Tardis:Neutral point of view

Your writing should adopt a neutral point of view. This means different things, depending on whether you're writing in-universe articles or material about the real world.

In-universe
When writing or naming categories or articles about in-universe subjects, follow these objectivity guidelines.


 * 1) Media doesn't matter. One of the most important aspects of this wiki is that all media have equal weight here. Television is not the most important source of information on this wiki.  That which is said in a short story in Doctor Who Annual 1967 is just as valid as the latest episode of BBC Wales Doctor Who.
 * 2) One person's villain is another person's hero. Don't assume that just because the Doctor is opposing someone that they are "evil" or an "enemy".  Doctor Who has always had any number of shades of grey in its characters.  So do describe what characters do, but don't try to interpret their actions.
 * 3) Categories which characterise people as "enemies" or "allies" are strictly forbidden. Any such categories would be opinion only, as characters aren't wholly one thing or another.

Examples

 * River Song is not "bad" in Let's Kill Hitler, nor does she "redeem" herself. Rather, she administers Judas tree poison to the Eleventh Doctor, kills him, and then resurrects him through the gift of her regeneration energies.  Placing value judgements on these actions is a decidedly biased characterisation of events.
 * If you want to quote the Fourth Doctor as calling the Daleks "evil" in Genesis of the Daleks, fine, directly quote him. But you should never yourself call them evil.  And if you do find that there are quotes out there which support the notion of "evilness" or "goodness" for characters, try hard to find quotes that support the opposite view.  Consider the central theme of A Good Man Goes to War — Doctor is a word that means both healer and warrior.
 * As this forum discussion decided, categories which attempt to assign some sort of "moral judgement" (like "Enemies of the Fourth Doctor") are forbidden.

Real-world
As a general rule of thumb, we accept that about the neutral point of view inasmuch as real world articles are concerned.

Here are some examples of how we apply Wikipedia's rules to our real world content:


 * You must use valid, creditable sources to characterise the major opinions about your real world topics. However, these opinions can clash.  As frequently heard on DVD commentaries, it is often the case that various participants will have differing opinions on certain aspects of production.  If Tom Baker, for instance, is having a difference of opinion about the way he treated Louise Jameson on the set of Image of the Fendahl, for instance — and these all differ from Andrew Pixley's account in Doctor Who Magazine, and David J. Howe's notes in The Fourth Doctor Handbook — don't just include Jameson's opinion and leave it at that.  Give them all.


 * Don't give credence to minority views — particularly those of fandom who likely had no direct involvement in the production of Doctor Who or its spinoffs. What's being said at Gallifrey Base or another forum has absolutely no impact on our articles.  Equally, media reports from news outlets that aren't terribly close to the Doctor Who production office shouldn't be seen as reliable — or even creditable rumours.


 * Give higher credence to researchers with access to the BBC Archives than to members of the production staff on a DVD commentary. We're not saying that you shouldn't record what Verity Lambert said on the DVD for The Aztecs, but remember that she's speaking extemporaneously in a commentary.  She's less likely to be as accurate about production minutiae than Andrew Pixley or David J. Howe's writings about The Aztecs, since they're basing their work on more than just Lambert's memory.  A balanced article will include several sources, not just snippets from the DVD commentary.


 * Be wary of known liars. This includes many, many members of the Doctor Who production office.  Neutrality in writing behind the scenes articles means recognising that some sources are deliberately trying to deceive the public.  A tweet from Karen Gillan or a DWM editorial from Steven Moffat aren't terribly reliable, despite the names behind them.


 * Avoid sentences which try to characterise fan opinion about a topic, because such statements typically cannot be backed up by creditable sources. That's not to say that such sources are unavailable. The lead at the article on Kinda, for example, is able to characterise fan opinion using articles from DWM 69, DWM 413 and DWM 104.  But Gallifrey Base, blogs or other such internet-based opinion houses are clearly not sources that help to establish a neutral point of view, as they give undue weight to the voices of a few individual fans.