Wikipedia talk:Editing controversial subjects/Archive 1

Archive 1

A start

Thanks for starting this, Equazcion. You'll see I made just a few edits toward the type of organization that I think might yield something productive. I'd like to think a little more before trying to expand, but hey, it's a start. Generally speaking, I think we should aim to be as descriptive as possible, noting different expectations, and then noting any relevant analysis of those expectations. I don't think it needs to be an argument for one position to be useful, but just needs to lay out some reasoning on these issues. Hopefully I'll be back soon enough. Mackan79 (talk) 04:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for your edits, they are indeed a great improvement. I think I agree with what you're saying (being descriptive of the issues over prescriptive, I think, regarding the "Dealing with..." section at least). I probably won't know for sure til I see your changes. Thanks again, it's a good start indeed. Equazcion ^(talk) 04:39, 17 Feb 2010 (UTC)

We're getting somewhere, eh? Your edits look good. Mackan79 (talk) 03:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks that way yes. Thanks, yours are lookin' good too :) Equazcion ^(talk) 03:59, 19 Feb 2010 (UTC)

I added a couple of things, moved a couple of sections. --Noleander (talk) 17:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Getting long

I'm not discouraging anyone from continuing to add, and on the contrary I appreciate all the recent stuff. Just mentioning that this'll likely need to be consolidated a bit if it's ever to be in project space. Equazcion ^(talk) 19:06, 19 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Not that it necessarily needs to ever be in project space... Equazcion ^(talk) 19:06, 19 Feb 2010 (UTC)

All right :-) I've just about contributed all I can. Feel free to revert any of my changes :-) --Noleander (talk) 19:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I didnt see the "in use" tag. --Noleander (talk) 19:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem, I actually added that for you, with the edit summary "remove when you're done". But it wasn't really reasonable to assume you'd see that. Anyway, all's well :) Equazcion ^(talk) 19:34, 19 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Agreed here, both that additions are good and that consolidation may be necessary. I won't be surprised if there are other things that are more useful yet for editors in controversial areas that we haven't thought of. It's an interesting brain storm, I think. Mackan79 (talk) 19:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Section move

Considering the advice here is probably going to be most intended for editors who are finding themselves in a troubled area, I think we should focus more on what they can do now than on what they should already have done. For instance, I am not sure that saying editors should establish a reputation before they edit a controversial area is the best way to start; it would have been useful, yes, and if things get especially bad it may be good for them to go try something else, but it reads funny to me to start by saying "Here's what you should already have done," as if the editor has already failed, and should really just leave the controversial area as of yesterday. I think editors may be more open to useful suggestions they can apply right away. If so maybe the first section should be moved back with the one on trying something else for a while, since really that is the option an editor usually has. Mackan79 (talk) 23:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. I only moved it up to the top because that would put it in chronological order of (ideally) how to proceed. But your point is persuasive. --Noleander (talk) 23:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for the response. I'm not sure what I'll end up doing, just wanted to raise the point. Mackan79 (talk) 04:18, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree and have moved the section. Also did some copy editing, rearranging, etc. Equazcion ^(talk) 17:57, 20 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Take it slow

I like the header change, first. Otherwise, a quick thought that I would kind of like to move the first part of the "Never revert war" section back to the "Take it Slow" section. This is the part where it says, i.e., "Propose something, see what people think, offer your thoughts, make sure others are ok with it." That was really about taking it slow, involving others in the process, and not just jumping in with controversial edits. "Never revert war" probably justifies its own section, but that's a different issue really. I'd have to think of how to do this, so for now I'll just post the thought here. Mackan79 (talk) 19:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I did it, feel free to tweak. Equazcion ^(talk) 20:36, 21 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Should we split this?

So, has anyone given any more thought as to whether the two main topics here should go in different essays? I am sure I will have more thoughts for the second half, and admittedly I haven't even looked at it closely. My early feeling is just that, while the advice in the first part should be almost entirely uncontroversial, the thoughts that seem to be shared by at least Equazcion and myself on the second half may be better characterized as advocating a particular position, namely that we should not sanction editors whose edits comply with policy, based on patterns in their editing that are perceived to promote an unacceptable viewpoint.

I'm not saying we should separate it. I think possibly we could discuss the issues in a neutral fashion, for instance noting that Wikipedia's behavioral policies focus on editing practices and not on content. Possibly we could come up with something solid that wouldn't actually be controversial. In that regard, though, I'd tentatively suggest that one important distinction is whether editors are making assumptions, or if the editor has actually expressed an intent to promote illegal or unaccepted viewpoints (whether, for example, pedophilia or types of hate, I think). One could discuss then how to distinguish these two situations, which I think may be difficult, but I think may also be the kind of thing that warrants some organized thought.

I'm not sure what you think of this, Equazcion, but then there's also the thought that if we really want to consider the best ways to deal with the promotion of unacceptable viewpoints, we might want to just start a proposed policy on it, and solicit broader input. Or maybe there's another policy where it would go. Maybe the best that could exist would be an essay, but I suppose I still wonder if solidifying viewpoints on this might be more useful than just to argue a certain position into the wilderness, so to speak. Thoughts? Mackan79 (talk) 03:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Coming up with something that isn't controversial is my first choice. Ideally I'd like to make a good argument for those instructions in the second section. I feel like policy and common sense does support it, but I haven't been able to come up with any good explanation based on that. That said, it might be better to make a split and work on each individually. That way, the first uncontroversial part can go into project space at any time, and we can continue to work on the second part until it's ready for proposal or whatever we eventually want to do with it.

On the question of proposing that section, I'd like to, but in its present state I don't think it'll fly, sadly, based on how editors like Noleander et al are received. There's a significant body of editors who aren't open to the idea so I don't think it would gain consensus. We can try to make it less controversial and/or produce a convincing argument. If we fail we can always just make it an essay.

So in conclusion, a split looks like the way to go. It seems silly since they're so closely related, but one is just too much more controversial than the other. We can hold off on making the decision though if we want to just keep the entire thing in userspace for now. Equazcion ^(talk) 03:53, 22 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Bad advice moved to talk

I've moved the following bad advice to here for more discussion:

"Don't shoot the messenger"
If you observe another editor adding content that you disagree with, particularly controversial material, do not assume that the editor personally holds the beliefs stated in their added content, or that they are attempting to highlight that viewpoint over others. As obvious as it may seem to you that this is the case, it may very well be that the editor is merely attempting to give an unpopular viewpoint its due weight.

The advice in the sections above is meant to help editors avoid inviting unfounded suspicion. Regardless, though, if an editor does end up inviting suspicion, they should not rightly be prohibited from, or vilified for, editing from an anti-[ism] perspective alone. The principle being applied should not favor any particular viewpoint, regardless of the political correctness or level of public support one viewpoint has over another.

For example, if an editor chooses to add content to multiple articles to support the claim that Canada's military is weak, that editor should not necessarily be vilified as being anti-Canada and/or sanctioned based on that characterization. The quality of the individual edits should be examined instead, with an eye towards avoiding being influenced by the editor's seeming support of an unpopular viewpoint.

Stated another way, the question of a pattern of adding material that supports anti-[ism] is distinct from, and should not be considered unless, the question of articles' states following the edits has been addressed first. A pattern of damaged articles, or discussion page behavioral issues, may be a reason to act; while a pattern of anti-[ism] edits should not be reason to suspect damage has been done, nor in itself should it be reason to sanction the editor.

This is clearly terrible advice, intended only to clear Noleander in the recent and quite obvious case of his editing Wikipedia solely for the purpose of adding negative material about a specific ethnic minority (Jews, in this case). Since policy states that all editors must conform to NPOV, and editing solely for the purpose of adding negative material about an ethnic group fundamentally violates this, this advice is supporting policy violation. It's not up to the rest of Wikipedia to follow an editor around, trying to neutralize his POV; rather, each editor is obliged to individually comply with NPOV. The pattern is more important than the individual edits in this case, and therefore advising people to examine only the quality of the individual edits is incorrect. Edits are not made in a vacuum; were that the case, one could insist that there would be no consequences for, say, edit-warring either, since one could only examine each edit in isolation, and not look for any patterns. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I've restored the material. It's alright if you disagree with it, as I acknowledge others do. This is an essay, and it's in userspace, so it doesn't need consensus. On the various intentions of others that you've spelled out above, I have nothing to say presently. Equazcion ^(talk) 04:29, 24 Feb 2010 (UTC)

I understand, you own this page. Very well, but don't think it will get anywhere so long as it has the policy-violating "Noleander can do no wrong section" in it. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Read WP:BATTLE and WP:AGF, and stop with the provocation. If you don't like the viewpoint expressed in an essay, spend your time elsewhere rather than hindering its development. Equazcion ^(talk) 01:54, 25 Feb 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that this is bad advice, though I think it is more properly a perspective than advice. As advice I think it runs a risk of sounding a bit condescending, in a way that among other things may prevent it from reaching its intended audience. I realize it's just a draft, and I think we were discussing ways above to improve it or divide it into something more like an opinion essay. As far as WP:NPOV, however, I don't think it's at all the case that the policy requires editors to exhibit personal neutrality on a subject, but merely that their edits need to comply with that policy. Generally speaking, an editor who focused only on certain articles where a viewpoint was underrepresented could not be said to violate NPOV because they did not edit other articles where that viewpoint is presumed to be overrepresented. Such a cross-article standard would be impossible to apply, among other reasons because it would have no basis in the reliable sources that discuss a specific topic. Anyway, as we discussed briefly above, I think this would either be an opinion essay, or it should be extensively revised to present a more balanced set of views on the topic, including the view that editors should not spend their time on Wikipedia promoting any discernible viewpoint, if that is a prominent view. Or maybe I haven't understood the position correctly, of course. Mackan79 (talk) 07:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

As an aside, since I am not sure this is the venue to discuss a specific individual, I question the above statement about user User:Noleander, that he has edited "solely for the purpose of adding negative material about a specific ethnic minority...." According to the summary here, this user has over 3000 edits, the vast majority of which seem to relate to the Mormon Church, not an ethnic minority. In fact quite a few seem to relate to its rather controversial history of policies toward African Americans, or in other words, are edits that raise awareness of a history of discrimination against an ethnic minority. He has stated, as I understand, that he believes that Wikipedia tends to shy from coverage of controversial issues relating to Jews, Judaism, or both; one can agree or disagree, but that is not a statement that he edits solely for the purpose of adding negative material about an ethnic group. I think it would be appropriate, and so I will request, for that specific statement to be withdrawn. Separately I would respectfully suggest that discussion here should avoid focusing on a specific individual and whether they should be or should have been sanctioned, since this page is not properly a part of dispute resolution. Mackan79 (talk) 10:25, 28 February 2010 (UTC)