On 5/16/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
Rather, unnecessarily or unbeneficially disruptive behaviour should be discouraged, and not all heated debates fall into those categories. A passionate debate about a near-featured-article could be quite beneficial, for example.
However, divisive and inflammatory behaviour is generally disruptive without having any benefits to the Wikipedia project.
I would prefer a term like "ideological factions" to "division". Division is natural and happens all the time when people disagree. Even permanent groups devoted to particular topics are something we want to promote and develop further. It's the formation of permanent _ideological_ factions which tends to hurt Wikipedia, and these are again distinct from user groups devoted to particular topics.
It's within factions that phenomena like vote stacking and POV pushing occur. And it's the convenience of adding an ideological userbox with categories to your page which may contribute to forming a faction.
The last thing I want to see is people on [[Talk:Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints]] arguing that a new guy who tries to fix up the currently awful "Criticism" section is trying to "divide the community" by focusing on "contentious and inflammatory content" with "clear intent to disrupt and provoke." In reality, it might well be that an ideological faction of Mormons is dominating the article -- in which case they would be the ones acting against the spirit of Wikipedia by trying to drown out criticism. (No offense intended to Mormons with this arbitrary example.)
There's the additional risk that even a well-defined policy on "division" will lead to heavy-handed enforcement, which itself would lead to division and hurt. For instance, many users currently have strong political and religious messages on their userpages. With a new guideline against "divisive behavior", I can easily see some people with good intentions who might start warning these people that their user pages are "divisive because of their ideological content", etc. They would cite Jimbo's words like gospel, link to the new guideline, and eventually try to enforce it by editing out problematic content, etc.
But those people (the ones with the userpages) aren't forming factions, and their userpages only declare their biases. Certainly we can use common sense when something is clearly designed to attack and provoke.
I support a statement or guideline against forming ideological factions. I think a statement against division would be interpreted too broadly. As for those userboxes about ideological associations, these could either be converted into boxes about topical associations ("This user is a Christian => This user is interested in Christianity"), "defactonized" by removing categories, or deleted.
By the way, I think the ideological distinction of "inclusionist" vs. "deletionist" is probably more harmful to Wikipedia than most userboxes have ever been, because it tends to overshadow reasoned discourse without prejudice.
Erik
On 5/16/06, Erik Moeller eloquence@gmail.com wrote:
I would prefer a term like "ideological factions" to "division". Division is natural and happens all the time when people disagree. Even permanent groups devoted to particular topics are something we want to promote and develop further. It's the formation of permanent _ideological_ factions which tends to hurt Wikipedia, and these are again distinct from user groups devoted to particular topics.
There is a difference between "division" and "divisive". Some people prefer one day cricket, and some prefer test cricket. This naturally creates "divisions" as you say, but this is not a "divisive" topic. It does not polarise people. It does not force bystanders to take sides. It does not something which causes everything to be seen in terms of one view or another.
Your example of inclusionist or deletionist is a good example of something which is divisive.
I'm not sure what I'm getting at, but yes, we do need to define exactly what is "divisive" and why we do or don't allow it.
Steve
"Erik Moeller" wrote
I would prefer a term like "ideological factions" to "division". Division is natural and happens all the time when people disagree.
But I wouldn't prefer this. 'Divisive' is clearer than 'ideological': I have just been reading an academic text where it is stated that "ideology" has at least 100 meanings. Divisive writing can be recognised by its intention, to split and polarise.
<snip>
The last thing I want to see is people on [[Talk:Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints]] arguing that a new guy who tries to fix up the currently awful "Criticism" section is trying to "divide the community" by focusing on "contentious and inflammatory content" with "clear intent to disrupt and provoke." In reality, it might well be that an ideological faction of Mormons is dominating the article -- in which case they would be the ones acting against the spirit of Wikipedia by trying to drown out criticism. (No offense intended to Mormons with this arbitrary example.)
This is a known phenomenon (it's on the Raul's Laws page): a standing consensus around an article is broken. But I'm clear that is not what is being targeted. One can disagree with a consensus version of an article, without taking a divisive social line. Some editors don't understand this, true.
Charles
On 5/16/06, charles matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
But I wouldn't prefer this. 'Divisive' is clearer than 'ideological': I have just been reading an academic text where it is stated that "ideology" has at least 100 meanings. Divisive writing can be recognised by its intention, to split and polarise.
It is very difficult to know intentions. A policy which operates on guessing intentions, rather than determining clear facts, is a dangerous thing.
Erik
We need to define some operational tests, for example, if behavior results in wheel wars or is associated with sustained edit warring, it can be said to be divisive.
Fred
On May 16, 2006, at 11:04 AM, Erik Moeller wrote:
On 5/16/06, charles matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
But I wouldn't prefer this. 'Divisive' is clearer than 'ideological': I have just been reading an academic text where it is stated that "ideology" has at least 100 meanings. Divisive writing can be recognised by its intention, to split and polarise.
It is very difficult to know intentions. A policy which operates on guessing intentions, rather than determining clear facts, is a dangerous thing.
Erik _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 5/16/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
We need to define some operational tests, for example, if behavior results in wheel wars or is associated with sustained edit warring, it can be said to be divisive.
Just like knowing intentions, trying to determine "who started it" is very difficult and tends to lead to unfair results: any parent knows that. Not only does it require a lot of subjective judgment (which will always be somewhat prejudiced against new editors), it also assigns the blame for consequences that may not have been predictable at the time an action was taken (and that may not even follow when a similar action is taken in a different context).
The more broadly interpretable policies you have, the more accusations of cabalism and unfair treatment you will get. Just like the little brother complains that the older brother always gets away with starting trouble, some users will complain that certain users get away with "being divisive". And sometimes they will be right.
We have policies that are relatively straightforward to interpret on matters like wheel warring, edit warring, and personal attacks. I strongly caution against trying to determine who is being divisive and why in addition to punishing those who violate these policies.
Instead, I can see a need for a well-defined guideline against permanent factions (as supported by categories, userboxes, membership listings etc.) of people who share strong convictions on a particular issue. Such factions of belief tend to polarize people and undermine overarching ideals such as neutrality and community.
Associations by topic are helpful. Associations by the _stance_ on a particular topic are unnecessary. Stating the stance is one thing, creating identifiable factions through categories, member pages and userboxes is another. We can discourage or forbid this in favor of associations by _interest_:
Republican => interested in politics anti-Scientologist => interested in Scientology deletionist=> interested in AfD nymphomaniac => interested in contraception
This would not stop prejudices, but it would at least encourage mingling among people who may not think exactly the same way as you do -- and eliminate one of the tools used for vote stacking. It ties naturally into our existing WikiProject model, and could even be extended by topical IRC channels as is done on de.wikipedia.org.
This would be a simple policy that leaves little room for interpretation. That makes it, in my opinion, preferable to trying to nail down what is and isn't "divisive", both in general terms and on a case by case basis.
Erik
On 5/16/06, Erik Moeller eloquence@gmail.com wrote:
Republican => interested in politics anti-Scientologist => interested in Scientology deletionist=> interested in AfD nymphomaniac => interested in contraception
Smells like euphemisms. And it pretty much amounts to the same thing. When you see "Interested in Judaism" or heavy contributions to articles on interpretations of the Qoran or something, you can form your own conclusions. But I would certainly say that there is a difference between religion and political ideology. I can't put my finger on it just at the moment, but being Muslim seems somehow more permanent and less inflammatory than stating loudly "I VOTE REPUBLICAN".
Steve
On 5/16/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/16/06, Erik Moeller eloquence@gmail.com wrote:
Republican => interested in politics anti-Scientologist => interested in Scientology deletionist=> interested in AfD nymphomaniac => interested in contraception
Smells like euphemisms. And it pretty much amounts to the same thing.
No, there's one crucial difference. I would put myself in "interested in Christianity", even though I am a staunch atheist. I suspect that so would many others. It's not about hiding your beliefs - I think that would be pointless. My argument is that _identifiable factions_, that is, permanent groups that are categorized and listed, should be open to all convictions about a given subject. They can be subject-specific, but they shouldn't be belief-specific.
If you want to say on your user page that you're a Christian, that's one thing. If you want to form a group of Christians who work together because they share their belief system, then you're on the wrong site. Certainly, you can find others who want to work with you on Christianity articles. But you will have to accept that they may disagree with you about the fundamentals.
It's true that for many subcultures, "being interested in" will be equivalent to "being a fan/member of". You will find that in many existing WikiProjects (e.g. most members of the LDS WikiProject are Mormons), but I haven't heard anyone ever suggest that WikiProjects and Portals are harmful in the way "divisive" userboxes are. That's because WikiProjects (should) accept members of all persuasions on a topic.
Erik
On 5/17/06, Erik Moeller eloquence@gmail.com wrote:
No, there's one crucial difference. I would put myself in "interested in Christianity", even though I am a staunch atheist. I suspect that so would many others. It's not about hiding your beliefs - I think that would be pointless. My argument is that _identifiable factions_, that is, permanent groups that are categorized and listed, should be open to all convictions about a given subject. They can be subject-specific, but they shouldn't be belief-specific.
Ok, fair enough. What if they were worded as "I work on ... articles." That would be even more project-oriented. If you're not working on articles about the Monster Raving Loony Party, you shouldn't be professing your allegiance to it...it's just not relevant.
Steve
"Erik Moeller" wrote
On 5/16/06, charles matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
But I wouldn't prefer this. 'Divisive' is clearer than 'ideological': I have just been reading an academic text where it is stated that "ideology" has at least 100 meanings. Divisive writing can be recognised by its intention, to split and polarise.
It is very difficult to know intentions. A policy which operates on guessing intentions, rather than determining clear facts, is a dangerous thing.
Well, OK. It is not _always_ very difficult to guess intentions (hate speech and so on). It is better to have a policy that is sometimes useful, and relates very clearly to what everyone agrees. We all agree that driving wedges into the community, along factional lines, is very bad. So we state this as policy. I would see that as the 80 for 20 of the situation: we can apply this to some rather stupid or trolling or overtly partisan situations. Then manifestos have at least to pay due respect to the principle that the community is not to be polarised.
Charles