User:Warhorus/AGF Challenge Exercise Answers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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?

To me it seems like this is an especially sensitive case. Anytime the ugly specter of WP:BLP pops up, there feels like there's an extra level of tension. To me, this tension tends to aggravate editorial conflicts that might have been solved civilly in another article. However, as an encyclopedia, we have an ethical duty to present a comprehensive repository of knowledge on our chosen subject matter. As a prolific author (assuming of course that the books themselves meet the definition of noteworthy), the author should most likely have an article on Wikipedia. So the issue needs to be confined strictly to the contentious fact. The body of evidence overwhelmingly seems to support the idea that he authored his 10 books by himself, however we do have a source that contradicts them and that cannot be casually ignored. If the biography itself is a trustworthy source (isn't a fringe publication, for example), then I believe it should be used. My solution would be to assert that he wrote the 10 books himself, but also include the fact that this is disputed by the biography. To draw the situation to a close, I would follow up by looking into the allegation itself, who has supported it, who has debated it, etc.

[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?

Obviously something like this would need a tremendous amount of work to bring it in line with desired quality levels, however the immediate concern is notability. Upon reading an article like this it seems pretty apparent that the notability is questionable and since a honest internet search bore up no fruit either, I'd say that the notability had moved from questionable to very suspect. However, in the effort of WP:AGF, I would refrain from nominating for deletion. Instead the author should be given a chance to prove notability, and an effort should be made to make him aware of this request, either by leaving a note on the discussion page of the article or the author's discussion page. If the author could provide it, then work would have to be done to clean up problems of style, grammar, and WP:NPOV. If he couldn't within a reasonable time frame, then the article should be nom'ed for deletion, per notability.

[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?

The ethical considerations of being an academic resource such as an encyclopedia demand that the article be above all other things accurate. Better no information than bad information. Having done the research, I would provide all the information that I could provide for the article, regardless of whether or not "Doc" Johnson wanted the information in there, as long as the information I was putting into the article could be sourced. Since Johnson is still alive, the particularly strict tenants of the WP:BLP apply, and as the majority of information gathered on Johnson wasn't particularly flatter special care must be taken to make sure everything is meticulously referenced. This way, if Johnson did threaten to sue it would be simple to point out the validity of the information. As long as the information is valid and established, there should be no worry of any legitimate legal action being brought around.

Also, in typing up the article, special attention should be payed to NPOV. With the material at hand it would be very easy to unconsciously taint the tone of the article. The information must be presented appropriately, avoiding flat statements such as "Johnson did not go to school X." Instead it should be presented in such a way as there can be no question why the negative information is relevant to the subject, "For many years Johnson claimed to have gone to school x [source], however in 20xx the Dean released...". It is important to have all the information there, but it hurts Wikipedia credibility if it just comes off as a slam piece.

[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?

The idea of assuming good faith can unfortunately only go so far. If a person made these demands of Encyclopedia Britannica or the New York Times, they would be laughed out of the offices. The only reason that this is an issue, in my eyes, is the open nature of Wikipedia. It is assumed good practice (at the minimum) to attempt to entertain every point of view on a subject, if at all possible. However, these positions do have to be positions which come from reliable sources in cases such as above. an academic position is being discussed and academic sources must be provided. From the description, the community surrounding the article has been very patient with what sounds like a very volatile editor. Unfortunately, there comes a point where assuming good faith has moved from helping the article to hindering it. By allowing the editor to continue in the spirit of AGF, the article will suffer the continued edit-revert cycle. Furthermore it will continue to be a drain on the time of the other editors, keeping them from more important duties both within and without Wikipedia. In this case, it seems that the assistance of an admin would be necessary, most likely by suspending/banning the troublesome editor or by at least instructing him to cease-and-desist with his efforts to get the idea into the article.

[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?

If enough of a community can be established to show notability then the subject has a place on Wikipedia. If there aren't some credible sources out there, then most likely the subject should be mentioned in other pages, such as pages explaining how cellphones work with CPP mentioned as a dissenting view. If a small section of credible sources CAN be found then, it should get it's own article. However, in my honest opinion, the editors of these articles do not have the right to forbid the discussion of mainstream sciences' dissent with their viewpoint. Failing that, they certainly don't have the right to declare that these counter-subjects cannot even be mentioned. An important feature of NPOV is the discussion of multiple points of view on a subject, by limiting the discussion to only the community around the subject, they have caused a strong bias. Mainstream science offers up a counter-explanation to the phenomenon, and while NPOV prevents us from favoring one over the other until we have sources to justify this (such as an article called "No such thing as CPP! Mainstream science turns out to be correct!" found in a magazine), we should discuss both.

[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?

I found this one to be the hardest case. Since there is a community built up that believes this, it's most likely a notable view. If their evidence appears anywhere that can be sourced (I'm assuming for the sake of argument it does, this case is less interesting if it doesn't), then the argument's got weight. However, I think a strong case can be made for relevance. Putting out a blanket statement in the biographies of every major world leader going back 500 years is not only impractical, but it's also terribly redundant and poor style. If the community has information that can be sourced regarding a particular politician then I would personally be alright with it's inclusion in that politicians biography. However, if all they have is a blanket allegation, then I do not think that it belongs in the biography. Let them make up a article devoted to the subject. However, if they don't have specific proof regarding a specific politician/VIP, they should not mention that person by name but instead should be satisfied to just present evidence to support a blanket statement.

[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?

I believe that in this case, we have some established, sourced evidence to suggest that Oacan's aunt is wrong, and none to support that he is right. It is unfortunate for Oacan, but in this case I do not believe that any of his changes regarding the saint's genealogy should be kept. If he later comes up with some proof from reliable sources to support the idea, then the situation will change. Obviously the situation should be handled delicately. Oacan shouldn't just be told a flat out no, but the idea of why should be explained. However, if he continues to fight it, this might be another example of when admin intervention is necessary, especially given the fact that Oacan has already been aggressive about the changes, including driving off "several other contributors".

[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?

I feel like this is a very serious offense. It undermines the entire idea of policy making by communal consensus that is so key to the principles of the Wikipedia community. I would go so far to claim such an action as subversive. Such actions I feel should warrant immediate admin intervention. A strong warning issued, along with rational, and on continued offense, a ban.