CEO.wiki:Neutral point of view
Neutral Point of View (NPOV)
The neutral point of view is a fundamental principle of CEO.wiki. All articles must be written from a neutral perspective, representing fairly and without bias all significant views about the subject.
Core Principles
Impartiality
Articles should not advocate for or against any particular viewpoint. CEO.wiki is not a platform for:
- Promoting specific CEOs or companies
- Criticizing or praising business leaders
- Advancing particular business philosophies
- Campaigning for or against corporate policies
Fair Representation
When multiple perspectives exist on a topic:
- All significant viewpoints should be represented
- Space given to each view should reflect its prominence
- Minority views should be identified as such
- Fringe theories should not be given undue weight
Factual Tone
Write in a factual, encyclopedic tone:
- State facts, not opinions
- Attribute opinions to their sources
- Avoid loaded language
- Use precise, neutral terminology
Application to CEO.wiki Content
CEO Biographies
When writing about CEOs:
Good - Neutral:
"Mary Barra became CEO of General Motors in 2014. Under her leadership, GM's market capitalization increased from $51 billion to $82 billion by 2023, according to SEC filings. Her tenure has included the company's pivot to electric vehicles and the discontinuation of several vehicle lines."
Bad - Promotional:
"Mary Barra is an exceptional CEO who brilliantly transformed General Motors. Her visionary leadership has made GM a leader in electric vehicles, and she is widely regarded as one of the best CEOs in the automotive industry."
Why it's bad: Uses promotional language ("exceptional," "brilliantly," "visionary"), makes subjective quality judgments, and presents opinions as facts.
Controversies and Criticism
Include both positive and negative information when well-sourced:
Good - Balanced:
"The compensation package received mixed reactions. Shareholders approved it with 73% support at the 2023 annual meeting. However, proxy advisory firm ISS recommended voting against it, citing concerns about performance metrics. Labor unions criticized the package as excessive during a period of workforce reductions."
Bad - One-sided:
"The CEO's outrageous compensation package was slammed by critics and unions, though some shareholders blindly approved it."
Why it's bad: Uses loaded words ("outrageous," "slammed," "blindly"), emphasizes criticism while minimizing support.
Performance Data
Present data neutrally, letting facts speak for themselves:
Good - Factual:
"During Smith's tenure as CEO from 2015-2023:
- Revenue increased from $50B to $75B (50% growth)
- Stock price rose from $45 to $120 per share
- Employee headcount decreased from 150,000 to 120,000
- The company faced two major product recalls
Industry analysts have offered varying assessments of this performance."
Bad - Interpretive:
"Smith's excellent tenure saw impressive revenue growth and stock gains, though he was forced to make tough but necessary workforce reductions. Two minor recalls occurred but were handled well."
Why it's bad: Interprets data ("excellent," "impressive"), justifies decisions ("necessary"), minimizes issues ("minor," "handled well").
Words to Avoid
Promotional Language
Avoid superlatives and peacock terms:
- ❌ Best, greatest, leading, top, premier
- ❌ Revolutionary, groundbreaking, innovative (without attribution)
- ❌ Legendary, iconic, visionary, brilliant
- ✅ Use: "According to Forbes," "ranked first by," "described by analysts as"
Judgmental Language
Avoid words that imply judgment:
- ❌ Unfortunately, sadly, thankfully, obviously
- ❌ Merely, only, just
- ❌ Controversial, divisive (without explaining why)
- ✅ Use: Neutral descriptors with sourced explanations
Weasel Words
Avoid vague attributions:
- ❌ "Some say," "critics argue," "it is believed"
- ❌ "Many consider," "most experts agree"
- ✅ Use: Specific sources ("According to Bloomberg," "ISS stated")
Handling Disputed Content
Multiple Viewpoints
When sources disagree:
Good - Multi-perspective:
"Analysts have differing views on the acquisition strategy. Morgan Stanley called it 'transformative' and raised their price target. However, Goldman Sachs expressed concerns about integration risks and debt levels. The company's stock fell 5% on announcement day but recovered to trade 10% higher six months later."
Weight of Sources
Give appropriate weight based on source reliability and prominence:
- Major news outlets and SEC filings: Primary weight
- Industry analysts and academics: Significant weight
- Individual opinions and blogs: Minimal weight (if any)
- Press releases: Use for facts, not interpretations
Common NPOV Issues
Conflict of Interest
Be especially vigilant about:
- Articles about companies where editors have financial interests
- CEOs writing about themselves or competitors
- PR professionals editing client pages
- Employees editing their own company pages
Advocacy
CEO.wiki is not a platform for:
- Promoting business models or management philosophies
- Arguing for or against regulatory policies
- Championing or opposing specific industries
- Advancing economic or political ideologies
Undue Weight
Common mistakes:
- Devoting excessive space to minor controversies
- Over-emphasizing recent events vs. historical context
- Highlighting extreme positions while ignoring mainstream views
- Giving equal weight to majority and fringe perspectives
Compliance and Enforcement
Self-assessment
Before saving, ask yourself:
- Would this article sound appropriate in an academic journal?
- Have I attributed all opinions to sources?
- Would supporters and critics both find this fair?
- Am I presenting facts or making arguments?
Dispute Resolution
If neutrality is disputed: 1. Discuss on the article's talk page 2. Seek additional reliable sources 3. Request third-party input 4. Invoke dispute resolution if needed
Consequences of Violations
Persistent NPOV violations may result in:
- Article warnings and cleanup templates
- Removal of biased content
- Page protection
- Editor sanctions for repeated violations