<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
There's an interesting article out in the current issue of the
Chronicle:<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://chronicle.com/article/The-Undue-Weight-of-Truth-on/130704/">http://chronicle.com/article/The-Undue-Weight-of-Truth-on/130704/</a><br>
<br>
It's behind a paywall, but in the spirit of fair use and in keeping
with the author's intent (the article is on Wikipedia, and I believe
the author would want to have us discuss it) I reproduce it here:<br>
<br>
<h1>The 'Undue Weight' of Truth on Wikipedia</h1>
<div id="article-body" class="article-body">
<p class="byline">By Timothy Messer-Kruse</p>
<p>For the past 10 years I've immersed myself in the details of
one of the most famous events in American labor history, the
Haymarket riot and trial of 1886. Along the way I've written two
books and a couple of articles about the episode. In some
circles that affords me a presumption of expertise on the
subject. Not, however, on Wikipedia.</p>
<p>The bomb thrown during an anarchist rally in Chicago sparked
America's first Red Scare, a high-profile show trial, and a
worldwide clemency movement for the seven condemned men. Today
the martyrs' graves are a national historic site, the location
of the bombing is marked by a public sculpture, and the event is
recounted in most American history textbooks. Its Wikipedia
entry is detailed and elaborate.</p>
<p>A couple of years ago, on a slow day at the office, I decided
to experiment with editing one particularly misleading assertion
chiseled into the Wikipedia article. The description of the
trial stated, "The prosecution, led by Julius Grinnell, did not
offer evidence connecting any of the defendants with the
bombing. ... "</p>
<p>Coincidentally, that is the claim that initially hooked me on
the topic. In 2001 I was teaching a labor-history course, and
our textbook contained nearly the same wording that appeared on
Wikipedia. One of my students raised her hand: "If the trial
went on for six weeks and no evidence was presented, what did
they talk about all those days?" I've been working to answer her
question ever since.</p>
<p>I have not resolved all the mysteries that surround the
bombing, but I have dug deeply enough to be sure that the claim
that the trial was bereft of evidence is flatly wrong. One
hundred and eighteen witnesses were called to testify, many of
them unindicted co-conspirators who detailed secret meetings
where plans to attack police stations were mapped out, coded
messages were placed in radical newspapers, and bombs were
assembled in one of the defendants' rooms.</p>
<p>In what was one of the first uses of forensic chemistry in an
American courtroom, the city's foremost chemists showed that the
metallurgical profile of a bomb found in one of the anarchists'
homes was unlike any commercial metal but was similar in
composition to a piece of shrapnel cut from the body of a slain
police officer. So overwhelming was the evidence against one of
the defendants that his lawyers even admitted that their client
spent the afternoon before the Haymarket rally building bombs,
arguing that he was acting in self-defense.</p>
<p>So I removed the line about there being "no evidence" and
provided a full explanation in Wikipedia's behind-the-scenes
editing log. Within minutes my changes were reversed. The
explanation: "You must provide reliable sources for your
assertions to make changes along these lines to the article."</p>
<p>That was curious, as I had cited the documents that proved my
point, including verbatim testimony from the trial published
online by the Library of Congress. I also noted one of my own
peer-reviewed articles. One of the people who had assumed the
role of keeper of this bit of history for Wikipedia quoted the
Web site's "undue weight" policy, which states that "articles
should not give minority views as much or as detailed a
description as more popular views." He then scolded me. "You
should not delete information supported by the majority of
sources to replace it with a minority view."</p>
<p>The "undue weight" policy posed a problem. Scholars have been
publishing the same ideas about the Haymarket case for more than
a century. The last published bibliography of titles on the
subject has 1,530 entries.</p>
<p>"Explain to me, then, how a 'minority' source with facts on its
side would ever appear against a wrong 'majority' one?" I asked
the Wiki-gatekeeper. He responded, "You're more than welcome to
discuss reliable sources here, that's what the talk page is for.
However, you might want to have a quick look at Wikipedia's
civility policy."</p>
<p>I tried to edit the page again. Within 10 seconds I was
informed that my citations to the primary documents were
insufficient, as Wikipedia requires its contributors to rely on
secondary sources, or, as my critic informed me, "published
books." Another editor cheerfully tutored me in what this means:
"Wikipedia is not 'truth,' Wikipedia is 'verifiability' of
reliable sources. Hence, if most secondary sources which are
taken as reliable happen to repeat a flawed account or
description of something, Wikipedia will echo that."</p>
<p>Tempted to win simply through sheer tenacity, I edited the page
again. My triumph was even more fleeting than before. Within
seconds the page was changed back. The reason: "reverting
possible vandalism." Fearing that I would forever have to wear
the scarlet letter of Wikipedia vandal, I relented but noted
with some consolation that in the wake of my protest, the
editors made a slight gesture of reconciliation—they added the
word "credible" so that it now read, "The prosecution, led by
Julius Grinnell, did not offer credible evidence connecting any
of the defendants with the bombing. ... " Though that was still
inaccurate, I decided not to attempt to correct the entry again
until I could clear the hurdles my anonymous interlocutors had
set before me.</p>
<p>So I waited two years, until my book on the trial was
published. "Now, at last, I have a proper Wikipedia leg to stand
on," I thought as I opened the page and found at least a dozen
statements that were factual errors, including some that
contradicted their own cited sources. I found myself hesitant to
write, eerily aware that the self-deputized protectors of the
page were reading over my shoulder, itching to revert my edits
and tutor me in Wiki-decorum. I made a small edit, testing the
waters.</p>
<p>My improvement lasted five minutes before a Wiki-cop scolded
me, "I hope you will familiarize yourself with some of
Wikipedia's policies, such as verifiability and undue weight. If
all historians save one say that the sky was green in 1888, our
policies require that we write 'Most historians write that the
sky was green, but one says the sky was blue.' ... As individual
editors, we're not in the business of weighing claims, just
reporting what reliable sources write."</p>
<p>I guess this gives me a glimmer of hope that someday, perhaps
before another century goes by, enough of my fellow scholars
will adopt my views that I can change that Wikipedia entry.
Until then I will have to continue to shout that the sky was
blue.</p>
<p class="author-blurb">Timothy Messer-Kruse is a professor in the
School of Cultural and Critical Studies at Bowling Green State
University. He is author of The Trial of the Haymarket
Anarchists: Terrorism and Justice in the Gilded Age (Palgrave
Macmillan, 2011) and The Haymarket Conspiracy: Transatlantic
Anarchist Networks, to be published later this year by the
University of Illinois Press.<br>
</p>
<p class="author-blurb">---<br>
</p>
<p class="author-blurb">Two things that the article relates to,
currently happening/ in proposal:<br>
</p>
<p class="author-blurb">A discussion on oral citations (recently
revived):
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Oral_Citations">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Oral_Citations</a><br>
</p>
<p class="author-blurb">A proposal to examine citations, including
the use of 'primary sources':
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Fellowships/Project_Ideas/InCite">http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Fellowships/Project_Ideas/InCite</a><br>
</p>
<p class="author-blurb">---<br>
</p>
<p class="author-blurb">Cheers,<br>
Achal<br>
</p>
</div>
<br>
</body>
</html>