This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article or a Wikipedia policy, as it has not been reviewed by the community.

Shortcut WP:MULTIPOVWP:MULTIPOV

This essay is currently orphaned. Few or no project pages link to this page. This may result in the page having low readership and little or no improvement. Please help by introducing links to this page from other related project pages.

While it has been argued that the principle behind maintaining a neutral point of view (NPOV) is based on problematic assumptions, it is also regarded as a useful principle for a first approximation of a critical approach to appreciating various perspectives. Reswik, who created this page in 2006, speculated that, over time, Wikiversity scholars would revise the principle behind the NPOV policy until it became one under which editors would write articles from multiple points of view (MPOV) and take into consideration possible ways to improve the variety of positions and interpretations, balance, level of coverage, and summary conclusions offered for different points of view—such that points of view could be mixed in lots of different ways that would appear to be in line with the current NPOV policy.

For some contributors studying multiple disciplines, reducing bias might not be as much of a goal as deepening one's appreciation of the biases and presuppositions of varying perspectives and their contrasts—in other words, a richer and richer set of points of view. Each individual and institution would have their own points of view.

Aiming for a meta-position beyond neutrality, a hypothetical MPOV policy would instruct editors to compare, evaluate, and develop a deeper critical understanding of differing points of view as opposed to attempting to reduce bias merely for the sake of neutrality. The principle of neutrality is thought to be based on the assumption that one root balanced point of view is possible in the future as the endpoint of the work of including and balancing various points of view. Unlike NPOV, the principle behind MPOV would be based on the assumption that a set of points of view is always constructed from one point of view and thus cannot be avoided, hence there is always a set of points of view that may expand and not contract over time.

It may be a matter of debate as to whether the correct position is better-reflected in an endpoint that satisfies NPOV or one that would satisfy MPOV instead. To assume a neutral point of view or multiple points of view as described here would also partially be a matter of metaphysical belief. In order to reach a meta-position, a neutral point of view would have to be contrasted with multiple other points of view. Keep in mind that the approach of writing from multiple points of view may be more relevant to a number of disciplines in the social sciences and humanities than to the natural sciences.