A Committee to Deal with Content Issues
Wikipedia does not seem to have any formal arbitration committee that deals with content. I have been involved in a number of cases in which such a committee would be exceedingly useful ( ADHD, Rorschach test, abortion, etc.). Currently I am involved in a dispute regarding the interpretation of the literature regarding Transcendental Meditation (TM) which has been going on for years. There are about 5 editors who admit to being practitioner of TM and only or mainly edit the subject area of TM. They have been using Wikipedia to promote this organization / religion. As they have been reasonably polite no actions were taken during the recent Arbitration case and ArbCom stated that it does not feel they should / are able to address content issues.
An RfC was filled with a couple of comments however the TMers felt that the comments were uninformed, insufficiently numerous, and therefore not relevant. An RfC is also not binding and has no method for enforcement. These editors have been taking turns reverting changes they disagree with. The question is should Wikipedia be written by those who are interested in writing a well referenced work of knowledge or by special interests who wish to push a particular point of view. Wikipedia currently does not have an effective method to deal with these types of special interest groups who are set on promotion or advertising. If Wikipedia is ever going to become well respected by academia it needs effective measures to deal with these sort of issue.
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 5:30 AM, James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com wrote:
A Committee to Deal with Content Issues
Wikipedia does not seem to have any formal arbitration committee that deals with content.
The Mediation Committee?
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 12:46 AM, Oliver Keyes scire.facias@gmail.comwrote:
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 5:30 AM, James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com wrote:
A Committee to Deal with Content Issues
Wikipedia does not seem to have any formal arbitration committee that
deals
with content.
The Mediation Committee? _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Let's linky here, Oliver: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:MEDCOM
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 7:16 AM, Keegan Peterzell keegan.wiki@gmail.comwrote
Let's linky here, Oliver: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:MEDCOM
-- ~Keegan
My bad. Anyway, to quote "The role of the Mediation Committee is explicitly
to try to resolve disputes, especially those *involving content*" (italics not added by moi).
--- On Mon, 9/8/10, Oliver Keyes scire.facias@gmail.com wrote:
Let's linky here, Oliver: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:MEDCOM
~Keegan
My bad. Anyway, to quote "The role of the Mediation
Committee is explicitly to try to resolve disputes, especially those *involving content*" (italics not added by moi).
The mediation committee is only there to "mediate" between the parties who have turned up at any given content page. It is not there to lay down the law as regards content, and is *not* a solution to the potential problem of self-selected, biased contributors overwhelming a given topic area by sheer force of numbers, and sheer investment of time.
Soliciting wider community input through a content RfC or one of the various noticeboards is the best en:Wikipedia has to offer, and editors' responses to such community discussions (is community input ignored, or taken on board?) are considered in arbitration cases.
It is generally true that contentious topics attract polarised editors who very strongly believe in their causes, and that middle-ground people are often crowded out. If one of the polarised sides is numerically stronger, or has more time to spend on Wikipedia, they may carry the day, to the detriment of an NPOV article.
I don't see an easy solution. Any solution that involves a community-elected committee ruling on content might be worse for the project than the present problem.
One thing that helps is external writers criticising Wikipedia content. It's the only way the wider Wikipedia community can be galvanised into action, and made to take an interest in articles they wouldn't otherwise care about. Someone has to make a stink. Even a thread at the Wikipedia Review site can sometimes help.
A.
On Sun, 8 Aug 2010 22:30:38 -0600, James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com wrote:
A Committee to Deal with Content Issues
Is this intended to be a WMF- (cross-project-) issue, or English Wikipedia issue? If the latter is the case, then it should be sent to a different post. If the former is the case, the scope has to be made more precise. For instance, would such committee (if ever created) tell Arabic Wikipedia what has to be written in the article Al-Quds/Jerusalem? Would it tell smth to English Wikipedia that has any chance to be accepted? I doubt it.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 12:35 PM, Yaroslav M. Blanter putevod@mccme.ruwrote:
On Sun, 8 Aug 2010 22:30:38 -0600, James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com wrote:
A Committee to Deal with Content Issues .
For instance, would such committee (if ever created) tell Arabic Wikipedia
what has to be written in the article Al-Quds/Jerusalem? Would it tell smth to English Wikipedia that has any chance to be accepted? I doubt it.
Well, you're probably looking at it the wrong way; if something mediation
committee-like is being talked about, telling X or Z what to do is not the purpose. Instead it's to get X and Z to (grudgingly) meet at Y. I agree that the general scope of this needs to be clarified, however. If it's being talked about in the same vein as the global arbitration committee, there are problems (the same problems, in fact).
Well, you're probably looking at it the wrong way; if something
mediation
committee-like is being talked about, telling X or Z what to do is not
the
purpose. Instead it's to get X and Z to (grudgingly) meet at Y. I agree that the general scope of this needs to be clarified, however. If it's being talked about in the same vein as the global arbitration committee, there are problems (the same problems, in fact).
This is fine with me, but do X and Z work on an article in the same project (say Swahili Wikibooks)? If yes, then this project has its own conflict resolution avenues (if it does not we are back to the Mediation Committee issue) which they soon or later will be obliged to follow. If they do not work on an article I am afraid they can argue with each other till eternity on Meta and no committee would ever help.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 5:30 AM, James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com wrote:
Currently I am involved in a dispute regarding the interpretation of the literature regarding Transcendental Meditation (TM) which has been going on for years. There are about 5 editors who admit to being practitioner of TM and only or mainly edit the subject area of TM. They have been using Wikipedia to promote this organization / religion...
I've read all the responses to this and it is clear that solutions will be hard to find.
This is not a *solution* but merely an expression of what I might do when faced with your situation:
1. Given that what you face is partly a question of uneven numbers (ie more pro TM than against) you might wish to draw in other editors that may not see a RfC. I was going to suggest Wikiproject Pseudoscience, but this might foul [[WP:CANVAS]], so perhaps you could scout Wikiprojects that relate to general healthcare.
2. Given that part of the problem is that your edits are being removed/reverted or otherwise stymied I would content myself, in the interim, by making my case powerfully on the relevant talk pages. They may be able to remove your edits from an article but removing your points from a talk page would be extremely frowned upon and - though you might have to confirm this - actionable; ie if they removed your case from Talk they might receive censure.
Actually, I would do '2' before '1' and then link directly to the discussion section at the aforementioned venues once a few views have been expressed. Ideally you will question article claims with great specificity rather than an article as a whole.
For example, this conversation...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Transcendental_Meditation#Edit_warring_aga...
...isn't going to achieve much.
My approach would be:
a) Copy the sentence I disapprove of into talk. b) Refute it with as many reliable sources as I can find. c) State my intentions as to what I will do in the light of the sources. d) Leave it entirely alone in talk for a week and see what has happened.
3. Transcendental Meditation, as far as I'm aware, is not a great threat to the global or a national community. Don't let the issue aggravate you and don't lose sight of the super-abundance of stuff in this world aside from TM. Sometimes people can get incredibly *furious* that an article is biased. What may anger you is that people are spending money on what you have reason to believe are false claims. Personally I dislike TM because there are plenty of beneficial meditation resources that are free and I see little attraction in cultish leaders and financial outlay when it comes to sitting quietly with my eyes shut trying and failing to STOP THE NEVER ENDING STREAM OF HORRIBLE THOUGHTS... and breathe...
4. You may take quiet satisfaction that one of the few categories the TM article resides in is 'self-religions' which doesn't have many members but one of which is scientology. I imagine that any of our readers that see that will pause for thought before wiring $$$ to TM bodies.
And, actually, reading through the first few paragraphs, the article does already make some pretty stern criticisms of TM. Don't lose sight of that.
There will always be people in this world that have a whiff of snake-oil about them. It's unsurprising that some of that comes to Wikipedia. By all means keep fighting the good fight. But don't ever let it spoil even one hour of your day.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org