On April 10, 2006 5:46 AM Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Optimally, each edit should be analyzed on its own
merits, not the merits
(or lack thereof) of the person contributing. That means that a pedophile
shouldn't be forbidden from making neutral, referenced edits to [[NAMBLA]]
and an evolutionary biologist shouldn't be forbidden from making neutral,
refereced edits to [[Creationism]]. There's no need for this litmus test
of moral responsibility-- the quality of an edit stands out on its own.
This is certainly how I understand things should happen on Wikipedia. The
ethics involved should not generally be seen as a reason to revert. Things
should be kept in balance and undue weight and other policy violations
prevented by the consensus process which in turn is safeguarded
(by admins and dispute resolution processes) against disruption.
You wrote that it is difficult for people who are invested in a topic to
make neutral edits on the subject. Guettarda called 'writing for the enemy'
a great but somewhat humbling experience. Sean Barrett wrote that editing
the opposing viewpoint is necessary and expected. The thread started
with a question by Thommandel(a)aol.com about the ethicality of edits
by editors working on a part of an article that describes a POV they
personally oppose.
It appears that the situation has two complementary components
(somewhat modified version incorporating your qualifiers):
(A) "correcting" a description of an opposing view to align it with
one's own view, e.g. by removing text, is unethical, unless done in
good faith. Regardless of the editor's intentions, Wikipedia processes
are in place to handle the situation. "Writing against the enemy" is
out of the question. "Wikipedia is not a battleground. If there's a battle,
we don't (re-)enact it - we describe it."
(B) Improving a description of an opposing view based on one's insight,
knowledge of sources, etc. - Yes, it's great, expected and necessary, and
difficult. I would like to see it more often. Even in contentious
areas where edits for the enemy are likely to be hit by friendly fire if the
battle is being (re-)enacted on talk pages and sometimes even in articles.
Does that change things in regards of the enforcement of policy? No, it
doesn't, as argued by you and others. But I do think Tom had a good question
and I hope the various responses are helpful for those who are trying to
gain a better understanding of the issues involved.
The general answer, I guess, is that problems where someone thinks
consensus is skewed can be solved by using the various dispute resolution
processes. Tom's problem as posted here on the list looks like a good
candidate for a survey or RfC. Calling in more editors to weigh in with
their opinion is expected to offset editor bias skewing consensus.
Thanks,
Arie
[[User:Avb]]