User:L'Aquatique/AGF Challenge 2 Exercise Answers
1.Several Christian sects which are proponents of Christian naturism claim that a literal reading of the Book of Genesis means that it is forbidden by God to wear clothes, unless required as protection from the elements. One prominent sect, the Starkerites, have become more and more prominent in the UK in the last few decades. They are famous for their radio and television sermons promising that everyone who wears clothes is an affront to God and is going straight to hell. Some of the more extreme varieties of Starkerites, such as the Nakedites, even preach that people who wear clothes indoors should be summarily killed for their blasphemy. The Nakedites have tried to get laws passed requiring that all children attending government schools doff their clothes indoors. This measure is meant to avoid offending any Nakedite children. There have been some well publicized lawsuits trying to impose Nakedite requirements on various commercial enterprises and public institutions, which the Nakedites have always lost.
Lately a contingent of Nakedites have joined Wikipedia and are changing all the articles on Christianity to reflect Nakedite teachings. Huge edit wars break out, since Nakedites regard all those who do not follow indoor nudity and Nakedite philosophy as not real Christians and infidels. They therefore demand that the Wikipedia articles be written accordingly. Any efforts to stop them or slow them down are met with angry responses and a claim that they have a right to their religious freedom, which Wikipedia is suppressing.
What should Wikipedia do? Is it a restriction of their religious freedom to have other versions of Christianity described on Wikipedia? Do they have the right to not be offended? Should Wikipedia give in to their demands and remove pictures of clothed people worshiping in churches from all articles on Christianity? Should Wikipedia remove all pictures of all clothed people indoors to try to assuage the Nakedites? Should anyone from any FRINGE movement be allowed to show up on Wikipedia and demand to be able to dictate how all articles in some area are written? What if they decry the definition of WP:FRINGE and try to rewrite WP:FRINGE and other policies to let them do whatever they want? How much of the articles on Christianity should be devoted to describing Nakedite beliefs? How many hours of editor time should Wikipedia spend to deal with this?
Is it a restriction of their religious freedom to have other versions of Christianity described on Wikipedia? I shudder to think that a similar solution actually happened.
Okay, I'll try to explain this as clearly as possible: Wikipedia. Is. Not. Congress. I remember reading a thread somewhere- AN/I, VP/P, something like that, about an editor complaining that WP:CIVIL violated his constitutional right to free speech, and the response to him was: Wikimedia is a private organization, users here don't have a right to anything. Do they deserve a lot of stuff, like the ability to express their opinions, or the ability to practice a religion without persecution, etc? Absolutely. But you cannot just run rampant on the Wiki and tell anyone who opposes you that they're violating your right to religious freedom, free speech, et al. That's called gaming the system.
THAT being said, it's not that I don't think these Nakedites don't deserve some mention. Regardless how far out they are, most Fringe theories and beliefs have entered into our culture and are thus notable enough to be included. But WP:FRINGE makes it very clear that we should be careful not to give undue weight to non-scientific/commonly held beliefs lest we give the impression that they should be considered on the same plane as more mainstream beliefs. These fringe theories might be right, after all, it used to be mainstream thought that the earth was flat. But we're not in the business of being a crystal ball around here. 'Nuff said.
2.A commercially-available DVD is part of the evidence in a trial. The trial transcripts list the DVD as being 75 minutes in length. Amazon.com and several other sites that sell this DVD list it as 75 minutes in length. An editor appears on Wikipedia and claims that the copy he has in his possession is 51 minutes in length, and that Wikipedia must change its article accordingly.
When other editors on Wikipedia disagree with him, he becomes quite adamant about his demands and even combative. When people resist him, this becomes a major complaint at Wikipedia Review about the unfairness of Wikipedia and the bias of Wikipedia and the lack of ethics on Wikipedia.
What should Wikipedia do? How should Wikipedia describe the length of this DVD? What is most reasonable and fair? What is encyclopedic? What policies are involved here? Should anyone be allowed to edit Wikipedia according to what they have asserted is The TRUTHTM? Is it a violation of WP:IAR to require that a WP:RS for this editor's claim of 51 minutes before it can be included in the article? How many hours of editor time should Wikipedia spend to deal with this?
I think the number one thing that people do not realize is that Wikipedia is not necessarily the actual truth. We do not deal in truths because the perception of truth can vary from person to person. Instead, we deal in what is verifiable. His tape may well be 51 minutes, but it also might not be, whereas we have concrete evidence from several third party sources that the length of the tape is 75 minutes. Our readers come to Wikipedia to learn, it would be disingenuous of us, as content writers, to provide them with anything other than something we can back up with tangible evidence. While the user may be acting in good faith, simple good faith is not enough to justify inclusion into the article. I would recommend that the user enter into Adopt a User so hopefully he can be gently taught about our policies. Futhermore, IAR is not the sort of thing that you can violate, per se, but a last resort designed for when policies shouldn’t apply to an individual situation. I can think of no instance, offhand, where IAR would be used to justify adding material contrary to reliable sources.
Finally, what is said and done at Wikipedia Review should be of no concern to us. They will ALWAYS find something about us they don’t like- that’s their job! As for us, it’s not our job to try to please them, so why bother?