User:Novan Leon/AGF Challenge Exercise Answers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Below are my answers to the AGF Challenge Exercise.

NOTE: I am responding to these scenarios as I best see fit given the optimal situation, not necessarily according to existing Wikipedia rules and standards. Thanks.

Contents 1 My wife is not a coauthor 2 My town's library 3 I am the best 4 Arrow of Time 5 Ghost in the machine 6 Take me to your Leader Extraterrestrial Shape-shifting Reptile 7 Related to a saint 8 I make my own rules

[edit] My wife is not a coauthor

Suppose someone has coauthored 10 books with their wife. And suppose that this person also wrote 10 books on their own, and on this second group of 10 books, their wife is not listed as a coauthor. All 20 of these books are listed on a website belonging to the couple for sale, and on various other websites, with the authorship list for each book listing either the person, or the person and his wife. All of these websites and descriptions of these 20 books agree with each other. Suppose that in interviews, this person is quoted as saying that his wife had coauthored some of his books, and that this person listed this coauthorship in his autobiography.

Therefore, in the biography of this person on Wikipedia, we state that this person has coauthored some of his books with his wife. And then this person contacts WP, using the OTRS system, and threatens to sue Wikipedia for describing his wife as a coauthor of some of his books. He wants Wikipedia to assert that he wrote all the books himself and his wife was not involved.

What should Wikipedia do? Do we just state something that is contrary to more than a dozen reliable sources, which all agree with each other? Do we state something for which we have not a single source except a private email purportedly from the subject of the biography (but of course we do not know for sure)? What is the ethical thing to do? What is the encyclopedic thing to do? What precedent would your actions set, if any?

My Answer

In situations like this, where giving a clear answer is problematic, insteading of stating flat-out that his wife coauthored (or did not coauthor) some of the books with his wife, simply present the facts as they are presented to us (the editors). Provide quotes from the reliable sources (with references) where the author said that his wife coauthored some of the books, as well as a footnote explaining the author's position as explained in the OTRS system. For example:

The author has made the statement several times that his wife help to coauthor some of his books. (give references) However, in a direct statement to Wikipedia, the author has denied any involvement by his wife as a coauthor of his books.

When controversy or conflict arises and a clear correct answer isn't available, it's better to present all the facts surrounding the subject and let others draw their own conclusions.

[edit] My town's library

You run across an article, created a few days ago, that reads:

A quaint little library established in 1939. Set in the delightful village of Smithille, Iowa, this library has seen many changes in it's time, not least the new wheelchair ramp laid in place in 1995 due to new government legislation. A controversial move indeed. To rub salt into the wound, two disabled parking spaces were placed outside in spring 1998 (Iowa council). Lois Cooper, Beverley Sixsmith and Jill Chesser were the original founders, Lois being the only sirviving members. Lucy Keene a former employee commeneted on the late Ms Sixsmith: "An admirable woman. A sufragette to the end." Realsiing the need to move with the times in 1993, the library implemented a late night closing on Tuesday evenings, remainin open until 18:00 instead of the usual hour of 17:30. Although this incited industrial action from the current staff, Lois failed to backdown from this radical new policy. Other smithville attractions (past and present) terry's Cockney Chuckles Chelone Deux Clothesline Curtainline Wow (later West Iowa video) Belle veux Wool o' the west Whitewoods Shoestring The Cabin Deli Select and Save (David's) Brenda C's Johnnie loves Lucy Scissor's Duo Hurst's Tudor Lounge Bakewell Cafe (Toby Jug) The Ginger Jar Bread basket Tony's and Doreen's bargain shop (moved to newberry, now bust) Briscoe's books Plumbley's Bread and Cakes Tony's Eve's Electrical Live Wire Traidcraft Geoffrey's Rainbow fish bar Double dragon Turning heads

You do some web searching, and find nothing about this library on the internet. What should Wikipedia do with such an article? How would you handle this situation?

My Answer

Without any reliable references, this article should be deleted. If reliable references are provided, the article should be reviewed for blatantly subjective viewpoints such as "quaint little library" and "delightful village" and these unnecessary descriptors should be removed. If an excerpt from a local newspaper or other source is to be included, it should be surrounded in quotes and be presented as such with necessary references included.

[edit] I am the best

"Theobold Johnson III" is notable for having been involved in a football cheating scandal and also writes books about orchids, illustrated with beautiful pictures. Johnson has written several self-published books about orchids, and in their autobiographies and interviews he describes himself as "the greatest living orchid man" and "widely recognized by the academic world as the greatest orchid scholar in the world". Johnson refers to himself as "Dr. Johnson" or "Professor Johnson" frequently in print. Johnson also asserts in print that he is a professor in the Botany Department at the famous "Winthrop College" and has given his mailing address as "c/o Winthrop College" for many years. Johnson often writes that all other people studying orchids are morons and even all other botanists are stupid and vile disgusting fools who should be publicly flogged or worse.

In the course of writing a Wikipedia biography about Johnson, you start to uncover disturbing information. First, you are able to find a mention of a "Theobold Johnson III" on archived versions of the Winthrop College website from 1994-1997, but there is no mention of Johnson on earlier versions of the website, or later versions. A "T. Johnson, III" is listed as a visitor in the Computer Science Department of Winthrop College in the 1994, 1995, 1996 and 1997 versions of the website, and a phone number is given. You contact the President's office at Winthrop College and the Dean of Science office at Winthrop College and ask if Johnson is or was a faculty member there. Receiving no reply, you ask a friend who knows the Dean personally to ask the Dean privately. The word comes back from your friend that he has talked to the Dean privately, and that Johnson is an embarassment and never had a faculty appointment at Winthrop College and just has his mail forwarded from Winthrop College due to some arrangement he made with someone in the Winthrop College mailroom 25 years previously. Johnson never was on the payroll of Winthrop College and never had an official position at Winthrop College and has not been on campus for 10 years or more. Johnson was listed for a few years on the telephone list and was a short term visitor, but this was just a courtesy and he was one of 3500 visitors a year who get this courtesy. The Dean's office then, thanks to the probing of your friend, issues a very carefully worded "official statement" about Johnson, stating he was never a faculty member at Winthrop College and inviting further inquiries to their Press Office, and sends you a copy.

You do some more checking, and find no evidence that Johnson has a PhD or any degree in botany or science whatsoever, at least from Liberty Washington University, as he claims. You do find a record at Liberty Washington Community College that Johnson obtained a bachelor's degree in history 30 years previously. You also find a report in the local newspaper that Johnson was expelled from Liberty Washington Community College for theft while he was an undergraduate, and then was readmitted and eventually graduated. You look at various lists and directories of prominent orchid scholars and find no mention of a Theobold Johnson in any edition of these directories. You also dig up 5 reviews of Johnson's books on orchids in various scholarly journals from different botanists and orchid scholars from Harvard and University of Pennsylvania and Yale. These reviews are uniformly poor, and state that Johnson is a charlatan and a fraud and his books are replete with errors and the worst possible nonsense. You then find another interview of Johnson published in Sports Illustrated where it is stated that Johnson has no PhD or other Doctorate, but it is a title that people use for him out of respect for his tremendous knowledge and learning.

How would you write a biography of this person on Wikipedia? What would be reasonable and accurate and ethical? What would be fair? What should Wikipedia do if this person contacts Wikipedia and demands that it write his biography the way he dictates? What if this person threatens legal action if Wikipedia does not do what he asks?

My Answer

I would present the facts exactly as the research shows them (as long as you provide references of course). I would take pains not to shown any bias and I would be sure to present the Johnson's claims exactly as they are, along with the research repudiating Johnson's claims. By reading the article and seeing the evidence as it is laid out, it will be up to the reader to formulate their own opinion. The inclusion of Johnson's claims would not harm the validity of the article as long as they are presented exactly for what they are. The inclusion of both sides would only enhance the reader's ability to understand the facts of the situation and develop a greater appreciation for how much of a jerk Mr. Johnson is.

[edit] Arrow of Time

In the Young Earth Creationism article, an editor with a total of 47 edits to their credit repeatedly inserts the phrase

Fundamaental to both YEC and cosmological / biological evolution is the concept of Time. Time itself, and its perceived or actual forward progress (Arrow_of_time) is a discussion topic that includes the Second Law of Thermodynamics and questions as to whether time existed before the Big Bang.

This appears to have little if anything to do with Young Earth Creationism. After all, the Big Bang produced time itself, according to the Big Bang theory, first advanced by Belgian Roman Catholic priest Georges Lemaître. Discussions of whether time existed before the Big Bang have already discarded one of the main features of the Big Bang, and so are not about the Big Bang, and definitely not relevant to Young Earth Creationism, which does not have a Big Bang associated with most versions of it. It is a confused and somewhat nonsensical statement.

No sources or references are provided, although this editor is asked for sources dozens of times by several other editors. Other editors remove this phrase, and the new editor responds angrily that he is being censored. The new editor reinserts this phrase 38 times over the next 2 weeks, and never provides references or sources of any kind. When asked for sources, he states it is the responsibility of the other editors to provide them, not him.

On the talk page of the article, this editor posts vaguely obnoxious statements like

It appears that our problem in editing is more fundamental than I first thought: 2 Timothy 3 (Godlessness in the Last Days) 1But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. 2People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, 4treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God— 5having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with them.

He states that since the other editors do not want to include his statement about the Arrow of Time without a reference, they will be sued:

But, you are going to get WP and yourself sued if you continue to believe WP's rules supercede laws regarding defamation. They raise money, so there are real damages

Everyone is polite to this editor. No one threatens him. No one curses him. He is tolerated.

What should Wikipedia do in this case? What is fair? What is the journalistic thing to do? What is the encyclopedic thing to do? Could someone like this demand that Encyclopedia Britannica include this kind of statement in one of its articles? The New York Times? What sort of chance of success would they have?

My Answer

The demands being presented to him are far from unreasonable. The provision of references is a tantamount foundation of Wikipedia. Discussion is occurring and he is being politely asked to provide something everyone else is required to provide, so no discrimination is going on. That said, several things:

(1) He should cease making this change until it has been fully discussed on the talk page and a consensus has been reached.

(2) If he continues to violate these simple requirements, his account should be suspended for an amount of time and potentially banned at a later date if this continues after several suspensions.

On a personal note, while I can sympathize with being an editor holding a position in the minority here in the Wikipedia community (due to Wikipedia contributor demographics), one must learn to cooperate and work diligently and respectfully with others according to the rules set down by the WP authority to make the edits you believe are important. Bad attitudes and disrespect are not the way to affect change.

[edit] Ghost in the machine

Some people have decided that sometimes ghosts call humans using cellular telephones (i.e., mobile phones). Strange anonymous cell phone calls are said to be caused by phantoms and spirits trying to communicate with the living. Ringing cellular phones during inopportune moments are believed to be caused by mischievous spirits playing tricks on humans. Static during cellular telephone calls is said to be the voices of those from beyond the grave, that can be heard if you listen closely enough. Crosstalk between calls and other phenomena are said to be the results of spectral beings and supernatural influences. Cats that get strange looks on their faces when cell phones ring, or run and hide, are said to able to hear the ghosts. It is claimed that sometimes cats look into the corners of empty rooms watching these phantoms that are present, and invisible to humans.

Several articles on this "Cellular Phantom Phenomenon" (CPP) are written for Wikipedia. Since there are no mainstream scientific studies of CPP, the editors demand that no negative material or mainstream material be presented in the Wikipedia articles on CPP, since there are no mainstream reliable sources. Conventional explanations for CPP and information about how cellular telephones work and the causes of crosstalk and static are dismissed by the proponents of CPP as WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The proponents of CPP maintain that the conventional mainstream scientific explanation must be kept out of the articles on CPP, and refer to those trying to include them as "pseudoskeptics" and "not real scientists" and "close-minded". Efforts to try to balance the article lead to huge disputes about trying to distort WP:NPOV and make it WP:SPOV instead, which some claim is an abuse of the policies of Wikipedia.

What should these articles on CPP in Wikipedia look like? Does mainstream science have any place in these Wikipedia CPP articles? What should Wikipedia do in this case? Can the rules of WP:FRINGE be applied or is that inappropriate and unfair?

My Answer

Similar to some of my previous answers, all points of view on the subject of CPP should be included, as long as everything is presented in a neutral fashion with reliable sources included. If there are no reliable sources, simply summarize the position of CPP proponents using one or two of the best available sources and leave it at that. If any "unreliable" or "first party" sources are used for any reason, they should be clearly presented as such in the article.

[edit] Take me to your Leader Extraterrestrial Shape-shifting Reptile

David Icke is one of a suprisingly large group of people that believe that most of the world's leaders, from Bill Clinton, Hillary Rodham Clinton and George W. Bush to members of the British Royal Family, are blood drinking shapeshifting reptilian humanoids from the Alpha Draconis star system. A little investigation reveals that there are literally dozens of books and videos on this subject, including a number that purport to present "proof" of the truth of these claims. There are also thousands of websites on this subject matter and many many people who believe this to be completely true, and supported by immense bodies of incontrovertable and irrefutable evidence.

An editor appears on Wikipedia and wants to include a paragraph or two in the biographies of many politicians around the world alluding to the fact that these politicians are in fact secretly shape-shifting extraterrestrial lizards of some kind. This editor links to one or more of the sources that are claimed to provide "proof" for these allegations. This editor wants to include this material in several hundred Wikipedia biographies. This editor protests vehemently about any efforts to remove this material from Wikipedia articles. This editor angrily denounces Wikipedia as unfair and biased, and the removal of this material as evidence that Jimbo and Arbcomm and many of the admins on Wikipedia are also shapeshifting extraterrestrial reptiles, conspiring to keep this information secret and from the public.

What should Wikipedia do in this case? What would be fair and reasonable? Should Wikipedia allow these claims only in the biographies of politicians and leaders that are already deceased, to avoid problems with WP:BLP? What is the best course of action, and most journalistic and encyclopedic and ethical? How does one avoid offending this editor? What if this editor is joined by 50 others with the same agenda so they can overwhelm any minor response by Wikipedia editors? What sort of precedent would this set? Are the rules of Wikipedia important in this situation or not? Should they be ignored? Whose rules should be applied and when, to which cases?

My Response

Let me summarize the situation as I see it:

- This subject is highly controversial

- Both sides appear to have a large number of reliable sources, including scientifically supportable evidence

- Both sides are potentially able to argue from a majority standpoint

- The object of the discussion is around adding this additional controversial information to hundreds biographies

The nature of the situation makes it fairly easy to choose a course of action. In situations where evidence is forensic in nature or very few reliable sources exist, things are much more difficult. Here is the suggested course of action in this case:

(1) Determine the "proven" method for determining who is and who is not a member of this alien race

(2) Test this method for scientific accuracy

(3A) If this method proves to be a scientifically accurate determiner of who is and who is not a member of this alien race, proceed to make the requested changes to the articles of members proven to be members of this race. If it is found to be scientifically provable that members of the human race are alien reptiles from the Alpha Draconis star system and a majority of the world population still remains skeptical, you may consider presenting both sides of the argument "as-is" instead of as fact, in each biography. For example, in G.W. Bush's biography: "Many members of society believe, and have provided substantial proof that G.W. Bush is an alien reptile from the Alpha Draconis star system." An entire section on this may even be warranted, again depending on how controversial and the subject matter and how divided the community consensus is.

(3B) If this method proves to be false, deny the request until they can provide a scientifically verifiable method of determining who is and who is not a reptile and thus warrants editing their biography.

[edit] Related to a saint

Oacan was an editor whose aunt compiled Oacan's family genealogical history in the 1950s. Oacan's aunt claimed that Oacan's family was descended from the brother of a well known 15th century saint. Oacan then altered the Wikipedia article about the 15th century saint drastically and aggressively, for over a year, to support the claim his aunt had made in the family genealogy. Oacan removed any discussion that was contrary to this claim of his aunt, and any sources that contradicted this claim. Oacan drove off several other contributors because he insisted on creating a biography that supported his aunt's claims and "altering" the Wikipedia articles to do so.

However, Oacan's aunt's genealogy was never published, or checked by a professional genealogist. It also appears to contradict several published reliable sources. In addition, Oacan's aunt's genealogy has gaps in it as long as 95 years.

In this case, what should Wikipedia do? What is fair to Oacan? What is fair to everyone else? Should Wikipedia go with the published material from reliable sources, even if it hurts this editor's feelings? What about the ethical issues? What would a good journalist do?

My Answer

There are two issues here, Oacan's editing behavior and the handling of conflicting reliable sources. All reliable sources should be given credence in the article. The removal of reliable sources should be discouraged and possibly penalized in the case of repeated offenders. All cases should be discussed under Talk and the appropriate action should be taken. In the case of contradicting reliable sources, all sources should be referenced in the article but the position with the greater number of reliable sources should be given greater weight. In the case of a source providing conclusive evidence, these should be given weight over those who are inconclusive.

Ideally, if the article is edited correctly from a neutral standpoint, presenting the facts surrounding all reliable sources, the appropriate weight will inherently become evident in the article with intentionally having to balance out the article on the basis of WP:UNDUE.

[edit] I make my own rules

One editor who was fond of WP:FRINGE theories such as conspiracy theories and alien abduction theories, and edited articles on these topics on Wikipedia, decided that he disagreed with the standard interpretations of Wikipedia principles like WP:NOR and WP:RS and WP:NPOV. So he wrote his own versions of these policies. He altered all these standard policies to make them more friendly to WP:FRINGE topics, contrary to community consensus and rulings of Arbcomm, etc.

Then this editor proceeded to send out his own "welcoming statements" to new Wikipedia editors, with links to his nonstandard altered versions of Wikipedia policies, similar to the procedure normally followed for new Wikipedia editors.

What is appropriate in this case? Can someone decide unilaterally to design their own policy statements, contrary to those of the community? What is the ethical thing to do? What is the reasonable thing to do in this case?

My Answer

Excuse my ignorance of the Wikipedia power structure, but (I'm assuming) the ultimate authority in the Wikipedia community comes from those paying the bills in order to host the servers, etc. The authority over the community flows downhill from here. If those with established authority over the editor in question (whether it be democratic or dictatorial) are in agreement as to established rules for editing in the community, and the editor in question is in violation of those rules. Then the appropriate action should be taken. The user should receive a warning and request-to-cease, then face possible suspension and blocking/banning if the behavior continues. Users should not be able to unilaterally decide their own rules, chaos would ensue.