Larry Sanger

Again, in your explanation of what such an article was saying,

Up to you actually talk about the intentions of the author.

Right.

And what I'm saying is true of a neutral text.

You don't even consider the authors at all.

In other words, you literally don't take a side.

Now, there is such a thing as the Overton window, I suppose, and you cannot talk about literally every potential or actual view on any question that comes up because there's not enough space.

So you actually have to be selective.

Right.

Nevertheless, you know, journalists especially and good encyclopedia writers are trained and actually they're experts.

They actually understand because they have to think about these things whenever they write how important it is to essentially not just weigh sides equally but explain each position.

But sympathetically, the best journalism, right, about problems actually makes a real attempt to sort of get inside the skin of everyone that's involved in a controversy.

So, now, if you want to say, for example, that an article about the shape of the Earth should just rule out the flat Earth theory, and so it's sort of out of the Overton window or something like that.

Or if you are, I don't know, editing an English encyclopedia and you don't think there is such a thing as a right to bear arms, right?

Then that would be out of your Overton window.

But then what you have to say is the...

The encyclopedia might be neutral within its bounds, but it has bounds.

And therefore, to that extent, it is actually biased.

And I'm comfortable saying that.

So there are degrees of neutrality.