Slim writes:
One of the problems with 3RR-policy enforcement is that admins are supposed to treat equally the editor who is inserting an unreferenced, unsubstantiated claim, and the editor who is trying to get rid of that claim. One is violating [[Wikipedia:Cite sources]] policy, while the other is trying to enforce it. Yet both are blocked. If the editor trying to enforce policy isn't allowed to violate 3RR, then s/he must go through dispute resolution; put up an RfC (which rarely brings useful results); or apply for mediation (which can take months to arrange). Meanwhile the nonsense sits there for 24 hours; then maybe there's another brief flurry of reverts, then it sits there for another 24 hours; and this can go on for weeks, until the less determined editor backs off. If the process takes priority over the product, that's fine.
Right - and the process should never take precedence over the product. We must remember that the goal of Wikipedia is to produce a trusted, accurate, free encyclopedia. The goal has never been to make a list of rules to blindly follow for their own sake.
That's why we have group discussions, and don't enforce policy with 'bots.
But if it's the production of an accurate encylopedia that is the priority, then this is not fine. Surely, for this reason, when looking at 3RR violations, admins should be allowed to take into account who was violating Wikipedia's editorial content policies and who was trying to preserve them.
Thank you for putting into words what I was hoping someone would say. I agree wholeheartedly. Some people make 3+ reverts (effectively a fourth or more reverts) in order to damage Wikipedia, or to blatantly violate our NPOV policy. Long-time trusted Wikipedia contributors on occasions have to fix this damage, which sometimes requires reverts. Blindly following the 3RR policy without taking context into account is not sensible; it gives an edge to vandals and POV-pushers.
If our goal is to create an accurate encyclopedia, then we are obligated to use some common sense in deciding when to punish someone for violating the 3RR rule...or when to say "Good job, you stopped this damage, and now the calvary can come in and prevent further damage from the person you are dealing with."
Smoddy writes:
If an editor has reverted a page three times in a 24 hour period, with the exception of **blatant** vandalism, they
should be blocked. Period. This ensures even-handedness.
No, this does not ensure even-handedness. It only ensures that trouble-makers are given a way to effectively cause enough trouble to ban or block geunine and trusted contributors. Blindly following rules for the sake of following rules is an anathema to every legal and rule-based system in the world, whether political, religious or technical. We should not be Wikipedia-fundamentalists. Surely Slim is correct in saying that we need to allow common-sense, at least on occasion.
Sincerely,
Robert (RK)
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Easier than ever with enhanced search. Learn more. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
Robert said:
Slim writes:
One of the problems with 3RR-policy enforcement is that admins are supposed to treat equally the editor who is inserting an unreferenced, unsubstantiated claim, and the editor who is trying to get rid of that claim.
Seems reasonable.
One is violating [[Wikipedia:Cite sources]] policy, while the other is trying to enforce it.
Bad example. [[Wikipedia:Cite sources]] is a content guideline, not a policy. Besides, this kind of thing should be worked out on the talk page, not by engaging in an edit war. To spell it out: even if someone is (short of outright vandalism) disobeying policy, the first thing to do is have a word with him about what he's doing. Edit warring is wrong even if you know you're right.
Yet both are blocked.
Good. I believe that is how the 3RR blocks are intended to work.
If the editor trying to enforce policy isn't allowed to violate 3RR, then s/he must go through dispute resolution; put up an RfC (which rarely brings useful results); or apply for mediation (which can take months to arrange).
Or alternatively just tell the other editor what the problem is.
Meanwhile the nonsense sits there for 24 hours;
Twenty-four whole hours! Horrors! There are uncited statements in nearly every article on Wikipedia, some of which have been in for over a year. If something is unsourced, search for a source and add it. If something is nonsense and the original editor doesn't see it that way, someone else will come along and fix it. If they don't, just put a note on a friend's talk page and ask them to have a look at it. There is no excuse for revert warring.
Tony Sidaway wrote
Bad example. [[Wikipedia:Cite sources]] is a content guideline, not a policy. Besides, this kind of thing should be worked out on the talk page, not by engaging in an edit war. To spell it out: even if someone is (short of outright vandalism) disobeying policy, the first thing to do is have a word with him about what he's doing. Edit warring is wrong even if you know you're right.
Yet both are blocked.
Good. I believe that is how the 3RR blocks are intended to work.
Not to sound unnecessarily hostile. But it does often seem to me that RK argues as if putting down markers for some future edit war. Tony rightly argues that we have a policy, which has very general support in its current form. It encourages a patient, measured approach. Trying to shade it in favour of the marginally-less-unreasonable party in an edit war is not something I'd support.
Charles
If you make four reverts in 24 hours, you break the 3RR. To quote [[WP:3RR]]:
"In the cases where multiple parties violate the rule, sysops should treat all sides equally."
However good your intentions, if you don't strictly abide by the rule, you must take the punishment. If you break the 3RR, you break policy. If we apply the rules one way for some people and another for others, chaos will ensue. If we apply policy objectively, then no-one can make accusations of favoritism.
Smoddy
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 16:35:36 -0000, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Tony Sidaway wrote
Bad example. [[Wikipedia:Cite sources]] is a content guideline, not a policy. Besides, this kind of thing should be worked out on the talk page, not by engaging in an edit war. To spell it out: even if someone is (short of outright vandalism) disobeying policy, the first thing to do is have a word with him about what he's doing. Edit warring is wrong even if you know you're right.
Yet both are blocked.
Good. I believe that is how the 3RR blocks are intended to work.
Not to sound unnecessarily hostile. But it does often seem to me that RK argues as if putting down markers for some future edit war. Tony rightly argues that we have a policy, which has very general support in its current form. It encourages a patient, measured approach. Trying to shade it in favour of the marginally-less-unreasonable party in an edit war is not something I'd support.
Charles
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
However good your intentions, if you don't strictly abide by the rule, you must take the punishment. If you break the 3RR, you break policy. If we apply the rules one way for some people and another for others, chaos will ensue. If we apply policy objectively, then no-one can make accusations of favoritism.
Smoddy
Absolutely. If your edits really are the editorially correct thing for the article, it should be no problem to get someone else to revert with you. Thus only the allegedly irrational party of an edit war will break the 3RR, but not the supposedly NPOV editors do. Applying the 3RR to individuals and not "versions" is a kind of built-in safety in my opinion.
Already people make excuses for breaking the rule, and I don't think we should legitimize them.
Cool Hand Luke wrote:
Absolutely. If your edits really are the editorially correct thing for the article, it should be no problem to get someone else to revert with you. Thus only the allegedly irrational party of an edit war will break the 3RR, but not the supposedly NPOV editors do.
Unless, of course, it's one of the many thousands of Wikipedia articles that are not watched by any other active editors, in which case it's just you against the other editor. I supposed you could take the issue to Wikipedia:RFC, where the conflict could be ignored just as most other article content conflicts are ignored.
Jay.
JAY JG said:
Cool Hand Luke wrote:
Absolutely. If your edits really are the editorially correct thing for the article, it should be no problem to get someone else to revert with you. Thus only the allegedly irrational party of an edit war will break the 3RR, but not the supposedly NPOV editors do.
Unless, of course, it's one of the many thousands of Wikipedia articles that are not watched by any other active editors, in which case it's just you against the other editor. I supposed you could take the issue to Wikipedia:RFC, where the conflict could be ignored just as most other article content conflicts are ignored.
Jay.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 16:17:47 -0000 (GMT), Tony Sidaway minorityreport@bluebottle.com wrote:
Slim writes:
One of the problems with 3RR-policy enforcement is that admins are supposed to treat equally the editor who is inserting an unreferenced, unsubstantiated claim, and the editor who is trying to get rid of that claim. One is violating [[Wikipedia:Cite sources]] policy, while the other is trying to enforce it.
Bad example. [[Wikipedia:Cite sources]] is a content guideline, not a policy.
Tony, [[Wikipedia:Cite sources]] may only be a guideline, but it's inextricably linked to [[Wikipedia:No original research]], which is policy, because the only way you can show that an edit isn't original research is to produce a reputable source.
Some of the editors writing in this thread seem to believe there are teams of editors willing to delete original research wherever they find it, so that no editor is ever left isolated dealing with a POV pusher who's inserting nonsense. That just isn't true, and while I agree with that 24 hours is not a long time for one error to exist on Wikipedia, we're not talking about one error, or one 24-hour period, but multiples of both.
Maybe it would be a good idea to form a team of "no original research" checkers who have the right to violate 3RR, and on whom any editor could call for help in the case of a revert war triggered by an editor adding unreferenced claims. The job of this team would be to ask for a reference and then to determine whether the reference offered was a reputable one. If not, the team would have the right to keep reverting until the POV pusher got fed up.
Slim
slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote
Tony, [[Wikipedia:Cite sources]] may only be a guideline, but it's inextricably linked to [[Wikipedia:No original research]], which is policy, because the only way you can show that an edit isn't original research is to produce a reputable source.
Doesn't that get back to over-interpreting 'original research'? Which was discussed at length here, a while ago. I distrust statements of this kind, on principle. Anyway it is a poor description of what goes on. A one-line deduction from known facts is obviously not 'original research', whether or not you can cite someone else having already done it. Such things are the small change of doing the research for an article. (Obviously if I read that A is the son of B, I deduce that B is the parent of A; put a few such trivial moves together and you get conclusions which are possibly novel.)
Charles
Tony, [[Wikipedia:Cite sources]] may only be a guideline, but it's inextricably linked to [[Wikipedia:No original research]], which is policy, because the only way you can show that an edit isn't original research is to produce a reputable source.
Doesn't that get back to over-interpreting 'original research'? Which was discussed at length here, a while ago. I distrust statements of this kind, on principle. Anyway it is a poor description of what goes on. A one-line deduction from known facts is obviously not 'original research', whether or not you can cite someone else having already done it. Such things are the small change of doing the research for an article. (Obviously if I read that A is the son of B, I deduce that B is the parent of A; put a few such trivial moves together and you get conclusions which are possibly novel.)
It's easy to make this kind of argument when citing trivial facts. However, most of the original research inserted in these articles is more on the order of "George Bush knew there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but he lied to the American public and invaded anyway, in order to finish the job his father started, and to restore his family honor".
Jay.
JAY JG wrote
However, most of the original research inserted in these articles is more on the order of "George Bush knew there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but he lied to the American public and invaded anyway, in order to finish the job his father started, and to restore his family honor".
When something is already unverifiable, highly partisan POV, I wonder why it needs to be labelled 'original research' as well. That's not what OR was initially about, really, i.e. personal speculations/crank theories. The cited instance is more naturally treated just as POV; it can be 'neutered' by a specific citation of someone writing the thought (which we've all read 100 times) somewhere.
In any case, concentrating on contentious politics/contemporary history in the making is not necessarily going to produce a good set of general encyclopedia-building principles. NPOV rules; otherwise one is back to source-criticism and imputing motives.
Charles
The reason for differentiating original research from POV material is that original research may be removed entirely while to satisfy the Neutral Point Of View policy POV material must be included and attributed if there are reliable references which take that point of view or comment on it. It is never of question of cleverly "neutering" POV material, that would be a POV violation itself.
I realize this viewpoint is at considerable divergance with the way some folks interpret NPOV, but if you go back and read the policy, it provides for inclusion in articles of all points of view which can be established by reliable references.
Fred
From: "Charles Matthews" charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 08:12:52 -0000 To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] The 3RR policy should not always be blindly followed
JAY JG wrote
However, most of the original research inserted in these articles is more on the order of "George Bush knew there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but he lied to the American public and invaded anyway, in order to finish the job his father started, and to restore his family honor".
When something is already unverifiable, highly partisan POV, I wonder why it needs to be labelled 'original research' as well. That's not what OR was initially about, really, i.e. personal speculations/crank theories. The cited instance is more naturally treated just as POV; it can be 'neutered' by a specific citation of someone writing the thought (which we've all read 100 times) somewhere.
In any case, concentrating on contentious politics/contemporary history in the making is not necessarily going to produce a good set of general encyclopedia-building principles. NPOV rules; otherwise one is back to source-criticism and imputing motives.
Charles
Fred Bauder wrote: The reason for differentiating original research from POV material is that original research may be removed entirely while to satisfy the Neutral Point Of View policy POV material must be included and attributed if there are reliable references which take that point of view or comment on it. It is never of question of cleverly "neutering" POV material, that would be a POV violation itself.
I realize this viewpoint is at considerable divergance with the way some folks interpret NPOV, but if you go back and read the policy, it provides for inclusion in articles of all points of view which can be established by reliable references.
"Reliable references", there's the rub. How do we establish that? Just today I've encountered someone who considered a blog to be a "reliable reference". A couple of days ago it was a "Israelis are Nazis" website. Last week it was a Holocaust Denial website. And of course, these people consider any counter websites you bring to be "unreliable", "POV", "propaganda", etc. What do you do then?
Jay.
JAY JG (jayjg@hotmail.com) [050119 03:52]:
"Reliable references", there's the rub. How do we establish that? Just today I've encountered someone who considered a blog to be a "reliable reference". A couple of days ago it was a "Israelis are Nazis" website. Last week it was a Holocaust Denial website. And of course, these people consider any counter websites you bring to be "unreliable", "POV", "propaganda", etc. What do you do then?
The problems you're raising are problem people, hence not rapidly susceptible to any sort of technical (e.g. revert like crazy) or policy solution. The problem is how to cure POV-pushing.
- d.
JAY JG said:
Fred Bauder wrote: The reason for differentiating original research from POV material is that original research may be removed entirely while to satisfy the Neutral Point Of View policy POV material must be included and attributed if there are reliable references which take that point of view or comment on it. It is never of question of cleverly "neutering" POV material, that would be a POV violation itself.
I realize this viewpoint is at considerable divergance with the way some folks interpret NPOV, but if you go back and read the policy, it provides for inclusion in articles of all points of view which can be established by reliable references.
"Reliable references", there's the rub. How do we establish that? Just today I've encountered someone who considered a blog to be a "reliable reference". A couple of days ago it was a "Israelis are Nazis" website. Last week it was a Holocaust Denial website. And of course, these people consider any counter websites you bring to be "unreliable", "POV", "propaganda", etc. What do you do then?
I think you're missing the point somewhat. If I want to represent a point of view on Wikipedia, say something attributable to Fatah, then of course the best source for a reference would probably be http://www.fateh.org/ , and if I want to represent a point of view that I attribute to Mr Sharon I might cite some Israeli government website as my reference. At the same time the text must be NPOV so that it should draw a clear line between reporting a point of view and endorsing it. Similarly, holocaust denial websites are pretty useful for reporting the views of holocaust deniers, and websites avowing that Israelis are nazis are useful for reporting the views of people who believe that Israelis are nazis. One wouldn't use any of the above sites as authorities on the facts of the situation, and indeed where the facts are credibly disputed it would be inappropriate to represent the contentions of any one party to the dispute as wholly factual.
From: "Tony Sidaway" minorityreport@bluebottle.com I think you're missing the point somewhat. If I want to represent a point of view on Wikipedia, say something attributable to Fatah, then of course the best source for a reference would probably be http://www.fateh.org/ , and if I want to represent a point of view that I attribute to Mr Sharon I might cite some Israeli government website as my reference. At the same time the text must be NPOV so that it should draw a clear line between reporting a point of view and endorsing it. Similarly, holocaust denial websites are pretty useful for reporting the views of holocaust deniers, and websites avowing that Israelis are nazis are useful for reporting the views of people who believe that Israelis are nazis. One wouldn't use any of the above sites as authorities on the facts of the situation, and indeed where the facts are credibly disputed it would be inappropriate to represent the contentions of any one party to the dispute as wholly factual.
The problem is not when people want to use a Holocaust Denial site to represent the views of Holocaust Deniers; the problem is when they want to use it to represent the "truth" about the Holocaust, or Jews, or Zionism, or Israel. And the latter occurs infinitely more often than the former. And while you or I might not use them as authorities on these subjects, many others view them as the *only* NPOV authorities on these subjects.
Jay.
JAY JG wrote:
Fred Bauder wrote: I realize this viewpoint is at considerable divergance with the way some folks interpret NPOV, but if you go back and read the policy, it provides for inclusion in articles of all points of view which can be established by reliable references.
"Reliable references", there's the rub. How do we establish that? Just today I've encountered someone who considered a blog to be a "reliable reference". A couple of days ago it was a "Israelis are Nazis" website. Last week it was a Holocaust Denial website. And of course, these people consider any counter websites you bring to be "unreliable", "POV", "propaganda", etc. What do you do then?
The problem is that "reliable" itself represents a POV, and is not above it. Trashing each other's references is no better than trashing each other's direct comments on the subject. Assuming that it has some relevance to the article, I am not bothered by a link to a Holocaust-denial website, nor to one that takes a contrary view. There is a place for both, though they might be divided into "References for" and "References against" whatever the point in dispute might be.
If it turns out that one of those references is to a site of dubious character, as a Holocaust-denial site might be, we need to trust the user's good judgement without trying to play the role of a parent telling his children what to do.
Ec
The Lyndon LaRouche supporters provide a good example of the way Wikipedia doesn't defend itself well against determined POV pushers. The arbcom ruled that original research emanating from the LaRouche movement may be used on articles "closely related" to LaRouche. A consequence of this is that the article [[Lyndon LaRouche]] now cites claims that LaRouche developed the Star Wars program, properly referenced to someone interviewed on LaRouche cable television. This is just one of scores of similar claims in the 17 articles on the LaRouche template, but you have to be knowledgeable to sort out which claims are LaRouche nonsense, because they're not always as obvious as the Star Wars one.
The LaRouche editors have already been through mediation. The purpose of mediation is to find a middle way between two sides. But this is inappropriate when dealing with someone like LaRouche, whose views border on insanity. The post-mediation articles were a compromise between what reputable journalists and scholars believe (that his movement is a fascist cult, and that he is arguably unwell), and what LaRouche supporters believe (that he designed Star Wars, is the greatest economist of his day, that the British royal household wants to assassinate him, and so on.) It's like saying "some believe that 2 plus 2 = 4, while others say it's 5" in a mathematics article.
They have also been through arbitration. The arbcom ruled that LaRouche publications count as "original research" but may be used as sources in articles "closely related" to LaRouche and his movement. As a result, the LaRouche editors have taken ownership of the 17 articles on the LaRouche template, and are constantly trying to bring other articles into the "closely related" fold. They regularly attack other editors who stand up to them, calling us "anti-LaRouche activists", which implies that we're out to get LaRouche, rather than out to protect Wikipedia. Most editors become disheartened and wander off. Some try to compromise, which is why nonsense like the Star Wars claim is allowed to sit there.
To have Wikipedia act against these people, other editors are going to have to return to the arbcom, make the case again, do all the diffs, maybe be asked to do an RfC first (which the LaRouche editors would love because it would give them a public platform to re-post all their insults), watch their own reputations be trashed by the LaRouchites, so that the process degenerates into claim and counter-claim, and counter-counter claim, all of it on public pages cached by Google. Who wants to face that?
What is needed in obvious cases like this is a "benevolent dictator", whether it's Jimbo Wales or the arbcom, to examine the editors' contributions then ban them, because these are not bona fide Wikipedians who happen to have a strong POV. They are fanatics acting to promote the views of a poltical cult, and they're here for no other reason. Yet here they remain, making a mockery of everything Wikipedia stands for.
Slim
movement may be used on articles "closely related" to LaRouche. A consequence of this is that the article [[Lyndon LaRouche]] now cites claims that LaRouche developed the Star Wars program, properly referenced to someone interviewed on LaRouche cable television. This is just one of scores of similar claims in the 17 articles on the LaRouche template, but you have to be knowledgeable to sort out which claims are LaRouche nonsense, because they're not always as obvious as the Star Wars one.
I don't know, the Lyndon LaRouche article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_LaRouche) reads:
"He [LaRouche] claims to have pioneered such ideas as the International Development Bank, the Strategic Defense Initiative or 'Star Wars,' and the so-called Eurasian Land-Bridge."
I don't see what the problem with that line is, it seems to be factual in that LaRouche has claimed to have invented SDI. You have to find a better example, because I have read the LaRouche article and I couldn't find any obvious NPOV faults.
Bjorn, that you don't see the POV in [[Lyndon LaRouche]] demonstrates what others were arguing on this list earlier, which is that editors often need to have a degree of expertise to spot POV additions and omissions. (The stuff left out of this article is the worst of it.) When you're faced with determined POV pushers, but the POV requires knowledge to spot, it can be hard to find other editors who will help, because they look at the article and think it's okay. If the POV were obvious, it would be less of a problem because readers would spot it too. It's the less obvious kind that does the harm, because readers will believe it. The Star Wars section I was referring to in [[Lyndon LaRouche]] is below. It is cited, and so it's not Wikipedia that's saying this, it's the quoted source. In that way, it meets [[Wikipedia:Cite sources]]. That doesn't change the fact that it's a load of baloney, and we shouldn't be quoting people who talk nonsense.
Slim
"According to a speech made by LaRouche science advisor Paul Gallagher [http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2004/3110sdi_timeline.html], LaRouche and his representatives met with Reagan administration Energy Secretary [[Donald Hodel]], Interior Secretary [[James Watt]], Science Adviser Dr. [[George Keyworth]], and State Department official [[Richard Morris]] in early [[1981]]. Gallagher also claims that later that year Lyndon and Helga Zepp-LaRouche met with [[CIA]] Deputy Director [[Bobby Ray Inman]], and cites the following remarks, made in early [[1993]] at the National Press Club by former head of German Military Intelligence, Gen. Paul-Albert Scherer:
"In the Spring of 1982 here in the Soviet Embassy there were very important secret talks that were held ... The question was: Did the United States and the Soviet Union wish jointly to develop an anti-ballistic missile defense that would have made nuclear war impossible? Then, in August, you had this very sharp Soviet rejection of the entire idea.... I have discussed this thoroughly with the developer, the originator of this idea, who is the scientific-technological strategic expert, Lyndon LaRouche. The [Soviet] rejection came in August, and at that point the American President Reagan decided to push this entire thing out into the public eye, so he made his speech of March 1983." (Press Conference at the National Press Club, Washington, DC., May 6, 1992; video of Scherer's remarks was broadcast on the "LaRouche Connection" cable TV program throughout the U.S.) [http://www.larouchepub.com/tv/tlc_programs_1991-1995.html]
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 10:04:25 +0100, BJörn Lindqvist bjourne@gmail.com wrote:
I don't know, the Lyndon LaRouche article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_LaRouche) reads:
"He [LaRouche] claims to have pioneered such ideas as the International Development Bank, the Strategic Defense Initiative or 'Star Wars,' and the so-called Eurasian Land-Bridge."
I don't see what the problem with that line is, it seems to be factual in that LaRouche has claimed to have invented SDI. You have to find a better example, because I have read the LaRouche article and I couldn't find any obvious NPOV faults.
Bjorn, here are another two pages as examples: [[Schiller Institute} and [[LaRouche Youth Movement]], both part of the LaRouche movement. The first is regarded by researchers who know it as a dangerous, far-right organization, with ties to far-right movements in Germany where the Schiller Institute is based. Its founder, LaRouche's wife, has made explicit Holocaust denial statements. But there is nothing about this in the article.
After a protracted edit war, I was allowed to say that its "critics" regard it as a cult, and insert a paragraph on [[Jeremiah Duggan]], a young man who died after attending one of their "cadre schools." The institute has nothing to do with Friedrich Schiller, the founder is not the world's leading expert on Schiller, as the article says (or any kind of expert). They are a dodgy political organization, not a musical one, yet look how much play the music gets.
The [[LaRouche Youth Movement]], started after LaRouche got out of jail, now has young members all over the world thanks to the Internet. It is unquestionably a cult, with members encouraged to live collectively, spend all their time raising money for the movement, and receiving almost none of it for their upkeep. Ex-members have given interviews about how they were forced to undergo "ego-stripping" as part of their indoctrination. Again, there is nothing about this in the article. I was only allowed my one paragraph about the death of Jeremiah Duggan.
Finally, look at [[Template:LaRouche Talk]]. These are the Talk archives the LaRouche editors have caused in just a few months, as various editors try to get something close to the truth into these articles, but instead get worn down by the endless talk, the calls for mediation, the calls for arbitration, and the insults. So they give up, as I am about to do.
Slim
Well, calling it a "cult" is not NPOV.
An NPOV to describe this would be to say "the members live collectively and are told to raise money for Lyndon LaRouche", and to say "Some exmembers accuse the organization of doing this".
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: slimvirgin@gmail.com slimvirgin@gmail.com Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 03:47:15 -0700 Subject: Re: Original Research versus Point of View, was Re: [WikiEN-l] The3RR policy sho To: BJörn Lindqvist bjourne@gmail.com, "English Wikipedia ." wikien-l@wikipedia.org
Bjorn, here are another two pages as examples: [[Schiller Institute} and [[LaRouche Youth Movement]], both part of the LaRouche movement. The first is regarded by researchers who know it as a dangerous, far-right organization, with ties to far-right movements in Germany where the Schiller Institute is based. Its founder, LaRouche's wife, has made explicit Holocaust denial statements. But there is nothing about this in the article.
After a protracted edit war, I was allowed to say that its "critics" regard it as a cult, and insert a paragraph on [[Jeremiah Duggan]], a young man who died after attending one of their "cadre schools." The institute has nothing to do with Friedrich Schiller, the founder is not the world's leading expert on Schiller, as the article says (or any kind of expert). They are a dodgy political organization, not a musical one, yet look how much play the music gets.
The [[LaRouche Youth Movement]], started after LaRouche got out of jail, now has young members all over the world thanks to the Internet. It is unquestionably a cult, with members encouraged to live collectively, spend all their time raising money for the movement, and receiving almost none of it for their upkeep. Ex-members have given interviews about how they were forced to undergo "ego-stripping" as part of their indoctrination. Again, there is nothing about this in the article. I was only allowed my one paragraph about the death of Jeremiah Duggan.
Finally, look at [[Template:LaRouche Talk]]. These are the Talk archives the LaRouche editors have caused in just a few months, as various editors try to get something close to the truth into these articles, but instead get worn down by the endless talk, the calls for mediation, the calls for arbitration, and the insults. So they give up, as I am about to do.
Slim _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
From: slimvirgin@gmail.com slimvirgin@gmail.com
The [[LaRouche Youth Movement]], started after LaRouche got out of jail, now has young members all over the world thanks to the Internet. It is unquestionably a cult, with members encouraged to live collectively, spend all their time raising money for the movement, and receiving almost none of it for their upkeep. Ex-members have given interviews about how they were forced to undergo "ego-stripping" as part of their indoctrination. Again, there is nothing about this in the article. I was only allowed my one paragraph about the death of Jeremiah Duggan.
Well you would be able to say when it was formed if there is agreement on that, and presumably there is no serious disagreement that it has members all over the world. If some significant people have credibly called it a cult or cult-like organisation you can also cite this. For instance, has Steve Hassan ever investigated LaRouche? He has a fair track record and has been called as an expert witness during a Congressional hearing. You can also cite the statements of former members. Nobody can stop you writing these things into the article and if someone persists in wholly removing supported reportage from an article (rather than editing it) you should eventually have enough recorded instances, provided you can keep your cool, to kick of a RfC. This does take a lot of patience, but there's no hurry. You'll get there eventually.
The Lyndon LaRouche supporters provide a good example of the way Wikipedia doesn't defend itself well against determined POV pushers. The arbcom ruled that original research emanating from the LaRouche movement may be used on articles "closely related" to LaRouche. A consequence of this is that the article [[Lyndon LaRouche]] now cites claims that LaRouche developed the Star Wars program, properly referenced to someone interviewed on LaRouche cable television. This is just one of scores of similar claims in the 17 articles on the LaRouche template, but you have to be knowledgeable to sort out which claims are LaRouche nonsense, because they're not always as obvious as the Star Wars one.
I'm sorry but your claim here simply isn't borne out by the text of the article in question. The only mention of Star Wars is in a paragraph that that starts: "Separating fact from fiction in LaRouche's biography is made difficult by the barrages of conflicting accounts generated by the LaRouche movement and its critics" and goes on to say that LaRouche "claims to have pioneered such ideas as the International Development Bank, the Strategic Defense Initiative or "Star Wars," and the so-called Eurasian Land-Bridge" Nowhere does the article make the claim that LaRouche's claim is a fact.
They have also been through arbitration. The arbcom ruled that LaRouche publications count as "original research" but may be used as sources in articles "closely related" to LaRouche and his movement. As a result, the LaRouche editors have taken ownership of the 17 articles on the LaRouche template, and are constantly trying to bring other articles into the "closely related" fold.
I've looked at those seventeen articles. Which of them do you think are not closely related to the LaRouche affair?
Charles Matthews wrote:
When something is already unverifiable, highly partisan POV, I wonder why it needs to be labelled 'original research' as well.
Because what is "POV" is often highly contested, especially by people who aren't that familiar with the policy. Original research is often easier to discern and prove when the person in question has no sources to back up his theory or belief. Not that I haven't run into the "this isn't original research, these are simply the facts" defence as well.
Jay.
JAY JG wrote
Charles Matthews wrote:
When something is already unverifiable, highly partisan POV, I wonder why it needs to be labelled 'original research' as well.
Because what is "POV" is often highly contested, especially by people who aren't that familiar with the policy.
I'm not going to dispute that. On the other hand, these are the people to whom an explanation of the nature of POV writing, in WP terms, will be most helpful.
Original research is often easier to discern and prove when the person in question has no sources to back up
his
theory or belief. Not that I haven't run into the "this isn't original research, these are simply the facts" defence as well.
Trouble is, simply producing a source which agrees - for example some conspiracy theorist - and citing that, then may just sanitise the contribution, without improving the article. Getting the poster further along the learning curve of Wikipedianhood, rather than just making the point, is also very relevant. So we could perhaps agree that 'winning' rhetoric is not always the most desirable way of handling things.
Charles
At 03:17 PM 1/17/2005 -0700, slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe it would be a good idea to form a team of "no original research" checkers who have the right to violate 3RR, and on whom any editor could call for help in the case of a revert war triggered by an editor adding unreferenced claims. The job of this team would be to ask for a reference and then to determine whether the reference offered was a reputable one. If not, the team would have the right to keep reverting until the POV pusher got fed up.
Since the POV pusher is someone who is repeatedly, consistently and with malice aforethought inserting material that goes against Wikipedia policy, I think it would be best to expedite the work of ArbCom so that the POV-pusher can simply be banned rather than setting up a group of official edit warriors whose job is to try out-pushing him on his own terms. I believe edit wars would be just as troublesome when they're officially sanctioned as when they aren't.
Bryan Derksen (bryan.derksen@shaw.ca) [050118 16:52]:
Since the POV pusher is someone who is repeatedly, consistently and with malice aforethought inserting material that goes against Wikipedia policy, I think it would be best to expedite the work of ArbCom so that the POV-pusher can simply be banned rather than setting up a group of official edit warriors whose job is to try out-pushing him on his own terms. I believe edit wars would be just as troublesome when they're officially sanctioned as when they aren't.
The ArbCom's reputation has rapidly shifted from "they'll get to it some month" to "we are concerned about their speed", so I think we'll get there ;-)
When bringing a possible ArbCom case, it helps to have touched all bases. That means a genuine attempt to fix things first, a coherent RFC, examples ofr every assertion in your case and putting it in the format of the template. This reduces the Pain In The Arse factor and helps us get on the case quickly. We're not currently archiving rejections, but possibly we should - some of the recent ones are good examples of how not to do it.
- d.
Edit warring is itself a violation of Wikipedia policy. There is some difficulty in getting the Arbitration Committee to severely sanction "good" edit warriors, but some of us keep trying. A dedicated edit warrior will return over and over again to us and eventually the whole Committee goes along (or the user learns other ways to resolve disputes besides endless reverting).
Fred
From: Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 22:57:16 -0800 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] The 3RR policy should not always be blindly followed
At 03:17 PM 1/17/2005 -0700, slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe it would be a good idea to form a team of "no original research" checkers who have the right to violate 3RR, and on whom any editor could call for help in the case of a revert war triggered by an editor adding unreferenced claims. The job of this team would be to ask for a reference and then to determine whether the reference offered was a reputable one. If not, the team would have the right to keep reverting until the POV pusher got fed up.
Since the POV pusher is someone who is repeatedly, consistently and with malice aforethought inserting material that goes against Wikipedia policy, I think it would be best to expedite the work of ArbCom so that the POV-pusher can simply be banned rather than setting up a group of official edit warriors whose job is to try out-pushing him on his own terms. I believe edit wars would be just as troublesome when they're officially sanctioned as when they aren't.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
From: Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca
Since the POV pusher is someone who is repeatedly, consistently and with malice aforethought inserting material that goes against Wikipedia policy, I think it would be best to expedite the work of ArbCom so that the POV-pusher can simply be banned rather than setting up a group of official edit warriors whose job is to try out-pushing him on his own terms. I believe edit wars would be just as troublesome when they're officially sanctioned as when they aren't.
While you have a good point about edit wars, ArbCom is an extremely slow process even now, when it has sped up considerably. Considering that it would first require an attempt at resolution (e.g. RfC, mediation), then would have to be accepted by ArbCom, evidence gathered and presented, voted on, then closed, it's hard to imagine this process could take less than a month.
By the way, I note with some dismay that though most of the new ArbCom members are working hard cleaning up the backlog, some appear to be AWOL. I'm not sure why this is the case, since they all volunteered for, and won, a hard fought election.
Jay.
JAY JG said:
From: Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca
Since the POV pusher is someone who is repeatedly, consistently and with malice aforethought inserting material that goes against Wikipedia policy, I think it would be best to expedite the work of ArbCom so that the POV-pusher can simply be banned rather than setting up a group of official edit warriors whose job is to try out-pushing him on his own terms. I believe edit wars would be just as troublesome when they're officially sanctioned as when they aren't.
While you have a good point about edit wars, ArbCom is an extremely slow process even now, when it has sped up considerably. Considering that it would first require an attempt at resolution (e.g. RfC, mediation), then would have to be accepted by ArbCom, evidence gathered and presented, voted on, then closed, it's hard to imagine this process could take less than a month.
This would be a month of trying to persuade the culprit to be a good boy. Most of us regard this as A Good Thing. ArbCom isn't there to wag the finger at people for not citing sources--in fact if such a case were ever to be accepted by ArbCom for adjudication I think we could take it as a sign that ArbCom's caseload was far too small. We should be able to sort out our differences without resorting to drastic measures. --~~~~
From: "Tony Sidaway" minorityreport@bluebottle.com This would be a month of trying to persuade the culprit to be a good boy. Most of us regard this as A Good Thing.
A month of unsupported original research and POV nonsense present in an article that we are trying to promote as a reliable alternative to paper encyclopedias. A month in which this editor no doubt goes on to insert similar junk into other articles. Multiplied by dozens of editors and thousands of articles. And a month is a low-end estimate of the time taken. I would hope most of us would regard this as A Bad Thing.
I don't think the primary purpose of Wikipedia is to be a reformatory where we gently train and cajole POV warriors into becoming fine upstanding NPOV encyclopedia editors; rather, I think its primary purpose is to create a great encyclopedia.
Jay.
JAY JG said:
From: "Tony Sidaway" minorityreport@bluebottle.com This would be a month of trying to persuade the culprit to be a good boy. Most of us regard this as A Good Thing.
A month of unsupported original research and POV nonsense present in an article that we are trying to promote as a reliable alternative to paper encyclopedias. A month in which this editor no doubt goes on to insert similar junk into other articles.
Rubbish tends not to last long. Junk references get deleted: if not by you, by someone else. POV warriors will always be with us. I don't think this can be solved by giving you and your mates encouragement to go edit warring. especially since one of your primary justifications to this seems to be that others cannot tell which of you is POV pushing and which of you is "warring for truth", as it were. If we armed you, we'd also be arming your opponent. And if he's as bad as you say he is, that would make things much worse! Speaking purely for myself, I wish you'd *all* stop warring. It seems to me that the 3RR is a good way of doing that, and I'm not about to let that go.
From: "Tony Sidaway" minorityreport@bluebottle.com
Rubbish tends not to last long. Junk references get deleted: if not by you, by someone else.
If only that were true.
POV warriors will always be with us.
Right. And we're talking about solutions for that.
I don't think this can be solved by giving you and your mates encouragement to go edit warring. especially since one of your primary justifications to this seems to be that others cannot tell which of you is POV pushing and which of you is "warring for truth", as it were.
Not so. Others don't want to get involved, because they have enough to do as it is, and they aren't particularly well informed on the subject. That's not the same thing. And please try to remember this is not about me in particular; again, let's not make strawman arguments or personalize this.
If we armed you, we'd also be arming your opponent. And if he's as bad as you say he is, that would make things much worse! Speaking purely for myself, I wish you'd *all* stop warring. It seems to me that the 3RR is a good way of doing that, and I'm not about to let that go.
Tony, you seem to be missing the point here. It's not about me, it's about how to deal with a number of systemic issues on Wikipedia. And I wish you'd stop bringing up the "let go of the 3RR" strawman argument; I'm all for the 3RR, and was one of the first people to vote in favour of it becoming an enforcable policy. In fact, I'd like stricter enforcement.
Jay.
JAY JG wrote
I don't think the primary purpose of Wikipedia is to be a reformatory
where
we gently train and cajole POV warriors into becoming fine upstanding NPOV encyclopedia editors; rather, I think its primary purpose is to create a great encyclopedia.
The community writes the 'pedia. A 'great' community is actually quite well characterised by its attitude to joiners. Particularly, here, newbies with other Internet experience who have something to say but are over-assertive and edit 'in the wrong register'.
I can quite see that working at the coalface of current affairs can jade one. On the other hand WP is limited in what it can do about that. There are a few thousand other years of human history to consider, as well as a huge range of other topics. I think _policy_ should not primarily be led by what are the echoes in WP of real world conflicts.
Charles
From: "Charles Matthews" charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com
The community writes the 'pedia. A 'great' community is actually quite well characterised by its attitude to joiners. Particularly, here, newbies with other Internet experience who have something to say but are over-assertive and edit 'in the wrong register'.
To join and be part of a community, you have to abide by its norms. Those who fail to do so generally face exclusion from the community of one form or another. And I find Wikipedia extremely reluctant to use the tools it has to enfore communal norms, to its detriment. Some of the detriment is seen in the highly variable quality of the content. Other is seen in the many good editors willing to abide by those norms, but not put up with those who do not, and who end up leaving.
Jay.
JAY JG (jayjg@hotmail.com) [050119 05:57]:
To join and be part of a community, you have to abide by its norms. Those who fail to do so generally face exclusion from the community of one form or another. And I find Wikipedia extremely reluctant to use the tools it has to enfore communal norms, to its detriment. Some of the detriment is seen in the highly variable quality of the content. Other is seen in the many good editors willing to abide by those norms, but not put up with those who do not, and who end up leaving.
Probably the problem in the specific case is that people holding a particular POV come to Wikipedia, see something that reads to them like unspeakable bias and go "fuck it" and dive in head first. Look at Alberuni, who went wild with sockpuppets and personal abuse, but still doesn't think that constituted doing *anything wrong at all* and that he was kicked off Wikipedia because of a Jewish conspiracy. He's an extreme case, but still.
For this particular conflict, it would help if someone could be found who knows and even holds the Palestinian POV *but* understands NPOV and why it's good - to show those who hold that POV how to do things properly here.
I'm not sure how you would go about recruiting one or more ...
- d.
For this particular conflict, it would help if someone could be found who knows and even holds the Palestinian POV *but* understands NPOV and why it's good - to show those who hold that POV how to do things properly here.
We had one. He basically left in frustration over POV warriors and Wikipedia's failure to deal with them. There's one more, but he isn't very active in this area right now.
Jay.
JAY JG (jayjg@hotmail.com) [050119 07:34]:
For this particular conflict, it would help if someone could be found who knows and even holds the Palestinian POV *but* understands NPOV and why it's good - to show those who hold that POV how to do things properly here.
We had one. He basically left in frustration over POV warriors and Wikipedia's failure to deal with them. There's one more, but he isn't very active in this area right now.
How ... annoying.
The trouble with trying to make rules from extreme cases is that they'll become a bludgeon for idiots to wield in other places. Look how hard the idiots wield rules like 3RR - trying to treat it as a floor rather than a ceiling.
Can we think of rules that will ameliorate the effects of stupidity in these contentious areas, but be light on the unintended side effects elsewhere? It's a huge wiki. And, of course, rules that are likely to actually be accepted by the volunteers. Every proposal will drive away someone.
- d.
For this particular conflict, it would help if someone could be found
who
knows and even holds the Palestinian POV *but* understands NPOV and why it's good - to show those who hold that POV how to do things properly
here.
We had one. He basically left in frustration over POV warriors and Wikipedia's failure to deal with them. There's one more, but he isn't very active in this area right now.
How ... annoying.
The trouble with trying to make rules from extreme cases is that they'll become a bludgeon for idiots to wield in other places. Look how hard the idiots wield rules like 3RR - trying to treat it as a floor rather than a ceiling.
True, "hard cases make bad law."
Can we think of rules that will ameliorate the effects of stupidity in these contentious areas, but be light on the unintended side effects elsewhere? It's a huge wiki. And, of course, rules that are likely to actually be accepted by the volunteers. Every proposal will drive away someone.
I think swift but light justice helps. The way things work now, a rogue editor runs rampant over Wikipedia for a couple of months, till ArbCom can finally deal with it. By that point their "rap sheet" is so long that the only reasonable remedy is a lengthy ban of many months. If we were able to hand out one or two day "cooling off" bans very soon after the behaviour started, I believe it would make the rogue editors start taking Wikipedia policies seriously enough that they might actually move their disputes and concerns to the Talk: pages, rather than the articles. I understand that temporary injunctions by ArbCom were supposed to help with this, but, ironically, in more cases than not the final rulings are brought down before any temporary injunctions get the necessary votes.
Jay.
JAY JG (jayjg@hotmail.com) [050120 03:17]:
I think swift but light justice helps. The way things work now, a rogue editor runs rampant over Wikipedia for a couple of months, till ArbCom can finally deal with it. By that point their "rap sheet" is so long that the only reasonable remedy is a lengthy ban of many months.
Which is indeed not good at all.
If we were able to hand out one or two day "cooling off" bans very soon after the behaviour started, I believe it would make the rogue editors start taking Wikipedia policies seriously enough that they might actually move their disputes and concerns to the Talk: pages, rather than the articles.
Is there anyone on this list with serious objections to short (12hr or 24hr) blocks for personal abuse? I'd like to see what can be done about the objections to the idea, with the hope of getting it through again.
I understand that temporary injunctions by ArbCom were supposed to help with this, but, ironically, in more cases than not the final rulings are brought down before any temporary injunctions get the necessary votes.
This is one thing we're trying to get better with!
- d.
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 04:40:37 +1100, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
JAY JG (jayjg@hotmail.com) [050120 03:17]: Is there anyone on this list with serious objections to short (12hr or 24hr) blocks for personal abuse? I'd like to see what can be done about the objections to the idea, with the hope of getting it through again.
Yes personal abuse is seriously subective and (like all these policies) has no effect on anons from AOL
geni (geniice@gmail.com) [050120 04:50]:
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 04:40:37 +1100, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
Is there anyone on this list with serious objections to short (12hr or 24hr) blocks for personal abuse? I'd like to see what can be done about the objections to the idea, with the hope of getting it through again.
Yes personal abuse is seriously subective and (like all these policies) has no effect on anons from AOL
Here's the policy:
How would you tighten it up to make it less seriously subjective?
I'm focusing on this area because (a) it really gets up my nose (b) personal attacks drive away quite a lot of good contributors (c) almost every case of an editor going rogue in other ways has had a heaping of personal attacks in there as well.
"No personal attacks" is official Wikipedia policy (it's up there with NPOV as one of the non-negotiable Wikipedia policies) and the ArbCom has repeatedly affirmed it as a principle. But it could clearly do with teeth *before* hitting arbitration. What needs to be clarified to make it less subjective?
- d.
David Gerard (fun@thingy.apana.org.au) [050120 05:00]:
Here's the policy:
It would help if I included it, wouldnn't it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks
- d.
--- David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
Is there anyone on this list with serious objections to short (12hr or 24hr) blocks for personal abuse? I'd like to see what can be done about the objections to the idea, with the hope of getting it through again.
I would support that. As is, our no personal attacks policy has little by way of teeth to it.
The only problem, and this is a big one, is what constitutes a personal attack? Use of profanity in a provocative way is an obvious criteria, but there are *many* ways a person can demean another person without resorting to base language.
What do you do when you come across a complete piece of trash article or edit? Criticizing something like that, even when it is justified, may be seen as a personal attack by the author.
So we must tread a fine line here due to the subjective nature of the offense.
RfC may be a way for the community to quickly decide the less than clear cases. A short term poll could be held on someone's RfC page to see whether or not that person violated the 'no personal attacks' policy. If <75% agree, then that person gets blocked for a small period of time (24hrs to a week; anything longer would need an ArbCom ruling).
Obviously safeguards will need to be developed to minimize abuse. Otherwise mob rule will be used to punish merely unpopular users - Hemlock anybody?
I understand that temporary injunctions by ArbCom were supposed to help with this, but, ironically, in more cases than not the final rulings are brought down before any temporary injunctions get the necessary votes.
This is one thing we're trying to get better with!
We could lower the vote threshold for temp injunctions. My original idea was to use the same criteria we use to open and close cases - just 4 yes votes needed.
-- mav
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Daniel Mayer (maveric149@yahoo.com) [050120 05:05]:
--- David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
Is there anyone on this list with serious objections to short (12hr or 24hr) blocks for personal abuse? I'd like to see what can be done about the objections to the idea, with the hope of getting it through again.
I would support that. As is, our no personal attacks policy has little by way of teeth to it. The only problem, and this is a big one, is what constitutes a personal attack? Use of profanity in a provocative way is an obvious criteria, but there are *many* ways a person can demean another person without resorting to base language.
I recall Mr-Natural-Health deleting any questioning of his edits or edit summaries as a "personal attack".
What do you do when you come across a complete piece of trash article or edit? Criticizing something like that, even when it is justified, may be seen as a personal attack by the author.
"On Wikipedia, you are in fact required to suffer fools a little bit, of not gladly."
So we must tread a fine line here due to the subjective nature of the offense. RfC may be a way for the community to quickly decide the less than clear cases. A short term poll could be held on someone's RfC page to see whether or not that person violated the 'no personal attacks' policy. If <75% agree, then that person gets blocked for a small period of time (24hrs to a week; anything longer would need an ArbCom ruling).
Sounds like quickpolls ...
I understand that temporary injunctions by ArbCom were supposed to help with this, but, ironically, in more cases than not the final rulings are brought down before any temporary injunctions get the necessary votes.
This is one thing we're trying to get better with!
We could lower the vote threshold for temp injunctions. My original idea was to use the same criteria we use to open and close cases - just 4 yes votes needed.
That's a *very* good idea. What do we do to change ArbCom powers in this manner?
- d.
--- David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
We could lower the vote threshold for temp injunctions. My original idea was to use the same criteria we use to open and close cases - just 4 yes votes needed.
That's a *very* good idea. What do we do to change ArbCom powers in this manner?
The ArbCom reserves the right to make minor changes to Arbitration Policy.
See "All of the following guidelines are subject to change." at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy
and "The Arbitration Policy may be tweaked as the Committee gains experience and learns better ways of doing things" at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy_ratification_vote#...
The vote threshold needed in the ArbCom to make minor changes has not been specified so, IMO, consensus (>75% of active ArbCom members) would be needed to make this happen.
-- mav
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Daniel Mayer wrote:
We could lower the vote threshold for temp injunctions. My original idea was to use the same criteria we use to open and close cases - just 4 yes votes needed.
What's the typical time-delay on getting the four votes for a temporary injunction?
Nicholas Knight (nknight@runawaynet.com) [050120 06:26]:
Daniel Mayer wrote:
We could lower the vote threshold for temp injunctions. My original idea was to use the same criteria we use to open and close cases - just 4 yes votes needed.
What's the typical time-delay on getting the four votes for a temporary injunction?
Not very long. The injunctions on Everyking got four votes in a matter of hours.
- d.
Jay JG
From: "Charles Matthews"
The community writes the 'pedia. A 'great' community is actually quite well characterised by its attitude to joiners. Particularly, here, newbies
with
other Internet experience who have something to say but are
over-assertive
and edit 'in the wrong register'.
To join and be part of a community, you have to abide by its norms. Those who fail to do so generally face exclusion from the community of one form
or
another. And I find Wikipedia extremely reluctant to use the tools it has to enfore communal norms, to its detriment.
Yes, the reluctance is clear. The reasons for the reluctance are clear, to most people.
Some of the detriment is seen in the highly variable quality of the content. Other is seen in the many good editors willing to abide by those norms, but not put up with those
who
do not, and who end up leaving.
The variable quality will always be there, as far as anyone can see. The fact that some valued editors will leave is something WP will always have to live with.
Basically, there is nothing like a consensus on any of the following:
(a) WP is failing; (b) A harder line on banning would be an unqualified plus; (c) POV pushing can be solved by enforcement.
Not one of the many ArbCom candidates in the recent electio, IIRC, was _clearly_ for a more authoritarian policy, where there _was_ a consensus for swifter action. So I still believe the 'good editors exodus', about which we often here, is panicky. We should really be worried if their replacements were not being recruited.
The thread is called 'The 3RR policy should not always be blindly followed'. More of the same alarmist rhetoric, as far as I'm concerned.
Charles
From: "Charles Matthews" charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com
Jayjg stated:
And I find Wikipedia extremely reluctant to use the tools it has to enfore communal norms, to its detriment.
Yes, the reluctance is clear. The reasons for the reluctance are clear, to most people.
Clear but misguided, as Jimbo has stated on any number of occasions. And if I'm wrong about that, I'm sure he'll correct me.
The variable quality will always be there, as far as anyone can see. The fact that some valued editors will leave is something WP will always have to live with.
I'm more of the "here's a problem, let's try to fix it" school than the "here's a problem, but nothing can be done (shrug)" school.
So I still believe the 'good editors exodus', about which we often here, is panicky. We should really be worried if their replacements were not being recruited.
Well, I don't know all editors. I do know of specific examples of subject areas where this is the case.
Jay.
slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe it would be a good idea to form a team of "no original research" checkers who have the right to violate 3RR, and on whom any editor could call for help in the case of a revert war triggered by an editor adding unreferenced claims.
This strikes me as unnecessary. At any given time of the day or night there are more than 130 people in #wikipedia. Just go there and ask around for help, it's easy to find people to help.
--Jimbo
Jimbo, it really isn't easy, for the reason I've explained to Bjorn in my last two e-mails. Often, editors feel they don't know enough about a subject to intervene, or they simply don't want to because they have their own watchlist to look out for. Or maybe a citation has been offered, but it's a terrible one, yet other editors don't see that because they don't know the area.
That's why I thought it would be a good idea to form a team of people who are experienced in telling the difference between a decent reference and a lousy one; and who have a thorough understanding of Wikipedia's cite sources, no original research, and NPOV policies/guidelines.
Slim
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 02:22:30 -0800, Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe it would be a good idea to form a team of "no original research" checkers who have the right to violate 3RR, and on whom any editor could call for help in the case of a revert war triggered by an editor adding unreferenced claims.
This strikes me as unnecessary. At any given time of the day or night there are more than 130 people in #wikipedia. Just go there and ask around for help, it's easy to find people to help.
--Jimbo
slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote
Or maybe a citation has been offered, but it's a terrible one, yet other editors don't see that because they don't know the area.
So point this out on the talk page. I don't want to sound unsympathetic, but _document first_ where there is a burning issue. Invoking some sort of 'higher vigilantism' is a long way behind trying to meet unreasonable behaviour with reasoning.
Charles
--- slslimvirginmgmailom wrote:
JiJimboit really isn't easy, for the reason I've explained to Bjorn in my last two e-mails. Often, editors feel they don't know enough about a subject to intervene, or they simply don't want to because they have their own wawatchlisto look out for. Or maybe a citation has been offered, but it's a terrible one, yet other editors don't see that because they don't know the area.
What makes a reference a terrible one? Is the source biased by funding or other interests? Then that is a fact that should be included in an article on the source, at least.
Not that you're suggesting this, but obviously a source should not be considered "terrible" simply because you don't agree with it.
I do not see it as WiWikipedia'sole to judge "truth", but rather to describe "facts". I have only a vague concept of LaLaRouchend his ideas, and from what I know he sounds like a crackpot. But WiWikipedias not the place to analyze his ideas and attempt to stomp out his movement. Our job is to document him and his ideas, and to document significant reactions to him and his ideas. We leave it up to other groups, and up to individuals, to discern the truth. For me, that is a core element of NPNPOV
-Rich HoHolton(en.WiWikipediaser:
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Rich Holton (rich_holton@yahoo.com) [050120 01:15]:
What makes a reference a terrible one? Is the source biased by funding or other interests? Then that is a fact that should be included in an article on the source, at least. Not that you're suggesting this, but obviously a source should not be considered "terrible" simply because you don't agree with it. I do not see it as WiWikipedia'sole to judge "truth", but rather to describe "facts". I have only a vague concept of LaLaRouchend his ideas, and from what I know he sounds like a crackpot. But WiWikipedias not the place to analyze his ideas and attempt to stomp out his movement. Our job is to document him and his ideas, and to document significant reactions to him and his ideas. We leave it up to other groups, and up to individuals, to discern the truth. For me, that is a core element of NPNPOV
For a comparison, see the articles in [[Category:Scientology]] or the article on [[L. Ron Hubbard]]. NPOV is tricky, but we try our best, with references by the ton.
(Even then it sometimes isn't enough - see the expressions of incredulity on [[Talk:Xenu]] or [[Talk:Mission Earth (novel)]]. What does one do when this shit really is unbelievable?)
- d.