Wikipedia:Tendentious editors/Merger proposal
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This Wikipedia page is currently inactive and is retained primarily for historical interest. Per Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines: "A historical page is any proposal for which consensus is unclear, where discussion has died out for whatever reason. Historical pages also include any process no longer in use, or any non-recent log of any process. Historical pages can be revived by advertising them. " If you want to revive discussion regarding the subject, you should seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump. |
 |
This page in a nutshell: In disputes over content, the burden of proof is upon those who edit articles to include novel or controversial claims. Users who repeatedly insert such changes into articles without providing reliable sources when opposed and warned, may be blocked by administrators without having to wait for further attempts at dispute resolution. Users who continue disruptive or tendentious editing practices, despite attempts at dispute resolution and warnings from neutral parties, may be subject to penalties imposed by administrators, up to and including being banned from editing Wikipedia. |
- "Show the door to trolls, vandals, and wiki-anarchists, who, if permitted, would waste your time and create a poisonous atmosphere here." --Larry Sanger, on WP:EQ
Contents |
[edit] Rationale
Wikipedia owes much of its success to its openness. However, that very openness sometimes attracts people who seek to exploit the site as a mouthpiece for fringe viewpoints that constitute original research or long-discredited hypotheses. While notable minority opinions are welcome when verified through reliable sources, and any editor may occasionally make mistakes, a tendentious editor can create long-term problems by persistently editing a page with information that falls well outside mainstream thought—such as insisting that the moon is made of green cheese. In order for Wikipedia to remain encyclopedic, its articles must reflect the current state of their appropriate fields. A reader should be able to presume that the content of an article is sound.
Articles are often edited to improve their content, and most such edits are uncontroversial or undergo discussion and/or correction without rancor. The problem with tendentious editing however, is that it damages articles by loading them with statements which contradict the state of the relevant field as is held by experts. This not only degrades those articles, but reduces the credibility of Wikipedia as a whole, and is highly disruptive to the editing process. Tendentious editing already violates site policy, yet certain editors have succeeded in disrupting articles and evading disciplinary action for extended periods because their actions remain limited to a small number of pages and they do not commit gross violations of WP:CIVILITY. Collectively, tendentious editors harm Wikipedia by degrading its reliability as a reference source and by exhausting the patience of other members of the Wikipedia community who may quit the project in frustration when a tendentious editor continues with impunity.
[edit] Policy
- When change(s) to an article are challenged, the editor who makes the change is expected to justify those change(s), through references and discussion. There is no inherent right on Wikipedia to edit an article to a particular user's POV or liking. Changes consisting only of original research or of appeals to sources which are not reliable need only be contested to affect their reversion; the burden of proof is on the editor who proposes a change.
- Editors who cannot advance their proposed change(s) through normal discussion and dispute resolution are subject to blocking if they attempt, after being warned by a neutral administrator or other party, to push through changes via tendentious or disruptive editing practices.
- Such actions may lead to more serious corrective action through the dispute resolution process, including being banned from Wikipedia. A user need not violate WP:3RR to be blocked under this policy.
- Until a conflict is resolved, an article (or the contested parts thereof) should remain in its prior state as to the contested point; the burden of proof is upon those who make significant changes to statements of the positions. However, challengers to edits are also expected to support their positions and may also be blocked or banned if they tendentiously defend an article's original content in the face of stronger evidence in support of a change.
This policy shall not to be construed as an invitation to gratuitously challenge every unreferenced change, nor to doubt the integrity of every reference provided. Users should always remember to assume good faith when there is doubt; to not set themselves up as a devil's advocate, and to not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point.
Changes to articles which are not contested after a reasonable time (1 day?) shall be considered to have been accepted; however they may still be reverted if stronger evidence to the contrary is provided at a later date.
[edit] Characteristics of problem edits and editors
Tendentious editors may seek to disguise their behavior as normal editing, yet distinctive traits separate them from productive editors. A tendentious editor is an editor who:
- Is persistent: continues editing an article or group or articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time (1-2 months or more) despite opposition from one or more other editors. Such editors may violate WP:3RR, but this is not a criteria for tendentious editing.
- Cannot satisfy WP:V and/or WP:NOR: fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic or unreliable sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research.
- Rejects community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors and/or administrators; asserts a right to edit Wikipedia in any fashion which pleases him or her.
In addition, such editors may:
- Campaign to drive away productive contributors: violates other policies and guidelines such as WP:CIVIL,WP:NPA, WP:OWN, engages in sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry, etc. on a low level that might not exhaust the general community's patience, but that operates toward an end of exhausting the patience of productive rules-abiding editors on certain articles.
[edit] Distinction from non-tendentious editors
Editors often post minority views to articles. This fits within Wikipedia's mission so long as the contributions are verifiable through reliable sources and the relationship to majority views are made clear. The burden of evidence rests with the editor who wishes the information to remain. From Wikipedia:Neutral point of view: "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." Verifiable and noteworthy viewpoints include protoscience as published through reputable peer-reviewed journals. Editors may reasonably present active public disputes or controversies which are documented by reliable sources. This exemption does not apply to settled disputes; for example, insertion of claims that the Sun revolves around the Earth would not be appropriate today; even though this issue was active controversy in the time of Gallileo.
Sometimes, editors may be misled by a few fringe publications or make honest mistakes when representing a citation. Such people may reasonably defend their positions for a short time, then concede the issue when they encounter better evidence or impartial feedback. For this reason no editor shall be deemed tendentious until after discussion, citations, impartial consensus, and warning templates have failed.
Articles are acceptable which document widely discredited hypotheses (and/or their advocates) which have an organized following, such as Flat Earth Society. However, claims that the Earth is flat would be inappropriate in articles such as Earth or geography, even if presented as a minority opinion.
Certain topics are not the subject of formal study, are inherently controversial, involve competing epistomologies, or have ample bodies of literature supporting opposing or contradictory positions. Per WP:NPOV, the various positions in active controversies shall be presented and attributed to their proponents. User editing such topics are, however, expected to afford the same respect to the depictions of the various positions and sides of the controversy.
[edit] Dealing with tendentious editors
Following is a model for remedies:
Slow track:
1. First unencyclopedic entry.
- Revert, giving justification.
2. Editor unreverts.
- Post to talk page asking for discussion and/or sources. Revert again if no response, along with edit summary.
3. Problems continue.
- Attempt to engage new editor in dialogue. Refer to policies and guidelines as appropriate.
4. Talk page discussion fails to resolve the problem.
5. Consensus forms except for the problem editor, who continues problem behavior.
- User talk page warning templates. Possible user conduct WP:RFC.
6. Templates fail to curb behavior.
- WP:ANI administrator intervention: warning or temporary block as appropriate.
7. Blocks fail to solve the problem.
- Possible topic ban, site ban, or probation per ArbCom or administrator consensus.
Fast track:
1. First unencyclopedic entry.
- Revert, giving justification.
2. Editor unreverts.
- Post to talk page asking for discussion and/or sources. Revert again if no response, along with edit summary.
3. Problems continue.
- Attempt to engage new editor in dialogue. Refer to policies and guidelines as appropriate.
4. Talk page discussion fails to resolve the problem.
- WP:ANI is notified; non-involved administrator warns the editor. A parallel content WP:RFC may be started.
5. Problems continue.
- Editor is issued a short block. Editor is advised to clean up his act.
6. Blocks fail to curb behavior--i.e. sockpuppets show up.
- Editor is advised by admins to avoid the subject articles on pain of blocking, is issued longer blocks. Sockpuppets blocked too. At this point, a user conduct WP:RFC is started.
riate. 7. Blocks still fail to solve the problem.
- Possible topic ban, site ban, or probation per ArbCom or administrator consensus.
