Tardis:Neutral point of view

Point of view In-universe perspective → Out-of-universe perspective → We're Wikipedia's evil twin → Neutral point of view

Write dispassionately. Write objectively. Write what's there, not what you think is there.

Shortcut:

T:NPOV

Your writing should adopt a neutral point of view. This means different things, depending on whether you're writing in-universe articles or material about the real world.

In-universe

When writing or naming categories or articles about in-universe subjects, follow these objectivity guidelines.

1. Media doesn't matter. One of the most important aspects of this wiki is that all media have equal weight here. Television is not the most important source of information on this wiki. That which is said in a short story in Doctor Who Annual 1967 is just as valid as the latest episode of BBC Wales Doctor Who.
2. One person's villain is another person's hero. Don't assume that just because the Doctor is opposing someone that they are "evil" or an "enemy". Doctor Who has always had any number of shades of grey in its characters. So do describe what characters do, but don't try to interpret their actions.
3. Categories which characterise people as "enemies" or "allies" are strictly forbidden. Any such categories would be opinion only, as characters aren't wholly one thing or another.

Examples

• We don't care if you think that River Song is "evil" in Let's Kill Hitler, but then she "redeems" herself. We do care that she administered Judas tree poison to the Eleventh Doctor, killed him, and then resurrected him through the gift of her regeneration energies.

Real-world

As a general rule of thumb, we accept that Wikipedia's NPOV policy about the neutral point of view inasmuch as real world articles are concerned.

Here are some examples of how we apply Wikipedia's rules to our real world content:

• You must use valid, creditable sources to characterise the major opinions about your real world topics. However, these opinions can clash. As frequently heard on DVD commentaries, it is often the case that various participants will have differing opinions on certain aspects of production. If Tom Baker, for instance, is having a difference of opinion about the way he treated Louise Jameson on the set of Image of the Fendahl, for instance — and these all differ from Andrew Pixley's account in Doctor Who Magazine, and David J. Howe's notes in The Fourth Doctor Handbook — don't just include Jameson's opinion and leave it at that. Give them all.

• Don't give not give credence to minority views — particularly those of fandom who likely had no direct involvement in the production of Doctor Who or its spinoffs. What's being said at Gallifrey Base or another forum has absolutely no impact on our articles. Equally, media reports from news outlets that aren't terribly close to the Doctor Who production office shouldn't be seen as reliable — or even creditable rumours.

• Be wary of known liars. This includes many, many members of the Doctor Who production office. Neutrality in writing behind the scenes articles means recognising that some sources are deliberately trying to deceive the public. A tweet from Karen Gillan or a DWM editorial from Steven Moffat aren't terribly reliable, despite the names behind them.

• Avoid sentences which try to characterise fan opinion about a topic, because such statements typically cannot be backed up by creditable sources. That's not to say that such sources are unavailable. The lead at the article on Kinda, for example, is able to characterise fan opinion using articles from DWM 69, DWM 413 and DWM 104. But Gallifrey Base, blogs or other such internet-based opinion houses are clearly not sources that help to establish a neutral point of view, as they give undue weight to the voices of a few individual fans.