Wikipedia talk:Tendentious editing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I LIKES IT! Syrthiss 11:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• This is a good essay, and potentially useful. I'd expand upon the concept of "undue weight", and point out that sometimes, even if certain information is true, including it in a particular fashion in a particular article skews the article. For instance, if there's a stub biography for a certain individual that goes into detail over a particular point of controversy, while at the same time failing to give more general biographical details or outline the individual's contributions, the article is unbalanced and biased against that individual. I find undue weight to be the primary "sin" of many of the tendentious editors I've encountered. --woggly 09:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Haha, this is great, did you write it while reviewing the contribution history of User:RJII? :)) - FrancisTyers · 09:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Cut from intro:

• On Wikipedia, the term also carries the connotation of repetitive attempts to insert or delete content which is resisted by multiple other editors.

Wait, are you saying that if multiple other editors resist these "repetitive attempts" then by definition those were tendentious edits?

If so, there would appear to be 2 different definitions of tendentious here:

1. Edits which violate NPOV policy because their result is a biased article
2. Edits which go against the 'consensus' (i.e., majority) of contributors to an article - regardless of the merits of that edit.

In other words, if 2 or 3 editors want to violate NPOV, and 1 editor tries multiple times to return the article to neutrality THEN the editor trying to restore neutrality is guilty of "tendentious editing". --Uncle Ed 20:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Most policies and guidelines address more than one state of violation. In fact, it there are few policies where there is only one way to violate it, perhaps just WP:3RR, but even that there are creative ways around it that are addressed in the policy. Repeatedly bringing up baseless objections after being shown that they are baseless is by definition of tendentious editing. I think the passage is accurate is necessary, so I've replaced it. FeloniousMonk 18:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

When I first read this essay, I misunderstood the bit about "the term also carries the connotation". If the term carries the connotation, it means that if you describe someone as being a tendentious editor, you are implying they s/he probably has made repetitive attempts to insert or delete content which is resisted by multiple other editors. However, after rereading, I gather the sentence doesn't necessarily imply that if someone has made repetitive attempts to insert or delete content which is resisted by multiple other editors, s/he is tendentious. Overall, I prefer the Ed's shorter version, which I think is clearer, however I don't believe the current version is actually wrong. Addhoc 21:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)