Misplaced Pages talk:Activist: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 18:41, 5 January 2011 editWilliam M. Connolley (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers66,038 edits →Citation tags: mind you← Previous edit		Revision as of 19:03, 5 January 2011 edit undoZuluPapa5 (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers6,447 edits Tag additionNext edit →
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{oldmfd \| date = 7 November 2010 \| result = keep \| votepage = Misplaced Pages:Activist }}		{{oldmfd \| date = 7 November 2010 \| result = keep \| votepage = Misplaced Pages:Activist }}
			{{Be civil}}

	==Activist shortcut==		==Activist shortcut==

Revision as of 19:03, 5 January 2011

This page was nominated for deletion on 7 November 2010. The result of the discussion was keep.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Activist shortcut

The "WP:ACTIVIST" shortcut is still red-linked. How do I get it to turn blue? Cla68 (talk) 00:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I created a redirect so it should work now. SlimVirgin 03:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 01:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration list

Arbitration cases

The list of Arbitration cases is much too short. I'd guess that at least half of the committee's cases involve advocacy, defined one way or another. List all of them. Those cases are the meat of this essay. Will Beback talk 08:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I went through the cases fairly carefully and added the ones I thought applied. If you have others you feel should be listed, please feel free to add them. Cla68 (talk) 01:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Many cases involve the principles of no advocacy/soapboxing. Why aren't those included? Will Beback talk 02:00, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I've added those that included advocacy as a principle. Will Beback talk 02:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, one criteria I used when adding a case to the list was where it appeared that more than one person was engaged in advocacy and appeared to be acting together to promote their cause. Cla68 (talk) 03:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Do activists never act alone? I didn't get that from the essay. Maybe it should be retitled "activists" or "groups of activists". Will Beback talk 03:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

An activist acting alone is a different animal. A lone POV-pusher is a pain in the neck, but is usually unable to exercise controlling ownership over a topic. Perhaps ACTIVISTS would be a better title, as you suggest. Cla68 (talk) 04:07, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the essay could be focused more on the group aspect. Much of it seems to be address generic advocacy. Will Beback talk 04:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

You're right. I just took a stab at trying to make it clearer that the essay is about blocs of activists working together. Cla68 (talk) 04:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I've posted the list of advocacy cases above, and bolded the ones that ones that don't appear to concern just one or two users. But I'm sure that some of the remaining cases only involve single activists too. Let's keep narrowing down the list. Will Beback talk 13:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I looked at these and it looks roughly correct. I'll go ahead and add the bolded names to the list. We can keep improving it in situ. Will Beback talk 10:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Cla68 (talk) 10:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

How about declined cases? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:30, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Sure. Cla68 (talk) 22:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Because the RFC preceding that case evidenced more of same, and the ineffectiveness of RFC, where the same activism is prominent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

We'll get those links added soon. Thank you for pointing that one out. Cla68 (talk) 22:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Someone just blanked that list of arbcom cases. I invited them to participate in this dicussion. I propose listing all the ArbCom cases dealing with groups of editors, which WillBeback helpfully linked to and bolded above. Also, as SandyGeorgia suggests, we should consider linking to RfCs that also alleged group activist editing. I think we can leave it up to the reader to decide if activism was involved in any of those instances or not. Cla68 (talk) 08:08, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing me to this discussion. I don't think the list is appropriate because the essay should stand on it's own with having to point fingers at individual cases. Maybe it would be okay if a specific case that's relevant to the text could be integrated into the sentence flow and linked as a case example, but to list a whole series of cases really gives weight to the arguments in the MfD that it's perpetuating a battleground mentality, because with that list there they're thinking the target audience is them, when it should be uninvolved readers. We want to inform our readers about certain behaviours that occur but we don't want them being shown the worst of Misplaced Pages, they can find it themselves. -- œ 21:30, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Participation

Does anyone mind if I participate here? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 17:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe everyone is welcome to join in with the ongoing effort to help expand and improve this essay. Cla68 (talk) 23:04, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I am interested in contributing about Misplaced Pages:Expert editors approaching activism. Maybe with wp:bite when perhaps wp:welcome would better serve Misplaced Pages's interests. For example: a 2 year old learns to say "no" and may start annoyingly denying others, while the wise old sage says "no" with acceptance of self and other kNOwledge. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 02:19, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Easier to understand with examples

Could you maybe show some tactical, intereresting examples on the Wiki of this activity actually going down? Concrete examples make an article come alive.TCO (talk) 02:14, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I did have links to ArbCom case decisions in which group activism was alleged. Another editor removed the links, however, a few weeks ago and no one else weighed-in on whether they thought the links should be restored or not. Another editor above suggested adding links to RfCs which also might show evidence of group activism. If you agree that such links are helpful, they could be restored and/or added. Cla68 (talk) 04:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I was teasing! It's a better article with the info added, but the way group dynamics and editing work on Wiki, I would leave it off. The guilty parties can't complain as easily if you don't identify them. ;) TCO (talk) 16:06, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with the long list that used to be here. However, without specifically citing examples from within each case, which is obviously not a good idea, I'm not sure how much value that list would add. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The Arbcom list and links were great. Maybe a expandable list. A short pith example from each would be beneficial. Activism is a growing issue. Will be difficult to sort out the NPOV, this article may help. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 18:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Nah, that would open a hornet's nest. Once a case has been adjudicated it's best to let matters lie, rather than to stir things up and reopen old wounds. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Whether all of those cases actually involved group activism is open to question. That's why I simply listed them all and left it open to the reader to decide, after reading this essay and then reading the evidence pages and decisions in those cases, whether group activism was actually present or not. One of the purposes of this essay is to influence editors to use critical thinking when observing the behavior of groups of editors in controversial topic areas. Cla68 (talk) 23:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Write it off wiki?TCO (talk) 15:27, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Image

I wonder if anyone would object to switching to a more generic or antiquarian lead image, perhaps something like this. I think it would be preferable to using any current controversy, like anti-nukes. This would be in line with not singling out any particular cause. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Moved from the essay

I can't understand parts of this, so I'm moving it here until it's clarified. SlimVirgin 17:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Frequently activists are spotted by their continuous treatment of negative information in relation to their POV and the verified truth within the reliable sources presented. They may make a false positive claim to include, when in fact there is none to be source substantiated (i.e. excessive belief). Or, they may make a false negative claim to exclude when supporting content exists in a reliable source; however, the activist's excessive skepticism is the real issue for exclusion. Additionally, they may uncivilly reject or advance content by ignoring rules to benefit their common interests over the neutral goal of Misplaced Pages, especially for reasons beyond grounding in Misplaced Pages's principles. Activists may self-identify or, they may be assume this identity from a group, accepting the group's identity with a common interest. How activists handle their behaviors and roles, is key to their survival.

What don't you understand? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 17:52, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

It's oddly written. For example, what does this say? "They may make a false positive claim to include, when in fact there is none to be source substantiated (i.e. excessive belief)." SlimVirgin 17:55, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

It's the diagnostic method elaboration of POV pushing. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 17:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what that means either. As written the sentence doesn't have a clear meaning; the rest of the paragraph has similar issues. SlimVirgin 18:02, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

(Aside "meaning management" is my favorite branding topic. ) If you can't identify specific issues, how can I help you solve them? The passage is an attempt to diagnose and identify (spot) Misplaced Pages activist with specific reference to truth table analysis. I agree it could be said better. The line you identified is a method to spot what Wikipedians call POV pushing. What does "POV pushing" mean to you, how do you spot it? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 18:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I think parts of this have been written by someone whose first language is not English. I haven't looked to see who it is; if it's you, I apologize. The problem is that it's genuinely difficult to understand what's being said. The first sentence doesn't seem to say much. The second sentence really isn't comprehensible: "They may make a false positive claim to include, when in fact there is none to be source substantiated (i.e. excessive belief)." And so on.

I think we all know what POV pushing is, and this isn't really the place to explain it anyway.

If we're writing an essay to advise people about writing and research, it must itself be clearly written. Sorry. SlimVirgin 18:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Help me make it clearer for relvence to spot activists. I started the section. My first language is urban American. What do you mean by "genuinely difficult" or "say much" or "isn't comprehensible" can you be clearer? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 18:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I would copy edit it if I knew what it was trying to say. First sentence: "Frequently activists are spotted by their continuous treatment of negative information in relation to their POV and the verified truth within the reliable sources presented." What is that saying? SlimVirgin 18:38, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Again, the intent is to diagnose disruptive activism. A key approach in diagnosis is to tests the negatives. I suspect the issue is with "negative information in relation to their POV". That means a suspected activist negation of information, may done in relation to their POV (with original research) and ignore the sources. Somehow, they judge including the information to be negative to their POV and personal interest, rather than negative to what a sources say and wikipedia's best interests (which I assume is the preferred negation method). The "continuous" word was an attempt to simply say, assume good faith, only repeated denial of sources and Misplaced Pages principle is cause for activist concern. Everyone makes simple mistakes; however, continuing the issues after errors have been identified, is cause for concern as an activist. I would like to elaborate the section. Maybe I should write a longer piece, somewhere else first? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 19:05, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

You could try a longer piece in your userspace if you like. I'd be willing to help you copy edit that section, but we'd need to take it sentence by sentence, with you explaining what each one meant in a way I could understand, so that I could summarize it. SlimVirgin 19:08, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok ... I'll let you know, when I have something for comment. My writing can be cryptic. Thanks. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 19:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Compromise section

I also moved this because seeking compromise is definitely not a mark of activist editing. The writing is also problematic.

A favorite tools is insistence on compromise. This works because it seems fair and reasonable — as long as you don't think too carefully about it. Misplaced Pages policies cannot be overruled by compromise or talk page consensus, and if an article violates those policies it needs to be rectified. Editors should not compromise on policy, and insistence on following policies is not Wikilawyering.
Game theory dictates some of the choices of activists. If the end result is to be a compromise, some will stake out the most extreme position possible, trusting that the compromise will thus tilt toward their position. In encyclopedic terms there's no reason to expect that the best solution has to be precisely in the middle. Think of the famous Randy in Boise: a compromise with Randy stating that only half of the soldiers in the Peloponnesian War were sword-wielding skeletons wouldn't be a service to Misplaced Pages users. Instead of compromise seek principled agreement based on Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines.

SlimVirgin 17:55, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Please go ahead and fix the writing (which has deteriorated over time, as is the way of Misplaced Pages). But insistence on compromise is definitely a characteristic of activist editors. You may be falling into a logical misstep: while insistence on compromise is a hallmark of activist editing, not everyone who insists on compromise is an activist. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I fixed the parts of the writing I could understand, and moved the rest here. As for the compromise issue, the essay says activist editors will usually avoid seeking compromise, so adding that section contradicts the rest. In my experience it's the activists who usually dislike compromise, because they want their articles to be "on message". SlimVirgin 18:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Claiming "compromise" can be a component of "activist" editing. I think this paragraph makes a good point:

"A favorite tools is insistence on compromise. This works because it seems fair and reasonable — as long as you don't think too carefully about it. Misplaced Pages policies cannot be overruled by compromise or talk page consensus, and if an article violates those policies it needs to be rectified. Editors should not compromise on policy, and insistence on following policies is not Wikilawyering."

The above could be written better but I think it makes a good point. As for it being in contradiction with what is said about "compromise" elsewhere in the article, probably we have to break down the concept of "compromise" further to develop a distinction between "good" compromise and "bad" compromise. I would hazard a guess that we should never sacrifice the articulation and conveyance of information on the alter of "compromise." Nor should we be compromising core Wiki principles except when for instance a case can be made for Ignoring All Rules. Bus stop (talk) 19:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Bear in mind that this page isn't about whether compromise can be good or bad. And it's not about how compromise relates to the policies. It's about how to spot activist editing.

A very clear hallmark of activist editing is an unwillingness to accept compromise, regardless of the policies. That doesn't mean that everyone who does this is an activist editor, of course. But to write that " favorite tools is insistence on compromise" is completely false. Seeking compromise is usually a sign of good editing, bearing in mind the need to stick to the policies (the subject of another page). SlimVirgin 19:53, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the second paragraph is also very apt. I would leave out reference to "game theory." In fact I would leave out reference to "Randy in Boise" even though I think it is very funny and illustrates the point well. But I agree that:

"If the end result is to be a compromise, some will stake out the most extreme position possible, trusting that the compromise will thus tilt toward their position. In encyclopedic terms there's no reason to expect that the best solution has to be precisely in the middle."

What this is saying is that it is an "activist" characteristic to not be aiming to get the most accurate information into the article but to strategize editorially. "Compromise" is an inherently problematic concept, I think, in writing an encyclopedia—even though this is an intensively collaborative project. The need for "compromise" should be a red flag—calling for a major reevaluation of the impasse that editors find themselves at. In my opinion a likely solution is more rather than less information at that point. Bus stop (talk) 19:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is built on consensus and compromise (within the policies). We can't suddenly claim that's a sign of activist editing. SlimVirgin 20:10, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Sure we can, because it's often observed in practice. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to ask for examples, because it would mean posting contentious diffs. All I can do is repeat that in six years of editing, I've never associated that with activist editing. And it would seem that others agree, because the opposite point is made in the essay:

Editors operating in good faith will try to cooperate, collaborate, and compromise with almost all other editors. Rather than removing reliably sourced information, good faith editors will work with others to resolve the dispute and try to retain some substance of the text at issue. Activists, on the other hand, usually refuse. During any content dispute with activists, tag-team edit warring and long, convoluted wiki-lawyering on the article talk page become the norm.

SlimVirgin 20:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

You say, "the opposite point is made in the essay." These aren't "opposite" points. I agree that we don't want to "ask for examples". "Compromise" should not be necessary because points at variance with one another can often be accommodated by allotting space to all reliably sourced viewpoints. I think "activist" editing is often characterized by an aim to exclude information. "Compromise" can be a "bad" thing when it serves as a sanctimonious excuse for excluding reliably sourced information. The remedy to this type of "bad" compromising is the inclusion of more information, reliably sourced of course. This can be thought of as an "accommodating" approach. It is the remedy to the misuse of the concept of "compromise" by "activists." Bus stop (talk) 20:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Activism can also take the form of insistence on including irrelevant information, or placing excessive weight on small-minority views. What about Randy from Boise's insistence on compromise by including at least some reference to sword-wielding skeletons? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

That can be a problem with (poor) compromise, but the question here is whether it's a sign of activism. SlimVirgin 21:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

In my experience, yes. (As suggested above I, er, would prefer not to name names...) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Simplifying: The problem is generally with "my way or the highway" proposed "compromises". Real compromises occur when each "side" gives up something - when one side says they will give up essentially nothing, there is a problem, Houston. (self-spam) see essay WP:Advocacy articles for part of my opinion on this. Collect (talk) 21:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

See argument to moderation. The "Examples" section is particularly instructive. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

It is possible that argument to moderation exists sometimes in Misplaced Pages. The Misplaced Pages model, however, requires that attempts at compromise be made when editors disagree with each other. That means, I suppose, that argument to moderation is possible, but I've never seen that actually happen. I agree with SV that, based on my observations, a refusal to compromise is a sign of activist editing. An expectation by editors of efforts to compromise is not really a signal of problematic activism in an article. Cla68 (talk) 00:53, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

And based on my observations it does happen. We seem to be at an impasse. What say you? Shall we -- compromise? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

We are not "compromising", even though this is an intensively collaborative project. What we are doing is "accommodating" one another. We are doing so while operating in conformance with nonnegotiable principles, such as the requirement calling for reliable sources. The problem is seeing an "either/or" situation when there is ample room for more than one perspective to be expressed. But any perspective expressed much have adequate support in sources. Material included can have implications that contradict what other included material implies. Also, it is not our responsibility to reconcile seemingly contradictory implications unless of course a source attempts to address that reconciliation. Bus stop (talk) 04:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Vicious circle. What you think is a reliable source I say is an unreliable source. The metric provided by Misplaced Pages for determining which of us is correct is vague enough to allow for endless argument. In practice, what happens is that certain editors declare certain sources to be reliable or unreliable by fiat because the way reliability is judged in the real world is through personal appraisal of experts which is an activity explicitly forbidden at Misplaced Pages. Sources which conform to the reliable ones are then permitted for inclusion while sources which do not conform are excluded on the basis of unreliability. And that's how we get things done on Misplaced Pages. The alternative is allowing every possible boneheaded idea its day in the sun. jps (talk) 07:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Arguments over what constitutes reliable sourcing is another sign of activist editing. For example, if a group of editors refuses to allow an editorial from a major newspaper or a book published by an independent publisher because they don't agree with the opinion in those sources, then activism is indicated. As far as Misplaced Pages is concerned, we don't care if an idea or opinion is right or not. If a PhD and Randy in Boise are the only two editors involved in a content dispute, and both are advocating the presentation of contradicting ideas backed-up by reliable sources, then both ideas will have to be mentioned in the article after an agreement is reached between the two. If one is willing to compromise and the other isn't, then the one not willing to compromise appears to be promoting a single POV. That is activism. The one trying to compromise is trying to edit in accordance with WP's policies and is in the right. Cla68 (talk) 09:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

"Arguments over what constitutes reliable sourcing is another sign of activist editing."

We need to be careful that we don't conflate legitimate editing conflicts with inappropriate activism. Arguing over reliable sources is also a sign of conscientious editing. Is everyone who participates at WP:RSN an activist? Editorials are often questioned as a source of facts, and "independently published" books may not meet WP:V. Instead of questioning sources, promoting the use of unreliable sources may be a more common sign of activism. Will Beback talk 11:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec) One example I had of this was around the Jesus articles, where a group of editors repeatedly removed that certain academics doubted that Jesus had ever existed. The argument was that these academics were plain wrong, and weren't specialist enough; even a philosopher of religion was deemed not specialist and UNDUE was cited to keep him out. The sources had to be biblical scholars to be deemed acceptable. Regarding a biblical scholar who does hold that view, he was dismissed on the grounds that he wasn't respected enough, and photographs of him not looking his best were posted on talk and in one of the articles in an effort to ridicule him.

This is a clear sign of activist editing—that sources normally regarded as reliable aren't good enough unless the editors in question agree with them, because the aim is to keep the view out of the article; or at least to ensure that it sounds wrong-headed. Compromise is anathema if it allows the view to be expressed as a viable way of looking at the issue. SlimVirgin 11:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure we're both right. Sources are a bone of contention between activists and non-activists, between pro and anti sides, and even between editors acting in good faith. What separates activists from non-activists may not be the side they take on sources, but the passion and doggedness with which they make their case. Will Beback talk 11:30, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree there. I suppose what we're trying to do here is distill the essence of activism. I can think of activist editors who've gone to great lengths to try to include material. But over the last six years I think most of the activism I've seen has involved exclusion; the aim is to make sure people don't read material that's considered deadly to the POV in question. Thinking back to the activist editors you've dealt with—has it not been the case that most of their efforts have been to keep stuff out (either keep it out entirely, or at least remove it from what they see as the main article)? SlimVirgin 12:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

True. I recall many instances in which activists have argued against good sources. I can also recall somewhat fewer instances of them arguing for poor sources. But note that activist can also represent the majority view and oppose valid minority POVs requiring inclusion. In those cases the activist may be pushing against seemingly reliable sources that are in the minority. I agree that source-fighting can be a sign of activism, but as a diagnostic tool I'm not sure we've described it properly. Will Beback talk 12:42, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Can you think of a way to tweak it to make it more accurate, without losing the flavour? The danger with including too much (i.e. it can look like this and that, but also not-this and not-that) is that we risk losing the essence, so that all editing will sound like activist editing. We need ways of spotting the category—and I think we mostly know it when we see it, even if there are ambiguous cases around the edges—without making it so extensive it's meaningless. SlimVirgin 12:51, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

There's an elephant in the room here. Eventually I may mention it. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:27, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean, but I do agree that some version of the compromise section needs to be restored. Also I think the "editing to advance fringe points of view" section needs beefing up/restoration. I've felt for some time that this essay is troublesome because one person's "activist editing" is another person's "good editing." If we are going to have this essay, we need to make if far more balanced than it is at the present time. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

DO tell us what the elephant is. ++Lar: t/c 23:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Citation tags

LOL at the citation tags. I guess bad faith is the issue to be cited. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 02:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure the right way to ask for supporting evidence to show that these are, in fact, "favorite tactics". Are there any examples from the ArbCom cases? Will Beback talk 02:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom probably would not decide on a content issue like this, unless there were an overly abusive pattern. It's a matter of faith. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 03:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

If not based on evidence from ArbCom cases involving activist groups, then on what basis are we making these assertions? Will Beback talk 03:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I would assume WP:ESSAYS into a NPOV of course. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 04:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not following. Is the idea that we can write whatever we want with no connection to reality? Is there any reason I shouldn't delete the tagged lines? Will Beback talk 04:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

An essay, as stated in the template at the top of the page, is a general statement of opinion. The danger with citing specific examples of what may be editor misconduct is that it may make the essay appear to be an attempt at dispute resolution, which is inappropriate. Cla68 (talk) 04:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The tags are absurd, which is appropriate because this whole essay is farcical. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see this essay as farcical. I am not even sure that I see this essay primarily as an essay. There are so many people providing so many different kinds of input that I would describe as being akin to a workshop. I find this page interesting. It addresses an important problem. The problem is distinguishing between activist editing and non-activist editing. And an associated problem concerns how to prevent the abuse of policy—all policies start out with wholesome intentions, but the activist turns those policies to other purposes. Bus stop (talk) 06:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

SBHB: It's telling that you find this essay "farcial". So what's the elephant? ++Lar: t/c 07:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

A favorite tactic for activists, is to propose to speedy delete new articles in which they disagree, failing to give the article a chance to develop.
Activists may attempt to create new articles, which border on content or POV forks, in an attempts to advance their position.

One problem here is that these statements are almost mirror images. Activists try to get rid of article and activists try to create articles. Another problem is that if we don't ground these assertions in reality then we're just blowing smoke.

Activists may attempt to write essays to demonize their opponents.
Activists typically argue against essays.
A favorite technique of activists is to add neutral, verifiable content to relevant articles, because it makes them look like good editors.

While I understand that folks don't want to cite specific cases because doing so could dredge up old conflicts, I don't see how an essay like this can be written without anchoring it to actual instances of inappropriate activism by groups. There are plenty of ArbCom cases that have involved activism but which are now old and settled. Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic, for example. I'm not sure if any of the participants of that case are even still active. Will Beback talk 08:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The essay is deliberately written to include a broad range of activities - it is not an exercise in "dispute resolution" in itself, and it is intended to offer generally sound advice no matter which "side" is the activist side on any issue. ArbCom has, in fact, made findings related to perceived groups of editors in a field, and stated This is particularly harmful when such editors act in concert to systematically advocate editorial decisions considered favorable to their shared views in a manner that contravenes the application of Misplaced Pages policy or obstructs consensus-building. which is fairly clear for anything out of ArbCom. Collect (talk) 11:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

That's good material to add. I'm all for grounding this page in solid quotes and citations from authoritative sources. Will Beback talk 11:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem with this essay won't be solved by citations. It's essentially a prolonged justification for injecting fringe viewpoints into the project. Any effort to turn this into a useful and balanced essay has been ripped out. I agree that it's a farce. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Essays on WP are, sui generis, matters of opinion. "Citations" will not "improve" any essay, not does a lack of citations make an essay valueless. The purpose, as I see it, is to make an essay which points out the real hazards of any group of editors, however well-intentioned and saintly, act in concert, real or perceived, on any group of articles. Digressions into effectively saying "right thought is to be rewarded, wrong thought is to be punished" is not within the theological sphere (or any sphere) of Wikipediology. Collect (talk) 13:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

If that's the case (sui generis matters of opinion), you should reinstate the fringe activists section that you ripped out. The rest of the essay is clearly directed at efforts to blunt fringe opinions, so it is imbalanced and really has no credibility. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

As I "ripped out" nothing - only reworded a strange section to make it compliant with the rest of the essay which does not try to assert that any one side is "right" or "wrong", I fail to see any problem. If you feel the essay should praise "right activism" and oppose "wrong activism" I fear you might properly write your own essay :). Collect (talk) 15:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Come on now. The "elephant in the room," to use an expression someone utilized here, is that this essay emerged from the Climate Change Arbitration, created by a topic banned editor, and represents the grievances that stem from text being removed on the grounds of being fringe and undue weight. As originally written and proposed for deletion, it was clearly directed at editors seeking to remove fringe points of view. It was retained on the proviso that it could be improved. I tried; you thwarted that. I and other editors have toned down its explicit original message, but not to the extent that a section is not warranted on activism to advance fringe points of view. Yes, advancing fringe points of view is "wrong" in the view of Wiki policy. Right now it is leans in the opposite direction, and, with some softening, attacks activism to advance mainstream positions, because people defending articles from fringe positions do indeed use UNDUE. In fact, I would suggest that this article, if not made more balanced, is itself a form of activism and can be used to advance activism. My only concern is that I'm wasting my time on something that is inherently lacking in credibility and serves no purpose. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

And, if you will recall, I had essentially nothing to do with the CC fighting. My only concern is that this essay be worded as neutrally as possible, and so I would ask you extend good faith towards such edits. My edits at no point have "taken sides" on any issue in this essay, and that you assert that your strange attemnpt to assert that "right activism is good" and "wrong activism is evil" is "thwarting" anything at all is weird. Activism from any side at all is a problem. Clear? Collect (talk) 16:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

At no point have I ever said that "right activism is good" nor identified you as a CC editor. The purpose of the "fringe activism" section that you chopped out was to identify the techniques used by that kind of activist, and at no point does it say that "right activism is good." That's just false. If you're going to mischaracterize my statements and editing, there's no point of further discussion. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The gist of the section which I carefully and neutrally reworded was that "fringe promoting activists are evil (roughly)." The nature of acts by any activists tend to fall into the same categories whether they are protecting the truth, or promoting lies and fallacies. This essay ought to condemn all such tactics on any side by any group of editors with common beliefs and goals. I daresay it is difficult to be any more neutral in wording than that! Collect (talk) 16:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

It is not the purpose of this essay to "condemn" activism, but to identify activism. You didn't "reword" the section, you removed it.. The point of what you removed was to show the techniques used by activists to advance fringe point of view. It's not enough to say that "both types of activism are bad." The paragraph as you reworded it is a bald statement of no value whatsoever in identifying activism. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

You are also quite mistaken when you say that the nature of activism is the same regardless of what kind it is. UNDUE is a good example where its use by fringe activists is different from what is used by non-fringe activists. One must also keep in mind that all the "techniques" stated in this article can be, and mainly are, used in good faith by nonactivists. That is one of my major problems with this essay. However, again, I'm not sure sweating over this essay is a good use of time. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

This essay is particularly about the use of a group of editors with a common interest or goal. That is something specifically singled out by ArbCom as being a real problem. Neither ArbCom nor this essay need make any judgement about whther one side is right or wrong at all. And pray tell why should "non-activists" act in apparent concert on a general topic to the extent that coordination is suspected? Collect (talk) 17:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I just said. this essay need not make a judgment about activism, but that is what you did in the text that you inserted after you axed out the section on fringe activism. There was indeed judgmental text, but it has been removed (editors "infesting" a page, for instance). That's not the problem. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Note latest copyedit addressing what I surmise is your concern. This is not an essay for fighting out the "SPOV" battles for sure. Collect (talk) 17:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

If we are going to identify activist activity, then we must describe how it can be disruptive. The "mirror image" presents as NPOV. (smile) Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 14:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I think what we should be saying is that any rule can be used in a damaging way. I don't think I have ever seen that perspective expressed. Policy is supposed to serve a good purpose. It is supposed to guide the activities that result in a good-quality end-product. But policy itself is subject to subversion. It is turned to other purposes than those for which it was created. If we were to define the activist it is the person who is disregarding of the original purpose for which a policy was created, and only (or primarily) mindful of a "message" that is personal in nature. Personal messages are not categorically ruled out for inclusion in Misplaced Pages—but they probably require the tempering that results from their juxtaposition to material that communicates a countervailing "message". This article (essay) should make clear that "policy" is not a tool for endlessly creative application—there are limits to the advisable functionality of policy. Those limits are important. Even an eminently wholesome policy such as wp:blp is subject to abuse. In fact it may be more subject to abuse than more quotidian and utilitarian policies. Due to the high ideals embodied in wp:blp, the potential for abuse may actually be enhanced—relative to that of policy that is inherently more mundane. But I think every Wiki policy has its limits, which are just as important as its ideals and intentions. I think "activist" is a good term. An activist is diametrically opposed to a rule-abiding Wikipedian. Bus stop (talk) 15:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Good point!Zulu Papa 5 * (talk)

Collect apparently dislikes the tags due to some category problem . So I've swapped one for "dubious" instead, which seems better than air-brushing away the problem. Mind you, the rest of this really needs tags too William M. Connolley (talk) 18:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Essay purpose

(Fork from above) .... This essay probably serves better for the reader to identity how their behavior may be considered as "activist" and how they can regulate their own behavior. Applying this essay to others, just opens a whole can of worms of bad faith. Best for the reader to address their behaviors. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 16:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages

talk:Activist: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages