Africa Growth Pilot/Online self-paced course/Module 3/Neutral or not

Let's do some quick exercises with all of you. Let's talk about words first: neutral or not? So we'll take them one by one. And you tell me in the chat whether the word "wonderful" is neutral or not. Just say yes or no. "Wonderful". Is that a neutral word? Can it be used with Wikipedia's Voice? Excellent. You have been listening. *Nothing* is wonderful to Wikipedia! We personally may think lots of things are wonderful. Ice cream is wonderful. *Wikipedia* doesn't think ice cream is wonderful.

Next, the word "severe". Severe. Is that a neutral word? Can we use that with Wikipedia's Voice? No, most of you say. Excellent. I agree, "severe" is a judgment. Severe weather, for example. It may feel like "Well, the weather is just severe!", but it's not "just severe". We *judge* it to be severe, right? It is just so and so many degrees or so and so many millimeters of rain. Those are facts. But whether that much rain is *severe* is a question of judgment. Where do we draw the line between "lots of rain" and "severe rainfall", between "some drought" and "severe drought"? It's a question of judgment. Not for Wikipedia to say. Again, we can quote people saying it. We can share opinions or judgments stated by official sources: "The Government of Nigeria said that severe drought caused so and so." That's fine. But Wikipedia's Voice does not consider things severe.

"Freedom fighter", neutral or not? A freedom fighter may be seen as an absolutely factual description by someone who says, "well, they're fighting, and their goal is freedom, so by definition, they are freedom fighters." That is certainly one perspective. But there is another perspective of whatever power they're fighting against for freedom, some colonial power, etc. will easily tell you: "Well, they are breaking the law. They are using violence. They are terrorists." And they would say, again, by definition, "they're not obeying the law. They're criminals. They're not freedom fighters." So it is not a neutral term. Again, it is perfectly natural to view certain figures from our history as freedom fighters *personally*, in our lives, to educate our children about it, etc.. But the encyclopedia shouldn't grant the label of "freedom fighter" to anyone. By all means, describe their fight, and you can also say they were fighting for freedom from X. You can state their goal. Their stated goal was freedom for, say, black people in South Africa. You can absolutely say that. That's a fact. That was their goal. But avoid the label "freedom fighter".

What about "died"? Died. Can we use the word "died"? Is that neutral? Yes, that is neutral. It's a simple statement of fact.

What about the word "impressive"? Impressive. Is that a neutral word? No. Correct. Wikipedia is not impressed by anything. Nothing is impressive -- or boring! -- to Wikipedia. It does not have emotions. Nothing is impressive.

What about saying "So-and-so is *a leading* something". Neutral? No. Correct. That's a judgment, right? Whether someone is a "leading" manufacturer of cars or a certain product is a "leading" ice cream is a question of judgment. It's often related to promotional language. Where do you draw the line between the "leading" ones and the non leading ones? Impossible to say encyclopedically. Not encyclopedic!

What about "groundbreaking"? Groundbreaking. Neutral? No. Correct.

"Interestingly". Interestingly. Can we say that with Wikipedia's voice? No. We cannot. You let the reader determine what is interesting and what isn't. Don't tell me what to feel.

Okay, what about "worst"? Is that neutral? No. Generally not a neutral word. But when might we legitimately use "worst"? We might use it, for example, in a sentence such as "John Smith, at the 2018 Utah amateur swimming competition had his worst result of his career." If we have a citation for that, we can say that. Because that then is an objective measurement against the other measurements of his swimming. That can be said to be the worst out of a closed set, out of the set of results of John Smith. This is objectively, provably, the worst result. Even then, it might be better to use a more neutral factual term like "slowest" or "lowest score", instead of worst. But arguably that is still neutral because you are comparing to an objective set of numbers rather than making a judgment.

What about the word "evil"? Can we ever say something or someone is evil on Wikipedia? No. Absolutely not. That is a judgment. Metaphysical stuff. Definitely not material for the encyclopedia's voice.

What about saying something "cannot be overstated". This "cannot be overstated". "Their success cannot be overstated". Not neutral. Also not true. There is literally nothing on Earth that cannot be overstated. So definitely not neutral.

What about saying "according to professor X, so and so". Is that neutral? When we say "according to professor so and so". We're assuming that there is a citation here. Can we assert that something is the case, according to Professor so-and-so? The answer is yes, we can. That is a neutral way of saying something, by giving an opinion or a result, and attributing it explicitly to professor X, leader of the X-Men. I'm kidding. To some professor.

Okay, what about saying something has "met with universal acclaim". Universal acclaim. Neutral? Absolutely not. Not neutral. Nothing in this world has "met with universal acclaim". Haters gonna hate. There's always people who would not share the acclaim. So it's also factually untrue. There is literally nothing that you can *factually* say has won universal acclaim. Not even the most successful singer on the planet has won universal acclaim.

Okay, what about saying something has "topped the 2014 US Billboard chart"? If you've never heard of the Billboard chart, it's a musical ranking service. Can we say that a certain song has "topped the 2014 US Billboard chart", with a citation? Yes! Yes, we can write this. If we have a citation that shows that this happened, we can write that. And it's a neutral thing to say that it topped the chart, even though it says it's at the top, it was the highest rank. We're not saying with Wikipedia's Voice it is "the best", we are saying it was ranked at the top at this particular ranking service. We're saying the Billboard chart showed that it was the best in 2014. We can say that.

What about calling someone "Nobel Prize winner X"? Can we say that, assuming the person won the Nobel Prize and we have a citation? Yes, we can say that. "Nobel Prize winner X", assuming they are a Nobel Prize winner, is fine.

What about saying "Opposition Leader X", opposition leader Mr. So-and-so? Can we say that? Yes we can. We can say that because Opposition Leader is a designated position. I mean, there is one person, in most parliaments at least, who is the opposition leader. It's not a judgment about him or her. We're not saying we think this person is the opposition leader. We're literally stating a fact. This person is the leader of the opposition in Parliament. That's okay.

Can we say "eloquent parliamentarian Mr. so-and-so"? Is that neutral? No. "Eloquent" is a judgment. Whether or not they're eloquent is a matter of opinion. We should never, ever, using Wikipedia's Voice, say that anyone is eloquent.

Can we say "in beautiful Paris"? "He spent vacation in beautiful Paris". No, Paris *is* beautiful. Very few people would say Paris isn't beautiful. And yet it is not for the encyclopedia to give grades, to say that Paris is beautiful.

What about saying "colonial-era streets"? Can we say "he walked through the colonial-era streets of Abuja"? Can we say that? Yes, yes we can. Because there are streets in former colonies. There are streets that are colonial-era. It's a fact. It's not any kind of judgment. So yes, we can describe certain streets as colonial-era streets. We can say street X is one of the major colonial-era streets of Abuja. We can say that.

What about the phrase "award-winning"? "Stephen King is an American award-winning author". Can we say that? Yes, you say. Anyone think otherwise? No? If I tell you, say, "Tiwa Savage is an award-winning singer", do I sound like Wikipedia? Yes and no. I think that's a good answer. Yes and no. So in terms of facts, if a person has won awards, technically they are award-winning, right? But this phrase, "award-winning", is almost invariably linked to *promotional language*. When do we hear that phrase, "award-winning"? We hear it in promotional language, in movie trailers, right? "From the award-winning director of "Terminator", now comes this movie!" "Award-winning" is used in this way.

In fact, it's a *weasel phrase*. Remember? Because what award are we talking about? Given by whom? When? Maybe they won the sixth-grade Tidy Notebook Award, right? Technically, that's an award! Given by this person's sixth-grade teacher... Is that enough to call someone "award-winning"? Tricky. So I'm suggesting to you that even though if a person has won an award, they are "award-winning", technically, it is nonetheless a weasel phrase to just say "award-winning". It's not the same as saying "Nobel Prize winner", right? Because then you're saying they won this one specific prize, and there is a citation that shows that they won this one specific prize. If you just say "award-winning", it's like saying "research has shown". Maybe research has shown, maybe not. You should *show* that. So instead of saying "award-winning" you could say "Booker prize winning author so-and-so". Or "three-time Oscar winner actor so-and-so".Or, "MTV Award winner", whatever. If you *name* the award, it's completely different. But if you just say "award winning", you sound like a commercial. And we don't want Wikipedia to sound like a commercial. Just keep in mind Wikipedia's Voice. Remember, you're aiming for, you're trying to *achieve* that tone. And "award-winning", whether factual or not, doesn't *sound* like an encyclopedia. It sounds like an advertisement.