I've been tasked to deal with a defamitory article written about the organisation of which I am a member.
I tried reasoning with the main editor but as I, and others who have tried, have found that the guy acts like a tyrant and won't budge an inch. Even to the extent of reverting NPOV warnings.
Obviously I am looking into all available routes to restore some kind of balance on the page. I raised a Wikiettiquette alert now the next stop seems to be mediation, which I am planning now. However there is absolute carnage going on in the discussion page with other editors. Can't bear to look!
Right now I just want to talk with other more experienced Wikipedians who can just help me to streamline my approach. This whole thing is taking a lot of energy and is very damaging to the organisation. We are encountering questions all the time from people who have read the article. Certainly we are not expecting the article to be a glowing glorification of the organisation but would gladly settle for a less hateful and a more neutral account.
I have a hunch this isn't the best forum to discuss this but would appreciate any pointers. I found an alt group but they seem to be focussed on gripes and Wikipedia controversy more than mutual help.
Thanks & regards.
On 10/11/06, bksimonb simon@bkinfo.net wrote:
I've been tasked to deal with a defamitory article written about the organisation of which I am a member.
Which article is it?
Sarah
Sorry, I didn't want to use this forum as a way to draw attention to an article until I was sure it was appropriate to do so here.
The article is here... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahma_Kumaris_World_Spiritual_University
My own attempt to speak to the main editors is archived here... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Brahma_Kumaris_World_Spiritual_University/...
Thanks & regards
Sarah-18 wrote:
On 10/11/06, bksimonb simon@bkinfo.net wrote:
I've been tasked to deal with a defamitory article written about the organisation of which I am a member.
Which article is it?
Sarah _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 00:54:11 -0700 (PDT), bksimonb simon@bkinfo.net wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahma_Kumaris_World_Spiritual_University
Ugh.
Guy (JzG)
On 10/11/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 00:54:11 -0700 (PDT), bksimonb simon@bkinfo.net wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahma_Kumaris_World_Spiritual_University
Ugh.
Guy (JzG)
Yes. I now wish I hadn't asked. :-)
On 11/10/06, bksimonb simon@bkinfo.net wrote:
I tried reasoning with the main editor but as I, and others who have tried, have found that the guy acts like a tyrant and won't budge an inch. Even to the extent of reverting NPOV warnings.
I haven't looked at the article in question but reverting NPOV warnings can be justified if the article is already seemingly NPOV.
What do you suggest is wrong with the article as it stands?
Hi Oldak , Thanks for responding.
As the article stands there are factual inaccuracies, uncited or poorly cited statements and allegations, sarcastic wording, bias and "weazel words".
This has been discussed at length in the discussion pages but no one who has tried can get anywhere without being dismissed, ignored and abused. If you like I can expand on this with links, examples and quotes.
I would just like to discuss strategy for dealing with this. I know Wikipedia has it's own systems, which I am following, but I am also looking for a suitable forum to just talk with other wikipedians as to where best to channel time and energy into this.
For example, for this particular case,
Do I take one point at a time and only discuss that one point?
Do I refute every questionable point in the article all at once (a lot of work!)?
Is it the right time to involve mediators?
If so what are the pros and cons of the official mediating team vs the mediation cabal?
Is the editor in question's behavior so blatant I should go straight to the arbritrators?
As part of an organisation, where is the line between raising awareness of this issue and encouraging "meatpuppets"?
If this is the wrong forum then I am open to suggestions for a more appropriate place to discuss this.
Thanks & regards
P.S. What does "Ugh" and "wish I hadn't asked" mean? It sounds kind of discouraging ;-)
Oldak Quill wrote:
On 11/10/06, bksimonb simon@bkinfo.net wrote:
I tried reasoning with the main editor but as I, and others who have tried, have found that the guy acts like a tyrant and won't budge an inch. Even to the extent of reverting NPOV warnings.
I haven't looked at the article in question but reverting NPOV warnings can be justified if the article is already seemingly NPOV.
What do you suggest is wrong with the article as it stands?
-- Oldak Quill (oldakquill@gmail.com) _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Oct 11, 2006, at 12:30 PM, bksimonb wrote:
I would just like to discuss strategy for dealing with this. I know Wikipedia has it's own systems, which I am following, but I am also looking for a suitable forum to just talk with other wikipedians as to where best to channel time and energy into this.
One think you can do is establish basic talk-page discipline (you can ask an admin to assist you), a follows:
* Discuss the article, not the subject; * Discuss the edit, not the editor; * Never suggest a view is invalid simply because of who its proponent is; * If you feel attacked, do not attack back.
Ask all editors involved to abide by these simple rules, and you may have a chance. Be firm, and ask all involved editors to make a public statement on the talk page about their intention to abide by such talk-page discipline. Only then proceed. If you need time to accomplish this, we could protect the article until such a time as there is consensus about abiding by these simple rules.
Another thing you can do is apply the "less is more" rule. In my experience in these cases, the shorter the article, the easier it is to maintain NPOV. Reducing the article by 50% will be very helpful.
Lastly, you may consider splitting the article, one article dealing with the theological aspects of the movement, and another article dealing with the organizational aspects.
Hope this helps,
-- Jossi
Hi Jossi,
That's very helpful. Thank you.
It seems that the page has received the attention of an admin already and that's put a full stop to a lot of the nonsense that was going on there. I am very grateful to Rholton for stepping in. Rholton even caught the main editor red handed diddling with other people's discussion!
I will try your suggestion below and see what response I get,
Thanks & regards, SimonB
Jossi Fresco wrote:
On Oct 11, 2006, at 12:30 PM, bksimonb wrote:
I would just like to discuss strategy for dealing with this. I know Wikipedia has it's own systems, which I am following, but I am also looking for a suitable forum to just talk with other wikipedians as to where best to channel time and energy into this.
One think you can do is establish basic talk-page discipline (you can ask an admin to assist you), a follows:
* Discuss the article, not the subject; * Discuss the edit, not the editor; * Never suggest a view is invalid simply because of who itsproponent is; * If you feel attacked, do not attack back.
Ask all editors involved to abide by these simple rules, and you may have a chance. Be firm, and ask all involved editors to make a public statement on the talk page about their intention to abide by such talk-page discipline. Only then proceed. If you need time to accomplish this, we could protect the article until such a time as there is consensus about abiding by these simple rules.
Another thing you can do is apply the "less is more" rule. In my experience in these cases, the shorter the article, the easier it is to maintain NPOV. Reducing the article by 50% will be very helpful.
Lastly, you may consider splitting the article, one article dealing with the theological aspects of the movement, and another article dealing with the organizational aspects.
Hope this helps,
-- Jossi
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
IMPORTANT NOTICE This email and any attachment(s) is intended only for the addressee(s) named. If you are not the named addressee we request that you delete this email and do not disseminate, distribute or copy it. We endeavour to exclude viruses from our data but it is the responsibility of the recipient to check any attachments for viruses. E-mail transmissions cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free and we do not accept responsibility for any such matters or their consequences.
On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 13:51:06 +0100, "Oldak Quill" oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
What do you suggest is wrong with the article as it stands?
Too many people falling over each other to get their POV into the article, is one thing.
Guy (JzG)
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 13:51:06 +0100, "Oldak Quill" oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
What do you suggest is wrong with the article as it stands?
Too many people falling over each other to get their POV into the article, is one thing.
It's one of those mind-boggling articles that is bound to confuse anyone unfamiliar with Hindu theological thinking. The title does use the word "University". This suggests to me that this should be an article about a school as an institution. The theological explanations really belong in a different article.
Ec
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 00:16:33 -0700, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
It's one of those mind-boggling articles that is bound to confuse anyone unfamiliar with Hindu theological thinking. The title does use the word "University". This suggests to me that this should be an article about a school as an institution. The theological explanations really belong in a different article.
I think that's likely more than half the problem.
Guy (JzG)