Wikipedia talk:We are absolutely here to right great wrongs

Strawmen and a failure to understand how the community actually uses WP:RGW

Interesting to see a professional Wikipedia consultant to come out so unambiguously in favor of what the Wikipedia community calls "disruptive editing".

It looks like this essay fails to address the main reasons why most editors consider this kind of behavior disruptive in practice. It might have benefited from examining actual cases where WP:RGW was invoked on-wiki (rather than positing a putatively comprehensive list of the objections to righting great wrongs), and engaging with the concrete arguments that are used there most frequently, rather than ascribing lots of arguments to unnamed "skeptics" (which appears to contain quite a few strawmen, e.g. item 12 is basically the opposite of what the very first sentence of WP:RGW says).

To expand a bit on the above, here is a search query for concrete references to "Right Great Wrongs" in actual editor disputes: [1]

The essay gives the strong impression that its author assumes that RGW is mostly invoked against advocacy for political issues that US progressives like himself stand for. But looking just at the first search result (the current ANI page), the cases where it is mentioned (as of some hours ago, when I first posted a version of this comment in the Wikipedia Weekly Facebook group) are about:

1. an editor alleged to be promoting a libertarian/anarcho-capitalist POV
2. something about the history of the Latter Day Saint movement, where RGW is invoked to argue that Wikipedia should focus on what reliable secondary sources who have analysed the evidence from a non-Mormon POV have concluded even if an editor feels that these sources are wrong
3. an editor being taken to task for claiming that a million white girls have fallen victim to moslem rape gangs (yes, gang rape is unambiguously a great wrong, but...)
4. an editor being accused of adding negative views to the BLP about a Harvard professor (regarding Hindu nationalism)

I'm not saying WP:RGW is never abused (indeed on first glance I'm not sure I agree about its use in case 4). But this small sample should already illustrate that "Wikipedia should let editors have their way on political issues where they strongly feel they are in the right!!" comes with tradeoffs.

PS: The above was written in reference to the version the author posted on his Medium blog, which appears to be identical to the version posted here.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 05:20, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not saying WP:RGW is never abused that's why I thought this essay was interesting. Like in practice, I don't think most people on-wiki actually disagree with a decent chunk of what the author is saying here. I saw it as more of a "why not righting great wrongs isn't what you think it is". An expansion on certain parts of WP:RGW. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 12:50, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Not sure I'm following. Are you saying that this essay does not express any disagreement with WP:RGW or the current community consensus/majority opinion (most people on-wiki)? I.e. that it doesn't advocate for any changes? That's not how I and several other longtime Wikipedians who commented on it in the above mentioned Facebook discussion understood it. (By the way, I just realized that Facebook might unfortunately require login to access some of them from the link above, even though the group is public. Perhaps these direct links to individual comments will work instead: [2][3].)

Regards, HaeB (talk) 21:50, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

PS: This essay summarizes WP:RGW (describing it "an influential essay explaining 'Disruptive editing'") as follows:

Wikipedia is not a platform for activism, social justice, or rectifying inequities. Wikipedia’s sole purpose is to be a neutral, reliable, and verifiable encyclopedia. Period. Consequences be damned.

Do you read that as this essay's author agreeing with RGW?

Regards, HaeB (talk) 21:58, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I see that as the author not agreeing that the premise of RGW as an ordinary person would understand it. (Out of context, telling someone that "Wikipedia isn't about righting great wrongs" might give the wrong impression). RGW itself says If, however, the wrong that you want to address has already been sorted in the real world, and if you have the reliable sources to support it, then please do update the articles. This essay is an extension of that. He's not saying go out and start POV editing but to address imbalances that already exist. It's not atypical to see essays where someone expands on their perspective about a specific concept on-wiki. As far describing RGW that way, Wikipedia:Tendentious editing (and its section about righting great wrongs) is an explanatory essay. I don't think it's correct to describe the viewpoint expressed there as "consequences be damned" but I don't think it makes this entire essay unreasonable. Does that make sense? Feel free to ask further questions if you'd like. I'm not the author so if you're trying to get into his head, I'd ask him what his intentions were. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:07, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

But yes, I do think the average Wikipedian wouldn't see that much of this essay as particularly controversial. It's possible I'm off-base here but that was definitely my impression. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:08, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I'll mention an example I remember of 'right great wrongs' being used something like the way this essay describes. In a thread earlier this year about the reliability of The Telegraph's coverage of transgender topics, more than one editor said that editors who expressed concerns about Wikipedia platforming transphobia or anti-LGBT extremism were 'righting great wrongs' and that doing so was contrary to Wikipedia's purposes.

I don't think I would've written this essay quite the way it's written (for one, I think it could be expressed more concisely by focusing on what's most important, and while I see the point about active Wikipedians having certain privilege by virtue of having the experience, knowledge, time, and wherewithal it takes shape the encyclopedia leaping from there to 'we are the knowledge elite' really feels a bit much), but it's not meritless. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 22:34, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

In a similar vein, a user says Wikipedia is not a place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS (italics original) to oppose efforts to correct the presentation on Wikipedia of a moral panic that an earlier version of an article had, against the best sources, taken as reality. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 08:17, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I saw this and gave it some thought for a few days. If YESRGW stopped at "please write about underrepresented topics", I'd add it to my list. I'm actually drafting an essay on my specific approach to underrepresented topics, maybe I'll come back and link it here if I ever finish it. What I will link to now is a different essay I wrote—my personal favorite: User:Thebiguglyalien/The source, the whole source, and nothing but the source. It's a short read. As far as I'm concerned, that's the gold standard for writing an article, and I worry that YESRGW encourages disregarding the latter two points that I raise there. I'm going to put on my "reviewer" hat and read this GAN style (the way I'm most comfortable with) as it's currently written:

• We can highlight contributions of non-western cultures – I'd encourage defining "highlight". This could be interpreted as making sure it's adequately covered (good) or as giving it undue emphasis, possibly in a promotional tone (bad).
• correcting narratives that are biased or incomplete – Another phrase that can be read different ways. Does it mean checking sources, replacing ones that describe 19th century academic consensus with those that describe 21st century academic consensus? Does it mean adding relevant info that was missing ("the whole source")? Great! Endorse! Does it mean correcting bias by actively seeking out viewpoints sympathetic to those who are harmed in injustices? Not great ("nothing but the source"). If one is in the right, then academic consensus should be enough to describe the injustice in an understandable way. If the academic consensus doesn't "correct" the narrative, then the person with the correction is just trying to impose their own system of ethics on others, indiscriminate of different philosophical or cultural perspectives.
• We can educate the public on critical environmental issues. – I agree with the literal reading of this point. But the way it's written seems to imply that this is an effort to promote the author's own pet political issue instead of actually trying to preserve knowledge about it. Whether that's true or not, I suspect that's how lots of people will read it, and that the takeaway will be that people can and should take advantage of Wikipedia to promote their own pet issues. There are several points in the essay that give this vibe and in my opinion it is the overall inadvertent message.
• Skeptics assert we must avoid historical revisionism. But writing history should be informed by new evidence. – We shouldn't think of what we're doing as writing history, we're giving a third-hand description of what's being written about it. As I said above, we should absolutely be updating contemporary understanding to present-day understanding (I might modify my contemporary sources essay to include this, thanks for the idea!). Revising should be done by the experts; our duty is to update our content accordingly.
• Skeptics argue correcting wrongs could lead Wikipedia to favor political ideologies or movements, surfacing personal biases and partisanship. But Wikipedia follows rigorous standards, consensus processes, and transparent editing practices that prevent any one perspective from dominating. – This admits that yes, pursuing this philosophy is a means of favoring "political ideologies or movements", "personal biases", and "partisanship", just that Wikipedia can theoretically handle it and correct course. This contradicts the rest of the essay, which overlooks or denies the issue of favorable treatment.
• Skeptics worry focusing on content for underserved regions could dilute our standards. But our mission demands Wikipedia serves everyone. This involves increasing content in underserved languages and focusing on topics relevant to developing countries. – The latter two sentences do not address the concern of the first sentence in any way, implying that the essay does encourage lowering our standards to promote underrepresented subjects.
• Skeptics dismiss that gaps in coverage are their responsibility. Editing is voluntary, but we cannot ignore our collective role. – There have been times where I've seen editors beat up on themselves because they feel their contributions aren't "important" enough. I try not to let that slide; I encourage them and tell them that their contributions are valuable too. And I mean it when I tell them that. I believe that this line of the essay is a little disrespectful to a wide swathe of editors. You're welcome to believe what you do, but don't impose it on others and demand that they hold the interests you think they should.
• Our expertise allows us to identify injustices, understand their causes, and explore solutions. – I will say this until the day I die: despite what many Wikipedians think, we are not experts. We're hobbyists. We are not reliable sources, and we do not know better than the experts. We defer to them and hold their understanding above our own. If we disagree with the academic consensus, we're probably wrong. If there is no academic consensus, we do not get a tiebreaker vote. Some of the editors here are academics; they can and should identify injustices and explore solutions in their professional capacity. Then we'll cite them.

TL;DR: While much of the essay describes things that should be encouraged, there is an implicit problematic tone throughout the essay that editors should be encouraged to present their own beliefs as facts held above reliable sources, and the essay contradicts itself when faced with this issue. I've bolded the points above that demonstrate this most clearly.

As it stands, this feels more like a userspace essay than a projectspace essay. But I'll mix the criticism with some endorsement, because there is a lot of good here too. Besides agreeing with the general sense of writing about underrepresented topics, I like points 4 and 7 of "what we can do" (make accessible to the developing world and document info about endangered cultures). They're huge aspects of preserving knowledge and making it available, and they should be given more attention, or maybe even their own essays. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 07:44, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

As Clovermoss says above there is much here to agree with. For instance WP:WIR is righting a great wrong and for editors to be motivated by that sense of correcting injustice is a service to the encyclopedia and not something that should be discouraged or seen as troublesome but something that should be praised. But I think TBUA is right that there is an underlying tone of this essay that goes beyond challenging the ways that Wikipedia encouraged the righting of great wrongs into arguing that the ends justify the means as long as it is of an agenda that the essay writer agrees with. And because this is in project space I was sorely tempted to, in part based on the comments above, do some major revisions of this article. Instead I will give a courtesy ping to its creator Ocaasi in case they would like to move it into user space. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:57, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

What's the difference between userspace and projectspace essays? I'm not really familiar with the nuances there. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 03:28, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Let me chime in here after having gone through this with the WP:NQP essay a few months ago that had this question discussed in great detail. The main difference is that for an essay to be in project space, it is caveated (with the note in the templated header of essays with It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors., so generally, that it represents the view of some editors in a stricter sense.

If an essay is deemed too controversial, it may be moved (typically upon challenging it, via MfD or RM or so) into user space, where the user who originally authored it is free to express their views the way they authored the essay. Whereas in project space, typically, some discussions and editing by other editors is generally accepted since the project space (similar to the article space) is shared.

As for this particular essay, I think the underlying gist of what this essay is trying to convey, I think many editors will agree with the general sense, such as the example that Barkeep49 brought up, so I think that the essay has a place in project space (and if Ocaasi is okay with it, may have some collaborative edits done to it by other editors as Barkeep49 asked, to distill the gist of the messaging with the maybe more contentious parts). Raladic (talk) 03:40, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

When I write an essay, I put it in user space if I want to retain control over its message or want to be clear that it's my POV on something. I put an essay in user space when I think there is a broader message and want to participate in developing that message collaboratively with other editors. The pertinent point here is thatby being in project space, the normal consensus process applies in terms of content in a way that user space essays do not though I do think project space essays have an extra bit of credibility to them for precisely this same reason. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:51, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

@Barkeep49 As this is Wikipedia, I naturally expect and appreciate constructive edits to any page. Go for it! I await your revisions, and look forward to seeing how you improve it. That said, this essay also exists 'in full' outside of Wikipedia on blogs, etc., so I'm not inclined to fight for its complete original form here; this must be a version our community can tolerate and use. And that said, to be useful, this essay must still advance a thesis, perhaps not universally accepted, and so I hope you will cull whatever detracts from the main thrust, but not change the main thrust. You know what I mean? Ocaasi ^{t | c} 06:48, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

I'll add to this as someone who's fairly active in improving women's biographies: I don't do it out of some idea that I'm bringing "justice", and I would consider that a dangerous line of thinking. I do it because there's a major gap in the encyclopedia's coverage that needs to be addressed if it's going to be the best it can be. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:06, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Do you think that if someone's personal motivation is because they care about injustice that they're automatically wrong to do so, though? Like to me I don't think those goals necessarily conflict. I think it's a fine intrinsic motivation for someone to have as the "why" in addressing major gaps in the encyclopedia's coverage. Again, as long as they're writing balanced content and using proper reliable sources to do so. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:51, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Not wrong so much as it can create a perverse incentive. One example I've seen a few times is that someone will fight the deletion of a non-notable article because it helps with "promoting" that cause, even if there are no sources to make the article with except a few passing mentions or promotional pieces. If someone puts the actual article-writing and project-building first but also happens to be happy that there's an extra benefit when it occurs, that's great! I'll admit I sometimes feel that way about Maria Stromberger, for example. I created the article as part of WiR because it was an interesting gap in the coverage, but having written it, I'm also glad that someone like this can now get more recognition in the English-speaking world. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:20, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeah it's a careful balance there but I believe that is the heart of what this essay is supposed to mean. Like obviously don't cite in AfD debates. But that's what I took the "we have processes" kind of rhetoric to mean. I also think it's why people think it's important to have diverse editors just because our experiences shape our interests a bit. Like I wouldn't care about removing all the primary sources and fixing glaring content omissions on Jehovah's Witnesses if I hadn't grown up as one. The article is in much better shape than when I started editing it. A woman like me might be more interested to read an article like parental investment and side-eye the content that generalizes sexual attraction without including other significant viewpoints in reliable sources. Someone that was born in India is more likely to care about improving content about that country. I don't think anyone is obligated to do anything and obviously interests don't always overlap with what one might expect with editor demographics (I've always been more of a tomboy, for example, even if I do have some stereotypically feminine interests like knitting). But I do understand why people think about these things, you know? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:36, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Another one of my many, many barely-started essay drafts is about the different types of interest that leads people to articles, which essentially makes the point you're making. I've got to finish these things sooner or later. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:43, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

I think Wikipedians motivations are diverse. This essay wants to argue that editors whose purpose is social justice belong on Wikipedia. While this isn't what animates me, I don't find the perspective out of bounds either. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:08, 8 September 2024 (UTC)