a title. In other words, «(i) individuals interact directly to share information and convince each other, and (ii) they edit a common medium to establish their own opinions».


This might be viewed as an adversarial system, but hopefully a polite one. Editors are expected to approximate NPOV to the best of their ability and to welcome improvements that have been brought by others in good faith; a failure of the system can lead to an edit war , in which two or more parties dig in and refuse to compromise, instead reverting each other's changes outright.

A general-purpose encyclopedia is a collection of synthesized knowledge presented from a neutral point of view. To whatever extent possible, encyclopedic writing should avoid taking any particular stance other than the stance of the neutral point of view.

A neutral point of view attempts to present ideas and facts in such a fashion that both supporters and opponents can agree. Of course, 100% agreement is rarely possible; there are ideologues in the world who will not concede to any presentation other than a forceful statement of their own point of view. We can only seek a type of writing that is agreeable to essentially rational people who may differ on particular points.

Some examples may help to drive home this point:

1. An encyclopedic article should not argue that a corporation is criminal, even if the author believes it to be so. It should instead present the fact that some people believe it, and what their reasons are; and then it should also present what the other side says.

2. An encyclopedia article should not argue that laissez-faire capitalism is the best social system. It should instead present the arguments of the advocates of that point of view, and the arguments of the people who disagree with that point of view.

Perhaps the easiest way to make your writing more encyclopedic is to write about what people believe, rather than what is so. If this strikes you as somehow subjectivist or collectivist or imperialist, then ask me about it, because I think that you are just mistaken. What people believe is a matter of objective fact, and we can present that quite easily from the neutral point of view.

— Jimbo Wales, Wikipedia founder, [1]

Ver também


  1. Modeling Social Dynamics in a Collaborative Environment (2014). The opposite system is ViewPoint, where each revision (i.e. opinion) is given the same visibility and an unlimited number of versions of a page co-exist.