==What is the neutral point of view?==
==Çfarë është pikëpamja asnjanëse?==
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.
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.
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.
Another point bears elaboration as well. Writing unbiasedly can be conceived very well as ''representing'' disputes, ''characterizing'' them, rather than engaging in them. One can think of unbiased writing as the cold, fair, analytical description of debates. Of course, one might well doubt that this can be done at all without somehow subtly implying or insinuating that one position is correct. But experienced academics, polemical writers, and rhetoricians are well-attuned to bias, both their own and others', so that they can usually spot a description of a debate that tends to favor one side. If they so choose, with some creativity, they can usually remove that bias.
Now an important qualification. Articles that compare views need not give minority views ''as much'' or as detailed a description as more popular views. We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by only a small minority of people deserved as much attention as a majority view. That may be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. If we are to represent the dispute fairly, we should present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. None of this, however, is to say that minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can possibly give them on pages specifically devoted to those views. There is no size limit to Wikipedia. But even on such pages, though a view is spelled out possibly in great detail, we still make sure that the view is not represented as ''the truth.''