Some useful links/comments:

An Ethical Editing needs to know in advance few sociological concepts that can guide us to achieve the requirements of impartiality and neutrality aimed in Wikipedia, and also a list of good practices. Here I detailed few of them.

In social theory, framing is a schema of interpretation that individuals rely on to understand and respond to events.In journalism, framing can be intentional or unintentional, but the fact that there is no intention does not mean that it does not exist, this is related with the concept of habitus which can be defined as a cognitive structure that we use automatically to give structure to our perceptions. In practical terms for Wikipedia editing: framing would be write an specific article in a way that the readers are guided to an specific interpretation, in that sense, framing would be something to avoid and, when possible, we should give to the readers the opportunity of build by themselves a critical thinking. One example of framing would be select/highlight and specific point of view of a reference that actually offer one or more alternatives. If an editor proceed to this single selection, then the editor framing an article according his/her/its preferences and therefore it would be biased.

Example: An article titled "Can all the primates develop a language grammar?" the article mentioned a research paper where a group concluded that all primates develop language grammar but considered important to mention that other authors disagree with their conclusions. If from this reference we mention only that a research paper found that all primates develop a language grammar then we are framing an specific point of view but the reference we use to support our claim actually gives two different points of view.

Framing has been analyzed in many different contexts, an example could be the India-Pakistan Conflict where certain media mentioned only those aspects that affect one of the two countries, or the impact the conflict had on one of the parties without taking into account other points of view or processes. This produces a framing that conditions the reader to see the conflict from only one angle.

A common issue that I found in Wikipedia is that some editors quickly read the title of a reference rather than the full document, which often leads to errors in the main text. An ethical editor would try as much as possible to read the material of the references, in particular, on topics more sensitive.

Example: A reference with the title Major archaeological project begins close to Athens was not read properly (only the title), and the writer uses it to support a major new archaeological investigation underway in Athens. However, the article actually stated in the main text that The project started on the outskirts of Athens with a first excavation and then moved some 200 km northwards and continued with the main excavation, as the writer did not read the full reference the information given using this reference is actually inaccurate.