Wikipedia talk:Honesty

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Essay

In light of some recent events, I've tried to capture some of my feelings regarding our responsibility to be honest in all of our dealings related to the project. This isn't a criticism, it's an attempt to gel community backing for the above concept, and I welcome comment and improvement. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Your actions are in the best of faith, but this will only bring one more thing for people to accuse eachother of not doing. Every user here should be here to write an encyclopedia, not be beacons of morality to the world. We have television competitions to find those people. Picaroon 22:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
You may be right, but I hope you aren't, heh. I don't present this as a policy or guideline, it's just an essay that I hope will help define what the community expects. If you can suggest ways of keeping the situation you described from happening, this is the wiki that anyone can edit (visualize a smiley face here). - CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I predict that if this catches on, misrepresentaion of this as authoritative will become widespread, like WP:ILIKEIT. Picaroon 00:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
This essay is, in my opinion, focused on how honesty relates to being a good Wikipedian, so I don't agree with the objections presented by Picaroon. Friday (talk)
I mean that every time someone, accidentally or on purpose, goes against the commandmants set forth in this essay, they'll be accused of being dishonest. That'll be a personal attack, and this page could act as their defense. Discussions where links to WP:DICK are tossed around operate in a similar fashion. The ideals are good, yes, but suggesting Wikipedians follow all of them is only going to lead to more strife. Picaroon 00:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Change

Chairboy, we are clearly of like mind and your essay expresses a fundamental part of what I'm grappling with. I would like a make a fundamental change, but hesitate to do so until I have your agreement. The change is to move Wikipedia talk:Honesty to Wikipedia talk:Exhibit Good Faith. This is the core point I'm trying to articulate. Exhibiting good faith is the other side of the coin. Without it, the assumption of good faith becomes the endeavor of a good natured fool. Exhibiting good faith encompasses the notion of honesty but entails far more, and in particular shifts the focus from the concept of morality and ethics to the more pragmatic concerns of what is required for the continued health of Wikipedia. A B Carter (talk) 04:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I like this suggestion. Makes sense, fits. —Doug Bell talk 05:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This does not represent the problem we are currently experiencing

Simple misdirection is not the point. If Essjay had merely said he was a paralegal in Boise instead of a paralegal in Louisville, no one would object to it. The problem we are facing is not about honesty, it's about credentials. There is nothing wrong with simple misdirection. I support Essjay, but let's be clear about what the issues are here. Chick Bowen 04:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I strongly support this essay

Though this could never be a policy, I strongly agree that it's important for every editor to be honest. There are certain editors I trust -- I would like them not to betray that trust.

It will never be possible now for me to assume good faith with regards to Essjay. In the long run, his unfortunate decisions will have no impact on the project. However, I will now be forced to doubt any assertions that he makes. --N Shar (talk • contribs) 06:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Epigraph

I find it wonderfully apropos that this essay is introduced by an epigraph from a cartoon Disney character[1]. Good job! -- EMET-MET 20:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! Your comments are most appreciated. Smee 20:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC).


[edit] WP:POINT

I support this essay but large parts of it are already wikipedia policy in WP:POINT. Also, I'm not sure that there should be a problem with users misrepresenting their name, age, heritage or sex on Wikipedia so long as they don't use the misrepresentation to support their view in an argument so maybe this could be changed accordingly? Obviously if someone says he's a 32 year old lesbian woman of Indian heritage while really being a 19 year old straight man of Sephardic Jew heritage then it will help them in their pursuit of anonymity, especially when they have certain roles within wikipedia that could cause stalking and the likes. Of course I'd prefer it if people didn't do that but the reality is throwing some curveballs may be necessary sometimes. Yonatan (contribs/talk) 22:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The reality is the problem, as the firestorm elsewhere on-wiki shows. Anonymity means a lack of information, not confabulation, lying, misrepresentation, etc. The problem exists, as the growing dismay regarding "the situation" clearly indicates. Increasingly, the community consensus appears to support the idea that lying is unacceptable. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 23:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
This section seems relevant for my comment about this:

Does not misrepresent their personal background. The choice of anonymity is part of Wikipedia, but it is not a license to fabricate. Decline to share details you wish to keep secret, but when you begin to lie, both you and the project lose credibility.

I think if a Wikipedian wants to say (out of the articles of course) that they live in a different state or country and they're 5 years younger/older than they really are, it should be fine, no-one's gonna find out anyway ;) as long as they don't pretend to be better than they really are. On the other hand I might be completely missing the point :) --WikiSlasher 07:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Support

Great writeup, I hope this becomes a policy. Wish to suggest a minor change, remove the phrase "simply to support their argument" in the first bullet: i.e. "Does not say things they know to be untrue simply to support their argument." This would strengthen the message, afterall there is no legitimate reason to be dishonest. --Vsion 04:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Likewise, to me too it appears it would be a good idea if this becomes policy one day. (with the improvement that I would expect in the process obviously) Mathmo Talk 10:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support as policy one day. - This would be a great idea. However it looks like there are some other ongoing endeavours going on:
  1. Wikipedia:Administrators accountability
  2. Wikipedia:Credentials

And a few other new ones that rose out of similar events... but I can't find them at the moment... Smee 13:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

This one is much better than the other proposals. WP:HONEST is something we should have had all along. --- RockMFR 14:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Strong Support

This is much better than WP:CRED as a response to the Essjay affair. Unlike WP:CRED, it doesn't overreact to the problem by abandoning all trust in users, or risk creating an "overclass" of Wikipedians with verified academic credentials. It also fits in very well with WP:AGF. Ultimately, Wikipedia is about trust; even if WP:CRED were implemented, there are still plenty of ways that a dishonest and determined user can subvert the system. Just as we assume good faith, we also need to trust the honesty of other Wikipedians; obviously, those who demonstrate repeated dishonesty lose their editing privileges. Walton Vivat Regina! 15:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:POINT

Regarding this edit, I'm wondering if perhaps I worded the removed text incorrectly. My intention with the original text was to suggest that someone who was stating something that they knew to be incorrect to make a point would be disrupting the project, and that was an element of dishonesty. Thoughts? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I actually don't see anything dishonest about acting as a "Devil's advocate", but I didn't remove it because it's not my essay. However, there's certainly nothing disruptive about it as long as you make it clear that's what you're doing, and I saw this as a misreading of WP:POINT (incidentally, I've nominated the shortcut itself "WP:POINT" at RfD, since that shortcut seems to be a perennial source of misinterpretation of the guideline it points at). --Random832 14:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I've put the sentence back in for the interim, I think there may be a misunderstanding. Also, the results of the RfD discussion you mention above suggests that there might be some miscommunication about the nature of Wikipedia:Don't disrupt the project to make a point. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 23:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mergeto

I've pulled the Mergeto for Wikipedia:Act in good faith, it seems very different from the aims of this essay. I don't wish to claim any type of dumb old WP:OWNership over this, of course, so if I'm off my rocker, edit away, but please consider bringing it here for discussion too. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 23:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

An attempt guage community support on this and related proposals is going on at User talk:Jimbo Wales/Credential Verification. Please participate. Thank you. WAS 4.250 11:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bumped to 'Proposed' and edited to be more guideline like

Considering the weight of opinion backing this, I've bumped it to 'Proposed'. I think the only decision left to wrangle over is if this should be 'Policy' or 'Guideline'. (Personally, I lean to it being a fundamental policy).

I've done some readability copy editing, as well as clear up some messy phrases. We can't guarantee or expect editors to always adhere to 'the truth' since people make mistakes, so I've changed that to 'an honest understanding and application of principles'. --Barberio 19:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Policy or Guidline?
  • Support as policy - You are correct, there is enough weight behind this. Smee 19:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC).
  • Support as policy - WAS 4.250 21:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Essay. I knew this would happen. If this becomes policy or even a guideline, it will be far more destructive than helpful. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and here's one of them. Picaroon 22:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Could you specify how this could reasonably be destructive? The request for honesty seems pretty benign. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
      • It is benign, very benign. That's why I've referred to the page as a good intention on at least two occasions. But intentions are not the same as results. Here's why it will be destructive:
  1. Personal attacks. Calling someone dishonest is a personal attack; if someone did that two or three times and had received adequate warnings, I'd block them. But this page will serve to let them off the hook, much like m:DICK does. "You can't block me, I was just following this guideline."
    The proposal in no way advises editors to call each other 'dishonest', it requires you to be honest youself. Baseless accusations of dishonesty would still be covered by personal attacks policy and the proposal does not give editors an 'out'. --Barberio 23:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. It doesn't further the goals of the encyclopedia in ways that other policies don't already do. What's the point of a policy that doesn't help the encyclopedia? That's policy-cruft and instruction creep.
    Making it completely clear that honesty is a requirement seems to further the aims the wiki by explicitly defining an aim that have been previously assumed. --Barberio 23:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. Implementation will lead to an increased focus on character, but a decreased focus on content; this is the opposite of what an encyclopedia needs and wants. Back to my original objection up at the top of the page, where I only half-jokingly mentioned "beacons of morality," it will lead people to compete to be viewed as "honest." Productivity is more important than behavior. Picaroon 22:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
    Productivity based on the wrong set of values is wasted productivity. Productivity is *not* more important than behaviour. Would we accept an editor who was as productive as ten other editors, but who's behaviour resulted in worthwhile editors leaving the project? Would we accept a productive editor who ignored NPOV? Would we accept a productive editor who faked sources? --Barberio 23:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
    In my view, that's a logical fallacy. The three things you suggest, abrasiveness causing others to leave, lack of neutrality, and source-faking, are by definition not productive. Picaroon 23:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
    I'm not trying to be pedantic, but it sounds as if you're suggesting that honesty gets in the way of writing an encyclopedia, and that asking people not to lie is an unreasonable request. Please help understand what I'm missing, because I doubt that's what you're trying to say. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
    No, I don't mean that. It isn't the tenet of honesty that I'm having a problem with, it's this essay (it is still an essay, I think, seeing as it isn't a policy, guideline, or process). Even more so now than at the original revision, the tone is bound to come across as some sort of be-all and end-all order about "honesty." Behavioral policies and guidelinese should only implentented insofar as they help the encyclopedia, but I'm yet to see how this is going to help. Naturally honest people are going to do their best to be helpful and truthful, and naturally dishonest people wouldn't heed this even if it was a pillar. With regards to your "unreasonable request" comment, I didn't say anything about asking people to lie, and I'm not sure how I ended up sounding like that; If I did, that isn't my intention. Picaroon 23:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm assuming the argument is more like: A) people who are honest don't need this guideline; and B) people who aren't honest won't care about this guideline. So that would leave only those people who want to use this guideline in a way that it wasn't intended. That's not my argument, that's how I interpret the above arguments. Wjhonson 23:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

As you can see from my edit-conflicted message, I was just typing something of that sort. Thanks for stating that more clearly and less wordily than me. Picaroon 23:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
However, I can demonstrate this to be a faulty argument by substitution... "People who don't use personal attacks don't need this policy, people who do use personal attacks will ignore this policy." So, under this argument, we don't need a personal attacks policy either. --Barberio 23:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Correct, people who are going to ignore NPA policy don't need it. But the people who block them need a reason for blocking them, and preventing further personal attacks is a good block reason last I checked. Unlike "dishonesty," personal attacks are disruptive as a standalone occurrence (for lack of a better word). But is dishonesty disruptive as a standalone occurrence? No. So I don't think the two can be equated. Picaroon 23:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
The Essjay controversy seems to suggest that it is indeed. An otherwise upstanding user was dishonest, and as a result, the entire project has been shaken and our public credibility has been damaged. If something like this had community approval a year ago and he was aware of it, perhaps that conflaguration could have been avoided or at least minimized. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I strongly disagree: the Essjay controversy does not suggest it is needed, but the opposite - that lying about your credentials causes such a lynch mob community approbation that no good-faith editor would dare lie about a credential again - David Gerard 10:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
When you stop continuously hysterically comparing fellow editors who expressed concern with racist murderers, then you might start regaining some respect. I'm pretty sure that anyone who wasn't trading off their past & present authority and defending a wiki-insider would have been blocked for such gross incivility and attacks by now. At least I would hope so, given some of the weak excuses for blocks around here. And yes, I do take your characterization as a very personal, utterly unfair, and totally unjustified attack even if you did toss in a snide little strikeout tag this time. Derex 21:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Agree with Picaroon. It's a fine essay, a wonderful sentiment, and a terrible policy. Derex 00:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support as policy. Let this be a lesson from the Essjay controversy. --Vsion 05:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • One more time, everybody... Policies and guidelines are not created by voting on them. Also, it might surprise the proponents to learn that creating a policy against dishonesty will not magically cause people to be honest. Remember that proposal to outlaw sarcasm? >Radiant< 09:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm sure a policy on sarcasm would be very beneficial... --WikiSlasher 09:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
      • WP:SARC. Check the links at the bottom, I wish I was kidding but I'm not. >Radiant< 09:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
        • They (and the article) use a different definition for sarcasm than the one I've had in my head for years, but I'm not going to change my usage. --WikiSlasher 10:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
          • That wasn't a "proposal to outlaw sarcasm". It was a naïve attempt to point out, in a supposedly descriptive guideline, that using sarcasm (as defined in dictionaries) is, in fact, an example of uncivil behavior. The reason it was naïve is the same reason it's naïve to suggest "promoting" this essay: people will interpret it as a rule that they can use as a weapon in content disputes. Remember that policies need to be weighed with the assumption that people will abuse them if you give them a chance. Let's not have people throwing uncivil WP:HONEST warnings around each others' talk pages. Wikipedia policy is not a place to indulge in moral philosophizing, it turns out. -GTBacchus(talk) 08:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Essay only. The less policycruft, including guideline cruft, the better. This is essentially a commentary on Don't be a dick, after all. May I commend for your reading http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/UnNews:Online_encyclopedia_Wikipedia_bans_sarcasm - David Gerard 10:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Essay, we've got enough policies and guidelines. This is my reason for objection however. If I want to say I've eaten every kind of donut in the world and have peglegs why can't I? Just don't believe everything you read on the Internet ;) --WikiSlasher 10:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Essay. A great idea, but Picaroon's comments have hit the nail on the head. --- RockMFR 04:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Essay, or no tag at all. Don't ruin a good thing by turning it into a "rule". Rules are not solutions to every problem, and they introduce new problems of their own. Trying to make rules to make people "be good" is especially fraught with unintended consequences. Let it be a good essay; they're better than policies. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Essjay only... --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 16:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Guideline. It tells those inclined to be dishonest "You're not wanted here." And as far as I'm concerned, they're not. (and btw, democracy is paramount, thus my VOTE) Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 23:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
    First of all, it's over. This isn't going to be a guideline. Second of all, Wikipedia is not a democracy. We don't make decisions by voting. Picaroon 00:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How will this look?

Just a note. Has it occurred to those opposing this proposal how the following statement will read to someone assessing Wikipedia's credibility...

"Someone proposed honesty guidelines, but they were rejected."

Do you think that looks good, because I don't. I don't want to explain to people why Wikipedia is a worthwhile project if we can't even make a commitment to honesty. This is about more than policy enforcment, it's about how we present the project to the world, and what our values are. --Barberio 00:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It will look just fine, if we do something else that resolves the Essjay problem. A magic word doesn't make this the best or only approach. Personally, I think this does absolutely nothing to solve that problem; it's just grand empty rhetoric. Essjay knew perfectly well that what he was doing was wrong when he used bogus arguments in content disputes. He didn't need this policy to tell him that. And if it becomes more than rhetoric, I agree with Picaroon that it will be destructive. Derex 00:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather "Somebody wrote an essay on honesty and a lot of people like it." I like this lots as an essay; I think the idea of making it a guideline or (FSM help me) policy is horrible. Anyone who needs to be told that honesty is a good idea when working in good faith on the encyclopedia is too thick to understand why - David Gerard 10:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not nice to talk about nice overtrusting people like that. People who say things like "I don’t really have a problem with it" when told their employee lied to the press just might need a reminder that honesty is important. I think you owe someone an apology for calling him "too thick". I think Jimbo is very smart. WAS 4.250 21:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I like this as a guideline because it tells those who aren't inclined to be honest: "You're not wanted here." And I do think that should be our stance. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 23:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A cautionary note

Don't make me write another of these! - David Gerard 10:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Write one. Write two. Why limit yourself. Heck, why not spend all your time on Wikia. WAS 4.250 21:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Isn't lying accepted in some cases?

One thing i noticed that popped up over and over in the EssJay discussion was that it was generally accepted (by no less than Jimbo himself) that editors make up some fake details about their life to throw off wikistalkers. Wouldn't this guideline/policy conflict with that? Or would you have to say "I've made up these details to throw off the psychos" (thus making the lies ineffective)?MikeURL 16:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, there is a glaring problem in this... Making up fake details to throw off Wikistalkers is no more or less effective than simply not stating your details. I flat define anyone, up to and including Jimbo, to demonstrate a logical argument to support the idea that misguiding readers provides any more 'safety' from stalking than not providing information in the first place.
Using Anonymity for protection is acceptable, but editors should accept that this means they have to trade off their ability to claim a background. Allowance and acceptance of fabricating backgrounds is what got us in the Essjay mess in the first place. If you don't want people to know stuff about you, don't tell them stuff about you. --Barberio 18:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
It would send a hypothetical stalker down on the wrong path which could be effective in the rare case someone was actually trying to find out who you were, although I have no evidence up of course. --WikiSlasher 07:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
However, in practice this does not occur. Someone who is dedicated to discovering who you are for nefarious means is not going to be troubled by 'misdirection', and it's a tissue paper defence. It may even leak information about you in ways you don't expect. The best idea is always to simply withhold information, and remain anonymous by anonymity.
On wikipedia, and in many other published forms, there are four ways you can identify your works.
  • Anonymity. This means you leave no identity associated with the work, at all. This means no link from the work to any kind of person, or any kind of unifying identity.
  • Pseudonymity. This means that works are identified solely by a unifying but otherwise unidentified identity. Such as signing your works as 'Big C.'
  • Misattribution. Providing false identity to works, either a created identity, or an co-opted identity.
  • True identity. Providing your work under your own identity.
Of these it is almost universally accepted that Misattribution is a poor method of publishing, and makes the work highly suspect. Works published with misattribution are almost always considered discreditable. --Barberio 11:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] T-th-that's all, folks

Am I the only one who thinks that quoting a cartoon character here (and not even one particularly known for his honesty) is rather silly? >Radiant< 12:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Suitable alternative quote is now used. I hope it meets your approval. --Barberio 20:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Not really :) But then it's no big deal either way, I'm not much in favor of quotes on such pages anyway but they're not really bothering me either. >Radiant< 09:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/o/n/Wikipedia_talk%7EHonesty_062a.html"