--- title: "Neutral Point of View" url: "https://caper.network/wiki/policy/neutral-point-of-view" updated: 2026-09-09 last_verified: 2026-08-19 license: CC-BY-4.0 license_url: "https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/" --- # Neutral Point of View **Neutral point of view** (NPOV) means representing a subject fairly, proportionately, and without editorial bias.[[1]](#ref-1) Facts are stated as facts; opinions are attributed to whoever holds them. ## A caper's own page NPOV matters most on a caper's company page, where the project's own members may be editing, which is a structural conflict of interest. Such pages must avoid promotional language, attribute claims about traction or returns to sources, and carry a _Conflict of interest_ notice when written by the subject. The on-chain blocks help here: a funding graph or grants ledger states what actually happened, and the reader can check it against the ledger rather than taking the page's word, which is the [verifiability](/wiki/policy/verifiability) standard applied to a page that cannot be neutral by construction. ## Neutrality on a wiki with a protagonist This wiki is published by Caper and covers the whole DAO industry, including protocols that compete with it. That is a conflict of interest at the level of the wiki, not just the page, and the answer is not to pretend otherwise. Articles about other organisations describe them on their own terms and cite their own sources; where a page compares them to Caper it does so in a clearly marked section, states the trade-off in both directions, and links the Caper mechanic to the [page that documents it](/wiki/foundations/what-is-a-caper) so a reader can check the claim against the contract rather than the copy. Praise that cannot be sourced does not belong on either side of that comparison.[[2]](#ref-2) ## What the framing rule has actually produced The commitment above is checkable, so this section checks it, in the way [notability](/wiki/policy/notability) checks its own bar: by measuring the corpus rather than restating the rule. A measurement over this wiki's own articles is a statement about this wiki, which is the narrow ground [no original research](/wiki/policy/no-original-research) allows, so the population and the classification key are stated with the number – both decide the figure, and neither is visible in it. Read from the database on **9 September 2026**: 263 public articles, of which **232 are about the wider industry** rather than about Caper – the DAO-governance concepts and tooling, the organisation directory, the DeSci ecosystem and the economics articles – and 31 document Caper itself. **228 of the 232** either name Caper or link into a Caper page, and **227 of those 228** put the Caper material under its own heading, so a reader who wants the subject on its own terms can see exactly where the article stops describing and starts comparing. The protagonist is present on almost every page; neutrality here is not achieved by keeping it off them, but by marking it. One article does not mark it: [$CAR (SHL0MS)](/wiki/daos/social/shl0ms-car) closes on a single sentence naming a caper and linking [the page that documents it](/wiki/foundations/what-is-a-caper) – a closing line rather than a comparison section. Four carry no Caper material at all: [Giveth](/wiki/daos/public-goods/giveth), [Futarchy Labs](/wiki/dao-governance/tooling/voting/futarchy-labs), [UltraRare Bio](/wiki/desci/ecosystem/ultrarare-bio) and [Rejuve.AI](/wiki/desci/ecosystem/rejuve-ai). The half that used to fail is the link, and it is now empty: **no article makes a Caper claim without pointing at a Caper page**, across all 232. That class is worth keeping a probe on precisely because a _missing_ internal link is not a broken one, so the link checker passes the page and the omission leaves no trace to audit. A rule that only fails silently has to be measured on purpose. **The population underneath all of this was wrong, and it was wrong in the same place on every page that used it.** Every reading before this one asked the database for the pages that belong to no caper and called the answer _public articles_. One of those rows is not public and never has been: this wiki’s own maintenance log, which the route table marks private and which therefore has no URL at all – re-probed on 9 September 2026, its page, its markdown twin and its JSON endpoint each return a true HTTP 404, and it appears nowhere in the site’s own [machine-readable index](https://caper.network/llms.txt). The census that counted it counted a private page as an article documenting Caper, which is how it came to be one of the 31. The corrected population is 263 rather than 264, and the arithmetic is the least of it: a boundary drawn by what a query returns, rather than by what the rule means, will go on admitting whatever the query returns next. [Freshness](/wiki/policy/freshness) is where this wiki documents that the log has no public URL, and [its own census](/wiki/policy/freshness) had been counting it anyway. Both it and [verifiability](/wiki/policy/verifiability) were re-derived against the corrected population in the same pass. **This section replaces a census taken on 23 August 2026, and the correction is in the key rather than in the arithmetic.** That reading reported 204 of 207 and 202 of 204 against a population of 207 that left out the 22 [economics](/wiki/economics/token-velocity) articles, which are industry material by any reading, and against a link key that counted a link to any page under `/wiki/economics/` as a link to Caper. The second error decided a named case: Giveth was published as an article carrying "a Caper link and no claim about Caper at all", when its only qualifying link was to [curation markets](/wiki/economics/curation-markets), an industry concept this wiki documents for its own sake. Under the corrected key Giveth carries no Caper material at all. The figures moved by two or three; the membership moved more. A census is only as sound as the boundary it draws, and the boundary is the part a reader cannot check from the number – which is why the definitions above are published with it, and why the four sections on this wiki that measure their own corpus are re-derived by script at the top of each policy audit rather than counted by hand. ## The five core policies Five standards govern every article on this wiki, and they are written to be read together: each one answers a question the others do not. - [verifiability](/wiki/policy/verifiability) — sets the threshold for including material at all. - [no original research](/wiki/policy/no-original-research) — limits what an editor may conclude from it. - **neutral point of view** — governs how the material is framed. - [notability](/wiki/policy/notability) — decides whether a subject earns an article of its own. - [freshness](/wiki/policy/freshness) — decides how long any of it stands without a re-check. They apply to articles about Caper and to articles about every other organisation the wiki covers, on the same terms. ### References 1. Wikipedia – _Wikipedia:Neutral point of view_ — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view 2. Wikipedia – _Wikipedia:Conflict of interest_ — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest