User:Fyslee/Conspiracy theory accusations
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] This is PRIVATE User space: Don't edit this page. Use the talk page
 |
This is an essay; it contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it. |
 |
This page in a nutshell: A user who believes another editor has a COI based on a conspiracy theory may have disqualified themself from editing to some degree. |
Notes
- This will hopefully become a Wikipedia essay some day. It needs much more work.
- See: [[Category:Wikipedia essays]]
Assumptions of bad faith involving the belief that another editor is involved in a conspiracy poisons the well so thoroughly as to disqualify the editor holding such beliefs from editing articles related to the subject and/or editing in the proximity of the editor so accused.
Contents |
[edit] Some basic assumptions
Nothing at Wikipedia, including the sacred and supreme NPOV policy, can function properly in an uncollaborative atmosphere. It is impossible for an editor who does not assume good faith about another editor to enter into a collaborative relationship with that editor, and any editing done by such an editor will be characterized by their assumption of bad faith, leading to personal attacks, violations of BLP principles, accusations of conflicts of interest, and seriously compromise their ability to edit in an NPOV manner. They may often exhibit a megalomaniacal point of view that puts them beyond the realm of reasonable discourse or dispute resolution. They may also use their own original research based on sources that may be unverifiable and/or unreliable.
[edit] Conspiracy theories poison the well
An assumption or accusation that another editor (or the subject of an article) is involved in a real or imagined conspiracy poisons the well so thoroughly — and involves so serious and complex assumptions of bad faith and beliefs in a conflict of interest — as to disqualify the editor holding such beliefs from editing articles related to the subject and/or editing in the proximity of the editor so accused.
It is not enough for the accusing editor to believe in or even prove the existence of "dots" (incontrovertible facts), and then connect those dots into a pattern that is assumed to prove the existence of the conspiracy and the involvement of the editor or subject in that conspiracy. The connection of the dots (reasoning processes involved) must not include any original research. Such connections must be proven so convincingly (using well-proven facts from verifiable and reliable sources, and no assumptions at all) that the reasonable minds of a jury of Wikipedia administrators will believe the accusation beyond a reasonable doubt. Any reasonable doubt must result in sanctions against the accuser, since such serious accusations cannot be left unpunished.
[edit] Proposed consequences
If it is proven that the accused editor has a truly serious conflict of interest, it must lead to sanctions affecting that editor's editing privileges. Regardless of what the case may be, it must result in disciplinary consequences that will affect the editing privileges of one or the other editor. It must not affect both of the editors, since mere allegations should not affect the falsely accused editor's ability to edit at Wikipedia, and the making of false allegations is so serious a matter that it must be punished. It's a total win or total lose situation for the accuser, as the burden of proof is on them. Due to the serious and complex nature of conspiracy charges, such editing sanctions can only be inflicted by a jury of administrators in a RfA. A RfC or RfM is not enough for so serious a matter.
If the editor holding such conspiracy theory beliefs is so motivated by them as to make any personal attacks or commit violations of BLP principles, it can lead to a serious disruption of Wikipedia's collegial atmosphere, disturbing the collaborative editing process so seriously that the editor in question should then be blocked or site banned. This is based on the belief that a serious belief in conspiracy theories is often immune to correction, since it involves many cognitive processes, psychological mechanisms, and political beliefs that are often intertwined with the very identity of the person holding them. It puts them beyond the reach of reason and makes them impervious to normal dispute resolution processes. In the end they may use the ultimate defense: "Of course I have no absolute proof. They are so powerful that they can cover their tracks and even remove all proof of their conspiracy, but what's happening is so clear that only a total idiot can't see it!!!#%&¤!!" Such persons are immune to cognitive dissonance and cannot be reasoned with. Fortunately this condition isn't necessarily lifelong, since people sometimes experience life altering experiences, traumas, and other things that cause them to undergo deep changes in their ways of thinking and adherence to certain paradigms. They may be redeemable, but that is not Wikipedia's responsibility. Until they change their way of thinking, they must take it elsewhere.
