Main Page

Welcome to True Neutral! We are currently editing over articles.

What is True Neutral?
True Neutral is an initiative to create an alternative wiki truly free of bias, ideological or otherwise.

Isn't Wikipedia already neutral?
Although neutrality is considered one of Wikipedia's five pillars, many believe that its articles are not neutral anymore. Wikipedia's co-founder Larry Sanger has written an article called Wikipedia is Badly Biased, in which he addresses several flaws with Wikipedia's claimed neutrality, stating that the original policy has long been forgotten and many of the website's articles about politics, religion and even science have become partial (I recommend reading that article if you haven't already).

Aren't there already alternatives to Wikipedia?
Alternatives have risen since the first years of Wikipedia, one notable example being Conservapedia, but the problem with them is that they openly profess particular political views; that is, instead of eliminating the bias, they simply invert it to the other side: Conservapedia is written from a conservative and Christian point of view, and RationalWiki clearly states they do not follow a neutrality policy. Although numerous other alternatives exist, none of them seems to be particularly focused on neutrality; WikiAlpha, for example, eliminates Wikipedia's notability requirements but says nothing about neutrality.

How True Neutral works?
In True Neutral, neutrality is the top-most priority. All articles have to be written in a way it is impossible to detect the author's opinions, and all existing views on a particular subject (political, religious or otherwise) are described and discussed with no bias (with the possible exception of clearly humorous, parody or fictional views). Even if a fringe view on a subject is earnestly endorsed by a small number of people, an ideal True Neutral article would describe it in a way no one (including that view's believers and non-believers) would consider biased, without any subjective language. Even if a view has not reliable sources or is not considered notable enough, it will be described. Of course verifiability and some degree of notability are desirable to create a decent wiki, but in True Neutral, neutrality always comes first. Perhaps the only bias here would be the bias against bias.

One example: in short, Wikipedia says the Earth is 4.54 billion years old and people who believe it is 6,000 years old are misled, while Conservapedia says it is 6,000 years old and people who believe it is 4.54 billion years old are misled. A True Neutral article needs to describe both views in the same weight. Potentially biased statements, even if reliably sourced, are required to be attributed, for example: "news website X says that videogames influence on violence" instead of simply "videogames influence on violence". Sources will not eliminate neutrality. Subjects that do not generate this kind of controversy or be perceived as biased, such as "history of pizza", are unlikely to have articles on True Neutral.

Why is neutrality important?
A neutral point of view is indispensable for one to form an opinion about a subject. Nowadays, most wikis that cover sensitive topics, including Wikipedia, are biased to one side or the other. Without a place truly committed to neutrality, people who want to understand and study a subject first and then form their opinions will have nowhere to begin with.