Wikipedia talk:Call a spade a spade

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive
Archives
Wikipedia talk:Call a spade a spade/Archives


Contents

[edit] Delineation: Spade and No Spade

Given the distinctions GTB is making could WP:Spade be more about content rather than behaviour, and if so, being direct would not imply any actions towards an editor but rather towards the content/edits, and strong, direct language could be more acceptable, although many editors are subjectively attached to their edits so care would have to be taken here too. WP:No Spade would possibly apply to behaviour towards other editors and could be described as that kind of behaviour that although problematic, is best dealt with not condemning the editor in any way but by dealing with the editor in a civil manner so as not to further support an already less than opimal working environment. Spade then becomes a more objective note, No Spade the more subjective one.(olive (talk) 15:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC))

You could make this into an essay about content, but then you might as well write a totally different essay; this has always been an essay about editors. Antelantalk 15:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I guess I was not so much suggesting a shift in the actual content but rather a shift in the focus. There has already been much discussion here on whether reference is to edits or ccontent or the editors themselves. They are at this point tangled up together. I guess I wondering if its possible to delineate them or untangle them to more cleary be able to react or act in a manner appropriate to either situation.(olive (talk) 15:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC))
I think with the version I've posted, it's now much more clear. Antelantalk 16:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
(ec) I don't see so much confusion; I see a consensus for an essay that advocates for clear thought and clear expression without disparaging other editors personally. I don't see what's confusing about that. Maybe if I could write this draft you would see what I mean. I'm intrigued by Antelan's comment that the essay has always been about editors; I hadn't read it that way before.
To respond to olive's comment about supporting an optimal working environment: I've been thinking about what it is that makes Wikipedia feel disagreeable and unpleasant to me, and has kept me postponing the decision whether to stay and become involved or decide it's not for me (though I seem to be getting in over my ankles already, while I'm thinking about it). I don't know how typical I am (if unique, of course, it just means I don't fit here and my decision should be to exit rather than stay and be frustrated) but for me, it's not name-calling or frank speech that makes Wikipedia an unpleasant working environment. I don't like name-calling, don't think it furthers discussion, but it doesn't upset me to the point of making me unhappy.
What makes me unhappy, and makes me think I can't possibly stay and work here without tearing my hair out, is something else: an oh-so-civil obstructionism that ignores or distorts policy in the service of promoting fringe ideas, that picks out trivial side issues to argue with rather than engaging in honest debate on the important issues, that subtly provokes and provokes until someone loses their temper, like the kid in the back seat who keeps poking her brother, again and again and again, until finally he's had enough and hauls off and whaps her. That's the kind of stuff that really makes me dislike working in Wikipedia. The poking is just as uncivil as the whapping, but the current emphasis on civility seems to consider that only the whapping is a problem, which IMO will just encourage the poking. This has little to do with this essay per se, but I think it's germane to the discussion since the purpose of rewriting the essay seems to have been to discourage incivility "so as not to further support an already less than optimal working environment," in olive's words. My point is that name-calling is only one of many ways to create an unpleasant working environment, and should not be addressed in isolation. Woonpton (talk) 16:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Here is the very first version of this essay, which makes it clear that this is about editors. Antelantalk 20:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, and that's a terrible essay, giving terrible advice. An essay that says that should be deleted, IMO. If it serves any practical benefit, then I hope that someone supporting this kind of wording will explain how. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I guess I could have looked that up myself, but thanks for making it easy for me. Gosh, it's even shorter than my first effort that I was afraid was pretty lame.
I'm really thinking a lot about this; I'm conflicted about whether there are times when it might be useful to just flat out call a person a spade, so to speak. As I've said elsewhere, there really are ducks who are disrupting the encyclopedia, and I don't think it's useful to continue endlessly to extend the assumption of good faith when it's not warranted. But at the same time, as I've said, I don't think it's productive to call people names either (although I'm not at all sure I understand why "POV pusher" should be considered an unacceptably vile description of someone who is in fact a POV pusher). I go back and forth on it. If you could expand on your thoughts about this, it might help me resolve my dilemma.Woonpton (talk) 21:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think the choice is between calling them a spade and endlessly extending an assumption of good faith. Those are unrelated. It's entirely possible to block and ban an editor for POV-pushing, effectively and decisively, without ever calling them a spade.

As for "POV-pusher", it's not that it's a vile insult - I hope I've not given the impression that I'm trying to protect people from insults. I don't really care about that. The problem with calling someone a POV-pusher is that it doesn't help. A genuine POV-pusher doesn't see themselves as a POV-pusher; they see themselves as being neutral and correct, and they see those who oppose them as POV-pushers. If someone who is opposing them in some content dispute calls them a POV-pusher, what will that accomplish? Will they say "oh, gee, you're right. I'll stop pushing my fringe POV, now that you've shown me the light!" Of course not. They'll simply defend themselves - with full sincerity - against the accusation, and the conversation will go further and further off-topic.

That is the reason to avoid name-calling: it isn't helpful. If it were helpful, I'd be all for it, but in an actual content dispute, it doesn't get us where we need to go. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

" It's entirely possible to block and ban an editor for POV-pushing, effectively and decisively..." Where, exactly, is it possible to do that? Have you ever actually seen it happen? POV-pushing dealt with summarily, effectively, decisively? Goodness, how long did it take (2 years, I think I read somewhere) before someone finally did something about Xietwel on the 9/11 articles; even ArbCom didn't have whatever it takes to block or ban them effectively, but left it to some poor administrator to do later, and it's kind of hard to imagine a more blatant case of tendentious, disruptive, POV pushing. This is why I've held back from editing here, because the articles where I think I could make a contribution are populated with such folks, not all as blatant as that, but all tirelessly determined to present the topic with a slant that's biased positively toward misinformation in violation of NPOV; I've been watching and waiting to see if the community is going to recognize the problem and take some action, but so far all Ive seen is that they recognize there's a problem, but not that they have identified it accurately or that what they decide to do about it will be likely to make the situation better rather than worse. Woonpton (talk) 04:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, yes, I've seen it happen. We're not very good at it yet, and the POV-pushers who are at all good at surfing the wiki are able to stick around for a long time, but I maintain that it's entirely possible; we just need to get better at it. I think there's some good work in that direction going on at a couple of pages around here. (such as here and here. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, you can't have it both ways; you can't here point to those discussions as "good work" when at the discussions themselves, you're telling the discussants they're barking up the wrong tree. At any rate, I'm quite aware of those discussions and have taken part in both of them. But these are the people who are already well aware of the problem and hoping for a solution, these aren't the people who can implement a solution, that recognition and action has to come from higher up. But at any rate I didn't ask whether people are talking about the problem, I asked, and will ask again: where, when, have you seen it happen, POV-pushing dealt with immediately, effectively and decisively? I don't mean after months or years, I mean right away, long before it starts burning out editors. Woonpton (talk) 15:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


And that's a fine, laudable approach that you take. Really, it's an exemplary model of behavior. That said, it's not the only model of behavior. The lovely thing about communities is that they are composed of people with different ideas. I'm simply saying that the ideas in this essay, though you disagree with them, are not harmful, especially when taken in the whole rather than in parts taken out of context. Antelantalk 21:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
This is why it is harmful and counter productive. Name calling (POV-pusher, truther, anti-science, troll, bigot and so on), discredits the editor and their views without substantiation. If an editor is not what they are called (already stated, if they are, who does think they are?) they must submit their edit history to prove it (and it is unlikely anyone will read it to check), otherwise plead their case, or they can reciprocally attack as GBT states. Conversely, if a person is said to make a (describe name here) edit, then the next question, "diffs please", will usually resolve the matter. IMO name calling is mostly an easy and often dubious way to put an editor at a disadvantage. If an editor deserves a name, the best way to illustrate it is not to call them that name, but to describe the editors relevant edits with diffs.Ward20 (talk) 23:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What would you call it if it didn't have a name?

[1] There is nothing other than the title which has anything to do with spades in this revision.. --
What would the essay best be re-named -? --NewbyG (talk) 00:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
The version of a few days ago would have been "Comment on edits, not on editors." The version as of this moment is actually relevant to calling a spade a spade, but I have no idea how long it will stay that way. Raymond Arritt (talk) 00:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
One can be honest and direct about another editor's behaviour or edits without resorting to name-calling or attacks. - Taken in the context of the current text, that looks reasonable to me. Maybe I was hasty with the rename suggestion, but really there is a lot of re-thinking going on here. --NewbyG (talk) 01:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I've also taken the liberty of jumping over to Wikipedia:Don't call a spade a spade to try and add some sanity there - I think that that essay had gone beyond advocating civility, to advocating civility above all else, even if you get hurt. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd be inclined to let the civility-above-all crowd have their version, and the call-a-spade-a-spade crowd have theirs. I'm more troubled by what's going on at WP:CIV -- it doesn't take paranormal abilities to divine the agenda there. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
There is no "civility-above-all crowd". Characterizing anybody's position as that tends to obscure the issue, and doesn't move us closer to understanding. The dichotomy between "call-a-spade-a-spade" and "civility-above-all" is a false one. The rejection of "call-a-spade-a-spade" does not imply that civility trumps everything else, and I object to the portrayal of my position with those words. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. The glory of essays is that there is room for even wildly divergent viewpoints being expressed in different essays. If some think that WP:CIV trumps literally everything else, then hey, that's great. I'd read an essay about that. Antelantalk 02:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure nobody thinks that. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
The dichotomy between "call-a-spade-a-spade" and "civility-above-all" is a false one. Also, reflexively characterizing positions in that way is intellectually lazy, and cannot be fruitful, and tends to obscure the issues, turn discussion into disagreement, and create a combative atmosphere to no good purpose. --NewbyG (talk) 22:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My question

My question is this: Why call a spade a spade (regarding people, not edits)? How does it help? In what circumstances is labeling another editor more useful/beneficial/productive than refraining from doing so?

I think this question is worth asking, because ultimately it's an empirical matter. "Calling a spade" is either sometimes helpful, or it's not, and if it is helpful, then I'd like to know, so I can do it. If it's not, that would be good to know, too, it seems.

Can anyone help me with this? -GTBacchus(talk) 18:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I have never yet made a post that looked like this - "Example-editor changed civility to read reasonable civility. That is just horrible. How dare they! Example-editor is a POV-pusher or a troll, or a commie, and they shouldn't be allowed to edit wikipedia." And I hope I never do make such a cruddy post. But that doesn't stop me from calling a spade a spade. --NewbyG (talk) 22:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I don't know what you mean. Can you clarify that? If the point of this page is to help people understand something, could we maybe explain it? In what cases do you "call a spade a spade" (applied to people)? How do you do it, and what is the benefit that derives from it? These seem to be questions we should answer, no? -GTBacchus(talk) 21:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry, but I don't know what you mean. in what cases do you call a spade a spade "applied to people"? That would be never. No cases. I already musta said that about a thousand times in these threads, do I have to tattoo it on my forehead? (That being said, given enough time and aggravation, anything is possible, lol.) --
I don't see any benefit in such a behaviour, I am in no position to explain something that doesn't make sense to me; and I am not even sure that it is a sensible question to be asking of me. I am not sure what questions need answering, but I don't think these ones are the right ones. Are you a POVpusher who has yet to stop beating your wife? Sure, such questions can be asked, but where does it get us? While our debates follow that style, progress will be hard. --
What I really meant to say, is that I don't have any answers at this time, sorry. And good questions are a bit thin on the ground to date, also my fault as much as anyone's. We have no alternative but to keep trying to understand, and hope understanding comes in time. Thanks. -- [2] --NewbyG (talk) 00:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I suspect that you're not really the person to whom my question is directed. You don't have to tattoo anything on your forehead, because I never suspected that you were in favor of calling "people" spades. However, Raymond, Antelan, and others here have been very clear that they do want to call people spades, and that they think it's a good idea. I really want someone who believes that to explain to me why it's a good idea, according to them. You can't help me with that, NewbyG, because you and I already agree that it isn't a good idea. Nobody in favor of it seems willing to say anything in its defense, which I find slightly troubling. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Great in theory

That's great in theory, but how about these, all of which are based on things that have come up in my recent experience and been relevant. "I'm sorry, but you've been caught out time and time again misrepresenting and selectively quoting from studies in order to support your point of view. At this point, we really can't trust you to present a study neutrally" (And many other things in that line. The user had been caught out about 5 times already, and had a habit of going back to studies that had been rejected after a week or two. At the moment, he's under a three-month topic ban after he tried to quotemine another user's statements to make the user appear to back him, while the user was right there, strenuously objecting to same.
In situations like that - extreme, but depressingly, not uncommon in the most contentious parts of Wikipedia, if no admin will step in - and there's certainly some reason for the popular meme that the best way to avoid administrator sanction is to promote a fringe viewpoint - If you don't call a spade a spade, then certain disputes never end.
Yes, there are better ways to deal with that. Sending more neutral admins into Alternative medicine, nationalism, and other such disputes would help. But until Wikipedia gets a reasonable number of admins willing to deal with its lawless backwaters, calling a spade a spade is about the only defense against POV-pushing editors with no respect for Wikipedia rules, since they've broken them without sanction over and over again, and who migrate from article to article, trying to get information that supports their POV added there.
And if you think my description is nonsense, why don't you go manage, oh, any of the article topics that have had recent arbcom cases for a few months, then see if I'm incorrect. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Why would you imagine that I take your sensible words to be nonsense? I didn't ask for a reply so I could take it less than 100% seriously. I have edited controversial articles (though not much recently), and I don't pretend that it's easy. It's very difficult, and stressful. All the more reason to improve how we do it, and make it less stressful.

You mention a couple of things that I'm very interested in. First of all, "Sending more neutral admins... would help". I'm interested in finding a systematic way to do this. I imagine a kind of group that keeps track of edit wars and applies conflict resolution strategies in a mindful way, documenting what works, and getting better at bringing edit wars to a resolution that accords with neutrality. Does that seem to be a good suggestion?

Another question I have regards, "If you don't call a spade a spade, then certain disputes never end...," and, "...calling a spade a spade is about the only defense..." So, does it work? If you call a spade editor a spade, does the dispute therefore end in a satisfactory way? Is it an effective defense? How does that work? What's the best way to do it? What kind of editor is best at it? How do you avoid false positives?

If we're going to get good at managing controversial articles — which we must — we might as well document what works, right? I don't know what the page currently looks like, and by the time you read this it may be different, but the original version of the page documents something that, as far as I know, doesn't work. That's an empirical question, right? So let's answer it, and let's show people. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I don't see a problem. Le's not go into specifics, but the user was caught out fabricating stuff, and is now topic-banned. Problem solved. I don't think what you're saying is nonsense. If editors cause problems and break rules we have to apply rules to fix the problems. Editors get blocked or topic-banned when enough DIFFs are produced which show disruptive editing or incivil posts as evidence of the problem. --NewbyG (talk) 01:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[Unindent] Sorry if I was a bit aggressive in my description, but...

Well, basically, the editor in question went about to a lot of articles, and took a very long time before anyone did anything about him. The information put before the arbcom was up at the probation page for a couple months while he, basically, continued as always. I really think the disruption would have been much greater if, once he was caught out, the other editors had not been warned, simply and clearlyu, tat his quotes from sources could not be trusted.

Not exactly calling a spade a spade in conversation with them, but with others, when the editor in question is truly disruptive, they need to know to look out, and pussyfooting around it isn't going to help. I'd probably say that well-judged and evidenced labels are also useful at WP:ANI and WP:RFAR, as they do serve to communicate a set of behavioural problems clearly.

Now, in resposse to GTBacchus - If you can get a group of neutral admins able and ready to be called in and investigate problems in any article probation, that would be great. It would take a reasonable number of them, though, and there would have to be methods in place to make sure there were always at least X of them active and willing to step in. On the Homeopathy probation, for instance, there were a lot of admins who stepped up at first. But at least by March or so, they seem to have all burned out, and were unwilling to deal further.

There's also the problem of who's doing it. If you get a couple admins in ready and willing to block for a single act of incivility, given a diff, but unwilling to look at anything more complex - well, you get the backlash against WP:CIVIL you see happening right now, where civility has been turned into a weapon, because in some areas there's at least a perception that it's the only thing people are reliably getting blocked for.

There is one problem that would be really, really bad:

In the end, policy more-or-less says some disputes only really have one side in the "right". WP:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience, for instance, privileges mainstream science over fringe theories and pseudoscience. Having a "neutral" admin who was neutral in the "equal weight to all views" sense (You know, "They have sources too! They can use their sources to write their sections, you can use yours to write your sections, what's the problem?") would seriously risk putting Wikipedia in disrepute. I don't think it's worth saying more on that subject, though, barring confusion from me not really wanting to call a spade a spade in this case. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Does it work?

I thank you for that reply, but you didn't address the question I care the most about; the purpose for which this section is written. Does "calling a spade a spade" work, and if so, how? Can we please document that better? My paragraph above full of question marks is very important to me. Can you please reply to that part? -GTBacchus(talk) 05:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Only past a certain point, or where a concerted attack on Wikipedia is happening. When you have to deal with dozens of newbies, sent to you from [Fringe orginisation] and desperate to push the POV of that organisation - The Discovery Institute's regular attacks on Wikipedia is a good example - then new editors who expouse the same things as the previous hundred editors sent by that organisation might reasonably be boxed into labels, as it's the only way for harried admins to cope. I'd also say that after a fairly long time - at least a month - of dealing with a disruptive editor who refuses to "get it", that taking the gloves off and telling him to his face what he's doing wrong everytime he does it, may be a reasonable, last-ditch attempt to make him follow Wikipedia policy. I personally think this essay should be mainly about articles, and plain-speaking, backed by sources, about the issues within them, as well as plain-speaking about problems with the articles on their talk pages. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
(reply to GTB): I think maybe it's that you're asking the wrong questions. Although actually, I thought Shoemaker did provide an answer. Woonpton (talk) 19:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think I'm asking the wrong questions, and I think Shoemaker provided a partial answer. I'd still like to know just how "calling a spade a spade" works. Right now the plan seems to be:
  1. Determine that someone is a "spade".
  2. Call them that.
  3. ??????
  4. PROFIT!!!
I'd like to know what happens in step 3. What is the concrete benefit of calling a spade a spade? When addressed by their true name, do they lose their power and hasten back to the underworld? Once someone is called a spade, do admins become willing to block them? Shoemaker says "taking the gloves off and telling him to his face what he's doing wrong everytime he does it, may be a reasonable, last-ditch attempt to make him follow Wikipedia policy." This is strange to me for two reasons: (1) What gloves? Whence a dichotomy between telling someone what they're doing wrong and calling them a spade? I'm pretty sure nobody is against "telling him to his face what he's doing wrong". (2) Does the last ditch attempt to make him follow policy work?

The position I'm trying to understand is the one that says we should not only tell him what he's doing wrong, but call him a spade. There are people taking this position, and I would love to understand it, but I don't yet. I don't see the practical benefit of calling someone a spade. What is it? -GTBacchus(talk) 21:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

There are other vantage points besides the purely utilitarian. Antelantalk 23:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Say more

Can you say more about that, please? -GTBacchus(talk) 00:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I understand all that; my point was that "I" think you're asking the wrong question, not that I think you think you're asking the wrong question. Of course you don't think you're asking the wrong question, or you wouldn't be asking. To me, it's a pointy question that only has one right answer and is asked only to make a point, and furthermore it's not a question that will lead us toward understanding what's wrong with the encyclopedia and fixing it. You could pull people's arms out of their sockets until they screamed "Okay, okay, calling a person a spade doesn't really help anything!" and where would that get you? We'd still be faced with the urgent and immediate problem of POV pushers (of all stripes--political factions, new age groups, pseudoscience, ethnic partisans, commercial interests, etc etc etc) misusing the encyclopedia, that isn't going to be changed in the least by requiring everyone to be nice to each other. That's the problem we should be addressing.
As I've said a number of times here and elsewhere, I don't think calling names is helpful, and I wish people wouldn't do it, because it's not helpful and because it serves as a handy red herring to take people's attention away from the real problem. This diversion of attention only works to the advantage of people whose agenda is to promote fringe ideas or propaganda rather than to build a neutral, serious encyclopedia. By enforcing WP:CIVIL rather than policies like NPOV, NOR, RS, the community is sending a message to POV-pushers that civility is the only thing Wikipedia cares about, and POV editors have free rein to distort, misinterpret and misuse the other policies to their heart's content as long as they remain civil at all times. And don't tell me again that if other policies are being violated, that can easily be dealt with effectively and decisively. I've asked you twice to give an example of a case where the other policies have been enforced decisively and effectively, and you've failed to give me a single example, but instead backpedaled to a position that it should be true, or maybe someday it may be true, or in the best of all possible worlds it's possible... we need to do better at it. Well, yes. In the meantime, incivility is the least of our worries. Woonpton (talk) 00:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for explaining that. You say that the problems with POV pushing won't be changed by people being nice to each other. I would disagree, for this reason: I believe, quite firmly, that the truly effective strategies for maintaining neutrality here are actively undermined when people "call a spade a spade".

The idea of "enforcing WP:CIVIL rather than policies like NPOV, NOR, RS" is a false dichotomy. First of all, I'm not talking about enforcing WP:CIVIL; that page is crap. I'm talking about people actually acting professionally for the reason that it works better. Secondly, the only way to enforce NPOV, NOR, RS, etc, is to act very professionally, and to commit to the difficult task of learning, mindfully and as a community, how to maintain a neutral and stable article about alternative medicine on an open wiki.

When fighting a fire, incivility is gasoline. That doesn't qualify as "the least of our worries". To get the fire put out, we actually have to stop throwing gasoline on it.

One last matter - my question is not entirely "pointy". I am open to finding out that there are situations in which calling someone a spade actually helps. I'm open to using anything in our arsenal, but only if it's helpful. As far as my current understanding goes, incivility is actively destructive, which is worse than unhelpful. If someone can show me wrong, I will thank them for teaching me.

Last note: I do not advocate the "enforcement" of WP:CIVIL; please do not confuse me with someone who does. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Glad to know

I'm glad to know you don't advocate "enforcing" WP:CIVIL, but still, it's the only policy that's usually enforced in dispute resolution, and there are people determined to put more teeth into its enforcement and to broaden the definition so that even innocuous remarks are "actionable" as incivility. I had associated you with the group that's reworking WP:CIVIL toward that end; I apologize if that perception was mistaken. At any rate, I think it's naive to expect that being nice to POV-pushers will make them suddenly interested in writing a neutral encyclopedia; instead my fear, as expressed very well by Shoemaker's Holiday above, is that the direction taken in order to calm down the battling will take the form (intended or not) of appeasing POV-pushers, softening policy to make them happier, and in the process, making the project an object of ridicule and causing an exodus of the people who are really interested in producing a neutral and serious encyclopedia. I was one of three people I know of (and I wouldn't be surprised if there were more; these were just two I happened to cross paths with) who joined about the same time (about three months ago) who have a rational/scientific sort of background and were interested in helping with fringe topics, the other two have already left, seeing no way to accomplish anything useful here, and I don't see much incentive for me to stay on longer.
I'm not sure where the injunction to ""act very professionally and commit to the task of learning, mindfully and as a community, how to maintain a neutral and stable article about alternative medicine" comes from in the context of your post which is ostensibly addressed to me, since I don't believe I've ever acted any way but professionally, and I don't believe I've edited any article in the field of alternative medicine, nor is that field one of the several fringe areas of which I've read miles and miles of talk page discussions. I'm interested in a larger perspective that covers a wide range of topics, and everywhere I look, I see the same kind of dysfunctional editing environment with the same kinds of dynamics operating. But since I haven't looked at the alternative medicine articles, I can't say whether what I've seen elsewhere is the same as what prevails there, or not. I rather doubt it, because I gather there's rather a large contingent of scientific types in alternative medicine as well as evolution (another area I've stayed away from because it seems well covered). In the areas I've been looking at, there are few if any people trying to defend the neutrality of the encyclopedia, and the fringe advocates pretty much have it their own way. One person might drive by and make a comment or leave a tag about the neutrality of the article or about reliable sources, but the tags are removed after the people leave, and the POV continues as it was or even gets worse. Without a critical mass of people who are dedicated to neutrality paying attention to an article continually, there's really not much that can be done to turn the tide in any given article against vested interests who maintain a constant presence to keep the POV where they want it.
At any rate my point isn't, and has never been, that acting badly is a good thing. My point is that acting badly or professionally is beside the point, since behaving professionally won't make any difference in the real problems of the wikipedia; I've certainly found that to be true in my own editing work. So we'll have to agree to disagree on that point. When people are determined to misinterpret NPOV, for example, in order to gain their purpose, it does no good to explain to them in a calm and professional tone how their edits aren't consistent with policy; their only interest is getting the information they want into the encyclopedia, and they will proceed on that path without regard to my concerns about policy. I could be be too pessimistic; it would be lovely if you could make the Wikipedia a truly better place in a way that actually improves the encyclopedia's reliability and neutrality, and not just "better" in the sense of being even more congenial to fringe advocates and partisans of all kinds and easier for them to use the encyclopedia as a platform to promote their ideas. I doubt I'll stick around to find out. Woonpton (talk) 06:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Remember your audience

You need to remember who your real audience is. As you say, "it's naive to expect that being nice to POV-pushers will make them suddenly interested in writing a neutral encyclopedia." But they're your audience in only a simple and superficial way. Your real audience is the outside editor or admin who comes across the article. Take the high road so that your own actions will appear impeccable to outsiders who know little of the topic or the article's prior history. Then get as many outside eyes on the thing that you can. Don't overdo the process stuff but it's appropriate to call and RfC on the article's neutrality, post on the reliable sources noticeboard to draw attention to the article's lousy sources (fringers always use lousy sources), and so on. It will take a lot of patience and there are no guarantees. And you may run across the occasional anti-expert or anti-science admin (will avoid naming names here). But play it right and you have a fighting chance. Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I would also point out, regarding "it's naive to expect that being nice to POV-pushers will make them suddenly interested in writing a neutral encyclopedia," that POV-pushers are interested in writing a neutral encyclopedia. They happen to think that their edits are neutral and correct, because they see the version they oppose as simply inaccurate, and therefore not NPOV. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
My dog often thinks she's head of the household and should be deferred to accordingly. But we still treat her like a dog. Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Raymond, that's not an apt analogy. The point is are we trying to "make them interested in writing a neutral encyclopedia", or are we trying to make an argument about undue weight? We'll take very different approaches in the two cases. Also, are we going to make accusations of bad faith? In the first case, it would be appropriate, or at least accurate, it would seem. In the latter case, it would be distracting to the point that we would lose the ability to make our cases. It would become debilitating for us. Smart dispute resolution would preclude it.

The point is that you have to treat a content issue as a content issue. You can't try to make it into a behavior issue and expect to get anywhere except deeper and deeper in mud. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I can't understand your first paragraph above. As for the second, content issues often are reflections of behavior issues. When someone already has made hundreds of edits that ignore our policies of WP:V, WP:WEIGHT, and so on, do we continue playing whack-a-mole with each subsequent occurrence? Or might we conclude that there's a behavioral issue and respond accordingly? Raymond Arritt (talk) 00:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Am I being misunderstood?

Thanks for the advice; I appreciate your taking the time to think about this. However, I think I've studied and observed enough to understand exactly what's required, but the idea that even after all that, all I can hope for is a "fighting chance" is hardly enough incentive to make me want to stick around and volunteer my time and energy. I have no interest in fighting, and no interest in putting time and energy into an effort with such a small probability of success; I don't see how that rationally makes the least bit of sense. I thought maybe I could be useful here on the side in some small way, but it's obvious that in order to impose and maintain neutrality in even one article that's manned by fringe advocates, you pretty much have to give your life to it, and not just for the short-term, but forever, because those people are never going to go away and leave the article alone. And one article, of course, is just a drop in the sea; there are hundreds if not thousands of such articles.
But your answer makes me wonder if even yet, I'm being misunderstood. When I say that the civility issue is a red herring, and that getting tough on incivility won't make the real problem go away, I'm not condoning incivility, and I'm not saying that since being nice to POV pushers won't change the fact that they're POV-pushers, one might as well be nasty to them. This is NOT what I'm saying. I'm just saying that insisting on civility won't do anything toward improving the quality of the encyclopedia or improving the working environment for people who are trying to maintain the neutrality and quality of the encyclopedia. And that I won't be interested in working in the encyclopedia until I can see that something is really being done to address the real problems that the core content policies are not being protected and enforced by the community.
And to clarify further, I'm not sure people have understood that in the areas I've been considering, articles I would work on if I thought there was any hope of making any difference without endless aggravation and frustration (or even with), civility is not an issue. Most of the time, there aren't people calling names or anything like that. But that doesn't mean there's no problem with the articles. People come along, raise legitimate issues of neutrality, reliable sources, undue weight, the usual problems with fringe articles, are rebuffed by the owners of the articles, try a couple more times, are rebuffed again, and go away rather than fighting the people who see it as their job to defend their POV. There's no incivility, but the result is that the quality of the encyclopedia is compromised by the information that's presented in the article. And that's the problem that's not going to go away until it's addressed directly by the community.Woonpton (talk) 23:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
"I'm just saying that insisting on civility won't do anything toward improving the quality of the encyclopedia or improving the working environment for people who are trying to maintain the neutrality and quality of the encyclopedia." I disagree, because too many people pushing for NPOV are actively compromising their ability to get work done through their incivility. That's an improvement we can make. Civil defenders of NPOV are quite a lot more powerful than uncivil ones. Once we get up out of the mud and rise above all of the shouting over WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF, we can talk at a high level about how to deal with these problem-articles, and take a smart, scientific approach. That's actually impossible to do while we're busy throwing recriminations around, and that's precisely where incivility and ill-considered "spade-calling" leads. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Assuming Woonpton already is being civil, how would you address his concerns? Raymond Arritt (talk) 23:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Let's start a new thread

That's the question - let's start a new thread for it? -GTBacchus(talk) 23:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, please do. I'm quite interested in seeing your recommendations. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah, but you're missing my point completely; you keep answering my posts by arguing against a position I'm not taking. As I've said now at least 15 or 20 times, I'm not arguing for incivility. But I have to disagree very strongly with the idea that a civil defender of NPOV is "quite a lot more powerful than uncivil ones;" my entire point I've been making all along, and all of my (admittedly brief, but intense) experience and observation backs this up, that a civil defender of NPOV has no more power than an uncivil one, except for the little matter that they're not wasting a lot of time being hauled into civility court. But the civil one has no more power to improve the article than the uncivil one. That's my whole bleeping point, that it's not incivility that's the problem. I have no more ability to change the behavior of fringe advocates with my reasonable, rational appeals to policy than someone who jumps in yelling "morons" or "woo woo queens." Why is this so hard to grasp?Woonpton (talk) 23:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Woonpton, I know that you aren't arguing for incivility, I don't suspect you're arguing for it, and you needn't repeat that you're not arguing for it. We're ok on that point. I'm saying that not arguing for it isn't enough, and that we actually have to take a stand against it, as a means to achieving our more important goals.

The important point is that I disagree about whether a civil NPOV defender is more powerful than an uncivil one. How to use that power effectively is an important conversation, and let's have it, but I won't consent to beginning it with the assumption that civility is simply irrelevant. That's not a good starting assumption; let's assume that it might be relevant, and look at it, as well as other factors. What if the required formula involves civility and three other elements? Then civility is not irrelevant; nor is it sufficient alone. I know that you're not arguing for incivility, and I don't suspect that you're arguing for incivility. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Versions

quack, quack!
quack, quack!

[3] Take a moment to read the current version, GTB. It has been up a little while, and is quite different from the version from back in 2007. --NewbyG (talk) 02:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

(I hope you don't mind me refactoring for a new subheader. If so... rvt plz.:/) The current version's pretty good. It was also described a few days ago as "maundering obfuscation... a tangle of words that basically says nothing..." The commenter hasn't responded to replies. That's a little bit like consensus. I'd like to have a conversation with someone who agrees with Raymond.

I'm also genuinely interested in those questions I asked Shoemaker's Holiday up there. I mean, if we're going to get good at DR, why not document strategies that people say work? Maybe that's for another essay. If so, can someone who knows what it should say please help me write it? -GTBacchus(talk) 02:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

What if this page was a collecting place for strategies that those in trouble in dispute situations could come to or be directed to. It could include strategies that have been successful here but also other strategies... for example , I know someone who has expertise in this area who might have suggestions? What if initially, the essay contains some background on why dispute occurs in groups, for example, but then just is an open doorway for additions as editors come up with them. Patterns may begin to emerge as information is added or later on, that would allow the essay to be organized. A thought... but I do really like the initial idea. (olive (talk) 15:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC))
Oops . When I say "this page" I mean this new essay for dispute resolution not the page we are on presently.(olive (talk) 16:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Clarificationalize maundering obfuscation

Is it a... spade?
Is it a... spade?

The present version of the page is a tangle of words that basically says nothing. Is it time to delete the whole thing and start over? The version of a couple of days ago was OK. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean this version? I guess I no longer have any objection. I thought there was some feeling that the group of people here around that time wanted the article to be more about clear thought and clear expression without disparaging other editors, but my thought about the essay has undergone some change since then. Two things have exerted opposite pressure on my thinking: Antelan's case for leaving the essay alone (reverting it back to an even earlier version) and letting it stand as one of many different points of view on the subject, and on the other hand, olive's countering suggestion that essays often grow up to be policy, to which my reaction is, eek, if that's a real possibility, we should strangle the "always be nice" version in its crib. But I think the version pointed to above is a reasonable-enough compromise, though it doesn't say much about calling a spade a spade. It sort of argues for being honest and civil at the same time, and at least recognizes the real problem that accusing other editors of incivility is often used by editors as a red herring to "protect their edits from review."Woonpton (talk) 17:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
[4] This version explains what To call a spade a spade means. What this version lacks is ammunition for one set of supposed partisan editors to throw at another set with a different point of view. I think that is a good thing. --
[5] This version was fair enough, up to a point, but it has nothing to do with "calling a spade a spade" except the title, and it focuses on putting editors in little named boxes so they can fight over points of view. --
Of this version, [6] there is only one sentence that is worth saying, and I would not like to see any of the rest restored, it is not helpful. --
While we must remain civil, calling a spade a spade is part of a reliable editors job. --NewbyG (talk) 22:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I presume that [7]'s good sentence is the first one, as that's the only one I'd agree with. I suppose one of the problems is that calling a spade a spade, as it applies to editors, is only really defensible in some of the more extreme parts of Wikipedia:
  • Evolution and related: The strong opposition of some American churches to evolution, and the propoganda efforts they back assures that plenty of new, problematic editors will always be coming in and causing problems. How bad are things there? It's the only page on Wikipedia that has administrator review (of a draft page) before edits get added to the main article as the permanent solution to ridiculously persistant vandalism. Oh, and did I mention that most of the edits to the draft article are still vandalism anyway, thanks to the most persistent vandal (and probably the most prolific sockmaster) on Wikipedia jumping over there?
  • Fringe theories/Pseudoscience/Conspiracy theories - e.g. the lawless regions. I think Wikipedia dropped the ball on handling these, and the ___ were completely unchallenged for years, leading to massive violations of NPOV or NOR. The Augean stables, without a river in sight, are going to have to be forked out by hand, and very entrenched editors who like things as they were, are going to be difficult to deal with.
Symptoms of these problems can remain even after (most of?) the problematic editors are mostly rooted out. Ridiculous over-referencing, caused by people challenging every word. A strong reluctance to remove mainstream material, caused by so many attempts to remove all criticism from the article - this leads to anything from a little too much repetition of the key mainstream points, to ENDLESS repetition of the key mainstream points. (see, e.g Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. It can be hoped that once the controversy dies down that article will look a bit saner, though this is the article after strong consious attempts were made to fix it up.) For that matter, an FA of this type will show a strong resistance to change - Compare, say, Intelligent design to the verson that got featured. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Combined version

[8] Elements from the earliest and latest revisions of this essay (see above) are contained in the current version, combining those ideas which have had most support (or least opposition) in recent threads concerning the direction this essay has been taking. --NewbyG (talk) 22:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)