Nupedia articles are to be unbiased. There are many respectable reference works that permit authors to take recognizable stands on controversial issues, but this is not one of them. This is, admittedly, a difficult ideal to achieve; but we feel that, where bias can be detected, it can also be eliminated.
This question is a good (albeit not infallible) test of a lack of bias: "On every issue about which there might be even minor dispute among experts on this subject, is it very difficult or impossible for the reader to determine what the view is to which the author adheres?"
This requires that, for each controversial view discussed, the author of an article (at a bare minimum) mention various opposing views that are taken seriously by any significant minority of experts (or concerned parties) on the subject. In longer articles, of course, opposing views will be spelled out in considerable detail. In a final version of the article, every party to the controversy in question must be able to judge that its views have been fairly presented, or as fairly as is possible in a context in which other, opposing views must also be presented as fairly as possible. Moreover, if objections to any particular views are offered (which will be an essential component to certain articles, e.g., those on philosophy and public policy), the most serious or relevant objections to other, opposing views must be offered as well. The reader should, ideally, be given the tools for deciding the issue; or, failing that, the reader should be introduced to the problems that must be solved in order to decide the issue.
On any controversial issue, it is usually important to state which views, if any, are now (or were at some time) in favor and no longer in favor (among experts or some other specified group of people). But even this information can and should be imparted in such a fashion as not to imply that the majority view is correct, or even that it has any more presumption in its favor than is implied by the plain fact of its popularity.
To present a subject without bias, one must pay attention not just to the matters of which views and arguments are presented, but also to their wording or the tone in which they are mentioned. Nupedia articles should avoid describing controversial views, persons, events, etc., in language that can plausibly be regarded as implying some value judgment, whether positive or negative, except when the judgment is on some relatively innocuous matter and is virtually universal. It will suffice to state the relevant (agreed-upon) facts, to describe various divergent views about those facts, and then let readers make up their own minds about what the correct views are.
We acknowledge, however, that there will inevitably be some element of bias involved in arranging some articles (i.e., putting them into some order) on a web page. This task will be left to the discretion of Nupedia editors; but, as a rule, we will attempt to arrange articles on controversial views according to the popularity of those views.
One solution to the problem of bias is to permit bias in articles but then to offer "articles in disagreement." While this is not our official solution--we believe that where there is occasion for such an article, there is occasion to amend a currently existing article in some appropriate fashion--we might at some future date include, as a separate feature, a series of such articles, or an online debate among experts.
This nonbias policy does not mean that, as a Nupedia writer, you may not, to a large extent, speak with your own voice in terms of writing style (certainly you may). Writers should avoid use of the first person, however; the third person will be expected.