In general, editing language describing a POV one does not share is neither ethical nor unethical. The main variants are:

Writing for the opposition (i.e. improving, not detracting) - ethical Writing against the opposition (i.e. detracting) - unethical

I may be wrong, being a 4-month WP newbie, but it seems to me that the former type of edits are much thinner on the ground than the latter.

(Obviously detracting will always be against Wikipedia's spirit and policies. Detracting from language describing one's personal POV is either unethical or stupid.)

Arie [[User:AvB]]

On April 10, 2006 5:46 AM Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@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@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]]