User:Thomas Basboll/AGF Challenge
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Many claim that there is a group of editors at Wikipedia who make bad decisions or act in a rude and unethical fashion. It is alleged that these Wikipedia editors use the wrong approaches, and that they must change.
In particular, the charge is frequently levelled that too many established editors on Wikipedia are unfair, and are unCIVIL, and do too much BITEing and if they would just AGF more, everything would be ok. There is a lot of advice given, and there are a lot of complaints.
This set of exercises is based on typical Wikipedia editing situations in controversial areas. Decide how you think that Wikipedia editors should handle each of these.
Note: Although all of these are inspired by real situations, the details of some of them have been altered slightly to obscure the identities of those involved
Contents |
[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?
[edit] My answer
I am assuming that the books themselves are available from reputable publishers (i.e., are not self-published or horribly out of print). Just to be sure (though this presupposes I'm interested in this author), I might get my library to find a copy of some of them and see what it actually says on them. I am also assuming that there has been no public controversy about the authorship of the books. (The author's position here is very puzzling and one imagines that there is a divorce involved and that the author originally "shared" credit with is wife out of a fondness for her that he now no longer feels. But, like I say, for the purpose of this challenge, I'm assuming that none of that story can be reliably sourced.) The answer, in that case, seems to be to let the claim about co-authorship stand and let him sue WP. I can't imagine he would win, but, if he did, I am assuming that court ruling would be implemented according to WP:BLP.
[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?
[edit] My answer
Am I right to assume that the article provides no sources? If so, it seems natural to nominate it for deletion. It would also be a good idea to notify whoever created the article and explain that the material does not seem notable. The multiple choice version of this challenge makes an interesting suggestion, which might also be suggested to the editor who created the article: introduce a section on the library in the Smithville article. I would not do it myself because there are no sources to base the section on and I know nothing about the material. But as part of the deletion discussion (assuming there is any serious resistance), this might offer a good compromise. It could be considered an application of WP:BOLD. Presumably editors working on the Smithville article will be in a better position to evaluate the material.
While not quite the same sort of case, I'm basing my answer here on my experience with the deletion of the Nicholas Rockeffer article.
[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?
[edit] My answer
This case starts with the assumption that Johnson is notable. If that is true there is nothing to do but write the biography that emerges from a study of reliable sources. Much of this case consists of a description of original resarch, not research for an encyclopedia article. If Johnson really is very notable, and I really were interested in him, I might try to write a paper to submit to an appropriate journal. That paper, if published, would then of course be an RS for the article.
In real life, I happen to know that a prominent member of my field is a plagiarist. He has an article in WP and I have published a paper in a very peripheral on-line journal describing a single case. The journal also published a short reply from the plagiarist. I have not edited his WP article to the effect that "NN was recently accused of plagiarising his account of X from MM." The reason for this is that the WP article is very underdeveloped at the present and the "scandal" has not rippled the surface of the field in the least. Like I say, the journal that published my accusation was not a high-impact one. While arguably RS, the inclusion of the material would probably violate WP:UNDUE, especially given the current state of the article. (That he is a plagiarist would be virtually all the reader would learn about him. Which would be very unfair.) Next month, however, I will be submitting a more detailed study, involving more cases, to a very established journal in the field. If it is published there, I would consider adding it. But it would require developing the rest of the article as well, in part because the importance of a case of plagiarism depends on the status of the plagiarist in the field.
[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?
[edit] My answer
My own preference is to quietly and politely revert his edits and hope he stops making them. Depending on how obnoxious his talk page comments get, I might also "slow revert" them (perhaps while archiving). I would avoid doing anything that seems like an engagement with this editor, i.e., anything that suggests the idea needs to be discussed. At some point, persistence comes to appear compulsive, perhaps even mechanical (I imagine one can rig up a bot to make a daily edit?). Then, of course, blocking should be considered. I would contact an uninvolved admit to that end.
[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?
[edit] My answer
It is not clear whether there is any mainstream journalistic or sociological interest in this phenomenon. If there is a "conventional mainstream scientific explanation" of CPP phenomena then there must be scientific studies of it of some kind (but the terms of this case say there are no such studies). Are there scientific studies of the belief in CPP? That would obviously be the thing to look for. If nothing turns up, either in electrical engineering, sociology, or mainstream journalism, I don't see how any claims about CPP could be reliably sourced.
Assuming that the only back-and-forth between proponents and opponents is happening online, and on the talk-pages of the article in question, then I would recommend not discussing it any further. But if there is some reasonably mainstream forum in which this issue is being discussed, i.e., if it can be reasonably presented as a widespread belief in a particular cultural context, then the article should describe it as such.
[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?
[edit] My answer
This one is fun. The article edits should, of course, be reverted and, since we are talking about one guy, with a pretty broad mission (lots of articles where he would want to push this) it should be relatively convenient just to revert the edit every time it is made until he goes away.
But I can imagine a more sophisticated pusher of this POV. This is someone who would suggest adding "It has been alleged that NN is actually a descendant of alien reptiles..." and a paragraph detailing the allegations (not the fact). The reason not to allow this, I will presume, is that no real biographer has dealt with this allegation. Compare: "While NN claims to have risen from humble beginnings, most of his biographers agree that his family was comfortably middle class throughout his childhood and early adulthood." Which could be sourced. The key here is to keep the article within the spectrum of scholarly opinion.
Keep in mind that the Clintons, Bushes and royals completely ignore the notion that they might regularly drink the blood of virgins to keep their human form. In the unlikely event that Bill Clinton sued Icke for defamation (we can almost here him saying it, can't we? "I am not a lizzard!" or (hee hee) "I did not swallow [the blood]!" his biographers would have to take some notice. Depending on how they dealt with it. The allegation might suddenly be RS includable.
As for the editors accusation about WP admins, etc., it obviously reflects less on them than on him. Like the people Icke accuses, there is no reason to engage with such claims. In fact, the more strongly he believes them, the more we must question his sanity and we must therefore treat him as one treats all such people. Patiently and politely. At some point he may, of course, have to be blocked. In part, for his own sake.
[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?
[edit] My answer
Oacan's theory is OR and lacks RS. It should not have any influence on the article. It is puzzling how his presence could have driven anyone off. Oacanesque editors are a recurrent and predictable feature of many articles; they should be reverted as soon as they begin pushing their theory without reliable sources. Given his obsession, however, Oacan might be quite knowledgeable about the Saint, even about the received view that his aunt's research has tried to overturn. It may be possible to get him to contribute his knowledge in a constructive manner. It doesn't seem likely, mind you, given the case.
But I'm sort of incredulous about the realism of this case. How could Oacan have "altered the article drastically" without those edits being able to win consensus? I have never seen that happen.
[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?
[edit] My answer
He is of course free to try change policies by editing the pages on them. But he has, as I understand it, been reverted and the current version of those pages are very much at odds with the consensus, i.e., the actual policy. The links to the non-standard versions are essentially fraudulent. While it should quickly become clear even to a new editor that he is reading an outdated version, I think he should be warned to stop the practice immediately. If he is an established editor (and should know better) something more serious should perhaps be done right away. In any case, if he continues after being warned, he might have to blocked or banned.
My experience in this area is limited. The closest I can come is the page on single purpose accounts. I am a single purpose account, so, like this imagined fringer and OR and RS, I have an obvious interest in what the page says. I have participated in discussions and edited the page. At one point I realized why I was especially keen to make it "SPA friendly". It had been tagged, not as an essay, but as a "information page". No such thing actually exists at Wikipedia, as far as I was able to tell, and the tag was homemade. The best way forward, to my mind, is to propose the page as a "guideline" (which is a real category of pages) and then adjust it in whatever way necessary to make sufficiently conform with the policies it is a guide to the application of.
