Neutrality? Please!

How naive ... <scoff/>

or, perhaps maybe there is something more....

"Though all men are in error, they are not all in the same error, nor at the same time ... each therefore may possibly heal the other ... even as two or more physicians, all diseased in their general health, yet under the immediate action of the disease on different days, may remove or alleviate the complaints of each other." - Coleridge, as noted by Guy Chapman

Agenda

Inspired by earlier debates on neutrality of technical standards, literature on bias in technical systems, and a change in my belief that while an important concept "neutral" was a unfortunate coinage. I will

• consider notions of neutrality:
  • reference works, playing games, technical systems and standards, content regulation, and war
• define the terms "objective," "bias," and "neutral"
• provide a framework for considering neutrality.
• conclude by arguing that the term "neutral" is the right word

NPOV as a heat shield

The Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy recommends that "[a]rticles should be written without bias, representing all views fairly" (Wikipedia 2004npv).

The importance of this norm is that "while the perception is that NPOV is the source of much debate, it may act rather as a heat shield : reducing conflict and otherwise channeling outstanding arguments in the productive context of the primary goal of developing an encyclopedia that is representative of many viewpoints" (Reagle 2005).

It is easy to get confused

The Wikipedia article itself admits, "the terms 'unbiased' and 'neutral point of view' are used in a precise way that is different from the common understanding" (2004npv).

People are acknowledged to be subjective beings (i.e., "inherently biased"), but when used in the Wikipedia context articles are considered without bias when they "describe the debate fairly rather than advocating any side of the debate" (2004npv).

Other difficulties:

• concepts: if neutral means unbiased, and unbiased means fair, might fair mean impartial, or something else?
• referent: the platform, processes and policies, people, practices, or the resulting articles? Is bias infectious between them?
• semantics: what happens when we use of the prefixes "un" and "non-" with words such as "bias", "fair", and "neutral"?

McArthur (1986) & reference works

Dogma: the path of faith which insists on the truth of its ideology; "users of the work may then agree or disagree, and find the compilation useful or useless."

Rationalism: the path of reason and secular humanism which privileges assertions that achieve a consensus by means of evidence and logical arguments.

Neutrality and fairness: the path of "would-be even-handedness" that offers a "menu of various viewpoints," such as both faith and reason.

Compromise: the path of propaganda and expediency which attempts to reconcile - in the open or concealed - a dominant view with compatible elements of other views.

Pragmatic: the path of not "worry[ing] about cosmic underpinnings" but getting on with it, though this naivety might be deceptive to all involved.

Difficulties with McArthur & Wikipedia

1. McArthur's analysis applied to finished products that were the results of a coherent and small editorial team with a homogeneous editorial policy
2. One can find elements of each of these worldviews in Wikipedia

Let's consider other cases...

Playing fair

The "it" protocol: "one potato, two potato, three potato, four"

Take-away: participants following a collection of rules under some sort of authority with some level of accountability.

Bias in technological systems

Friedman and Nissenbaum (1996) define bias as systematic and unfair discrimination and posit 3 possible sources:

1. Pre-existing bias has its roots in social institutions, (e.g., "red-lining", or failing to offer home loans in certain neighborhoods);
2. technical bias arises from decisions made in technical design (e.g., the size and way in which results are presented can favor those on the top of the first page);
3. emergent bias arises in the context of use (e.g., educational software designed in a culture that rewards competitive and individualistic playing strategies may penalize students of a more cooperative culture).

Take-away: sensitivity to the possibility of systematic discrimination that is often hidden.

Policy neutrality in technical standards

The X Consortium's and W3C's "mechanism not policy."

But PICS was attacked for supporting the possible policy of a censorious China.

Take-away: plurality and impartiality, where possible, and a realization that this impartiality itself might have less than desirable consequences.

Content neutrality in speech regulation

The Court distinguishes between content neutral and non-neutral speech, and on the CDA ruled that Congress must find a less restrictive way to regulate children's exposure to objectionable content.

Take-away: a requirement for an explicit justification for discrimination and that the justification be satisfied with the least restricted mechanism possible.

Neutrality in times of war

"The term 'neutrality' is defined by the international community as non-participation in armed conflicts between other states.... Swiss policy should continue to be characterized by the constancy and predictability that have earned Switzerland the respect of the international community in the past" (DDPS1993).

Take-away: one can gain the respect of others and realize benefits resulting from productive engagement with all.

Key words: objective, neutral, transparent

Objective: the claims have a correspondence to reality; they are typically embedded in a framework by which their validity is affirmed (e.g., the scientific method).Problems of this stance include the fact that the sort of claims one makes, and the questions one asks, are personally or socially influenced without such methodological bracing. Also, the appearance of objective methodologies can be easily mimicked.

Neutral: the claims are satisfactory, or at least mutually unsatisfactory, to the claims' constituencies (e.g., the media). Problems of this stance include that the constituencies may have not been accurately represented, both with respect to their positions and relative numbers.

Transparent: the claims have no pretense to objectivity, nor in accommodating various constituencies, but plainly represent the speaker's bias (e.g., the blogger who simply writes what she thinks). Problems of this stance include that it is often misperceived as one of the other two (objective or neutral), and that it includes no inclination towards finding common ground with others.

A frame for neutrality

From the cases I discern a frame for conceiving of neutrality, which includes:

1. a sensitivity to the ways in which technical and social systems might unfairly discriminate against, often minority, positions (from bias in technological systems);
2. a notion of impartiality and plurality between possible participants or positions. This permits the benefit of forward movement from interaction with the otherwise irreconcilable (from neutrality in technical standards and times of war);
3. an extension of sportsmanlike good-faith, and an adherence to known rules, a submission to some authority for arbitration, as well as an expectation of accountability (from playing fair);
4. a commitment to use and improve upon mechanisms which are the least onerous (from content neutrality in speech).

Is neutral the right word then?

1. It's far superior to the notion of "unbiased" – the original coinage of the Wikipedia's predecessor, the Nupedia – since that connotes a sense of epistemic purity whereas neutrality is indicative of a careful balancing.
2. The Wikipedia community appears committed to not being biased in the sense of Friedman and Nissenbaum (1996), e.g. the "countering systemic bias project."
3. There have been accusations of America-centrism; yet, the Wikipedia community supports over 30 world language editions with 10,000 articles or more, strives to be international, and heroically struggles with the problem of spelling and place names.
4. The notion of "neutrality" is not understood so much as an end result, but as a process and frame of mind. "The other side might very well find your attempts to characterize their views substandard, but it's the thought that counts" (Wikipedia 2004npv).

End

The end...

End

The end...