The Wikipedia formulation is “write for your enemy”, i.e. state their position sufficiently well that they would accept you have stated their position sufficiently well. This is useful in that they are generally present and will let you know in no uncertain terms if you’ve failed to achieve this. This is only a guideline, as unreasonable opponents do exist and the stretch is so that you can write a better neutral article.
I have found unreasonable opponents to be unreasonably common, and attempts at clarification are quite often ignored, or even elicit hostility, and often are simply exploited.
The Wikipedia formulation is “write for your enemy”, i.e. state their position sufficiently well that they would accept you have stated their position sufficiently well. This is useful in that they are generally present and will let you know in no uncertain terms if you’ve failed to achieve this. This is only a guideline, as unreasonable opponents do exist and the stretch is so that you can write a better neutral article.
I have found unreasonable opponents to be unreasonably common, and attempts at clarification are quite often ignored, or even elicit hostility, and often are simply exploited.
This is, of course, true. Nevertheless, “write for the enemy” is still a useful guideline.