Ndryshimi mes inspektimeve të "Wikipedia:Pikëpamje neutrale"

v
v
 
==What is the neutral point of view?==
==Çfarë është pikëpamja asnjanëse?==
Çfarë ne nënkuptojmë nuk është e qartë, dhe keqkuptohet lehtë.
 
Ka shumë kuptime të tjera të mundëshme e të vlefshme se çfarë do të thotë "pa paragjykim", "asnjanës" etj. Nocioni i "të shkruarit të pa paragjykimtë" që tregon politika e Vikipedias është "paraqitja e pikëpamjeve kundërshtuese pa i përkrahur ato." Për këtë nevojiten sqarime të mëtejshme, siç vijon më poshtë.
What we mean isn't obvious, and is easily misunderstood.
 
E para, dhe më e rëndësishmja, mbani parasysh se çfarë do të thotë se shkrimi i pa paragjykimtë i paraqet pikëpamjet kundërshtuese pa i përkrahur ato. Shkrimi i pa paragjykimtë nuk "paraqet vetëm" pikëpamjen më popullore; nuk "përkrah" pikëpamjen më popullore si të saktë pas paraqitjes së të gjitha pikëpamjeve; nuk pohon se ndonjë lloj pikëpamjeje e ndërmjetme ndër pikëpamjet e ndryshme është më e sakta. Paraqitja e të gjitha pikëpamjeve do të thotë, pak a shumë, se ''p''-istët besojnë ''p''-në, dhe ''q''-istët <!--ha ha ha--> besojnë në atë ''q'', dhe ja ku ku qëndron tani debati.
There are many other possible valid understandings of what "unbiased," "neutral," etc. mean. The notion of "unbiased writing" that informs Wikipedia's policy is "presenting conflicting views without asserting them." This needs further clarification, as follows.
 
 
First, and most importantly, consider what it means to say that unbiased writing presents conflicting views without asserting them. Unbiased writing does not ''present only'' the most popular view; it does not ''assert'' the most popular view as being correct after presenting all views; it does not assert that some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Presenting all points of view says, more or less, that ''p''-ists believe that ''p,'' and ''q''-ists believe that ''q,'' and that's where the debate stands at present. Ideally, presenting all points of view also gives a great deal of background on who believes that ''p'' and ''q'' and why, and which view is more popular (being careful not to imply that ''popularity'' implies ''correctness''). Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of the ''p''-ists and the ''q''-ists, allowing each side to give its "best shot" at the other, but studiously refraining from saying who won the exchange.
 
A point here bears elaboration. We said that the neutral point of view is not, contrary to the seeming implication of the phrase, some actual ''point of view'' that is "neutral," or "intermediate," among the different positions. That represents a particular understanding of what "neutral point of view" means. The prevailing Wikipedia understanding is that the neutral point of view is not a ''point of view'' at all; according to our understanding, when one writes neutrally, one is very careful not to state (or imply or insinuate or subtly massage the reader into believing) that ''any particular view at all'' is correct.