User:Kizzle/Spoon Feeding
 | This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
 | This page in a nutshell: Spoon feeding is applying subsequent non-descript analytical statements to an article that is supposed to comprise of purely descriptive sentences. |
Basically, the concept of spoon-feeding is drawing conclusions for the reader. In an article, you only want to describe the subject in descriptive sentences. For example, in the Abortion article, you want to talk about:
- What exactly is abortion?
- What are the consequences of abortion?
- Why people are for it (making sure to attribute),
- Why people are against it (making sure to attribute),
- Rates of abortion in different countries
- etc.
Spoon feeding, in this case, would be unattributed analytical sentences like:
- "Because of these facts, abortion should generally be avoided"
- "Because of ____, abortion is an important civil right that needs to be protected."
Spoon feeding may even consist of a single word which modifies a previously neutral sentence into an opinion.
- "Abortion is the termination of an innocent fetus."
- "Abortion is a necessary option for women who have been raped."
- "Abortion is unfortunately very common in certain areas of the world."
These sentences or phrases, otherwise known as non-descript subsequent analysis, do not offer any additional description of the subject and instead help polarize the reader's opinion of the subject. We are, in effect, drawing conclusions for the reader before they can even interpret the information they have just read and come to their own conclusions, thus "spoon feeding" them these conclusions or beliefs. This is different from original research, because these sentences ("Abortion is bad and should be avoided") may contain information that is widespread in use, and thus not original, but still an inappropriate addition to the article. In addition, original research more focuses upon adding information which has been solely obtained by the editor rather than this page, which focuses upon drawing conclusions for the reader.
Articles in themselves should be like the premises of an argument, of which the reader applies their own conclusions. Thus...
- X is P
- Y is Q
- Z is R
is all an article should maintain. "Spoon-feeding" occurs when we also include:
- "Because (X is P) and (Z is R), this is wrong."
"Spoon-feeding", however, does NOT apply to descriptive sentences that merely draw more detail to a subject. These sentences do not contain any analytical statements but rather sharpens our notion of the concept involved.
A good example of what we should model after are pages on philosophical arguments. Despite the fact that we may not agree with or come to the same conclusions as the philosopher, we still should reproduce his/her viewpoint as accurately as possible, including quotations from his/her argument. In creating an article discussing a viewpoint or argument, it is *NOT* POV to quote that viewpoint or argument.