User:Martinphi/FAQ
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] What's your basic editing philosophy?
My opinion doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is the neutral presentation of the sources. The only thing in the article which should sway the reader's mind is fact.
[edit] Why do you only edit paranormal/parapsychological articles?
Because it is the only place in Wikipedia where I feel I have something unusual to offer. Other pages have many knowledgeable editors, but the paranormal has few. Not that I'm an expert, but I know enough to do some editing and fact checking.
[edit] Why does controversy erupt everywhere you go?
I edit in a very controversial area. Also, I gravitate to articles where debates are ongoing or immanent. Sometimes, I make changes to articles which are controversial, and sometimes I merely support controversial changes which others have made. One way or the other, controversy happens. Controversy is good for Wikipedia articles, as long as it remains fact-based, neutral, and civil.
[edit] Why do you care so much about word choice?
Because I edit controversial articles, word choice is very important. It try to pick words which do not convey bias, while at the same time making sure that all the facts and all the sides of a debate are represented.
[edit] What is different about paranormal articles?
See this essay, but don't take it too seriously: some of it may be wrong.
[edit] Why do you delete whole articles?
I have sometimes deleted large swaths of uncited material in articles, usually in a graduated way, and after giving warning on the talk page and/or citation requests. One good example is the Ghost article. Most of the time, the article has been abandoned by its original editors, and no one minds. Sometimes I get reverted, and then I give more time for the material to be sourced. A good example of this is Faith healing. Sometimes there are editors who would do a good job writing and sourcing an article, but they never begin because they would have to delete what is already there. After I delete the unsourced parts of the article, it frees the way for editors to expand it with sources. That is what happened with the Ghost article. It is also what happened to the the Parapsychology article, courtesy of another editor, just after I started editing it. I was upset at the time, but soon learned that articles simply have to be sourced. This kind of deep editing is necessary in paranormal articles, because they are magnets for POV. This is all per WP:V.
[edit] Why do you edit war so much?
I try not to edit war, but I don't know of any alternative to reverting. I am nearly the only editor who consistently monitors the Parapsychology/paranormal articles. I have to make the choice between letting them become biased and reverting. If I had a choice -besides just giving up-, I'd take it.
[edit] But you do have a choice- the dispute resolution process
Yes, and if I only kept track of a few articles, instead of hundreds, that would be OK. But I don't have the time to take each little POV-push through mediation. Like I said, I'm about the only editor out there. Normally, there would be lots of people to help keep the articles in balance. Instead, I get very little help.
But there are other reasons as well: a lot of the edits are pure POV-pushing which the recent ArbCom on the Paranormal made very clear should not be in the articles. There is really no compromise avaliable on these edits, and there should be none, any more than there should be compromise on allowing unsourced essays into Wikipedia. What I need is help.
[edit] Wikipedia works by consensus, but sometimes you seem unwilling to compromise
Wikipedia works by consensus in everything but its core principles, such as the neutral point of view and verifiability. When these principles are at stake, I'm not willing to compromise.
[edit] Sometimes you say things which inflame situations
That's not the intent. When I see a a bad situation, I believe the best thing to do is to state it openly. I'm not uncivil, but I say it exactly as I see it (if I can, without resorting to personal attacks). I believe that clearly stating the truth about a negative situation is the first step toward healing it. Unfortunately, because I edit in a controversial area, I've had to state the negative more often than I would like.
In addition I believe in noticing, and when necessary confronting the ways power is used. This is a moral stand in which I believe deeply, and on which I am willing to bet my life.
[edit] You've been accused of wikilawyering
There were many times when it would have benifited me to be more of a wikilawyer. One time another editor said that a parody section from my talk page was a personal attack. He then edit warred with me to remove it. Actually, it was a parody which attacked no one, but it did state an uncomfortable opinion. I called him a vandal in the edit summaries, which was morally right, but technically untrue: solely because he might (technically) have believed that it was really a personal attack. It would have helped me to be more of a wikilawyer.
Often, the only way to keep paranormal articles neutral is to adhere strictly to Wikipedia rules. I don't consider this wikilawyering, because I try to interpret the rules in a straightfoward way, and I try not to make up my own idiosyncratic interpretations of them.
[edit] Ok: if you're not really a wikilawyer, then you should be able to answer this question without wikilawyering: why do so many people seem to hate you?
There are different possible explanations, and I'm not the one to choose:
1. They are right.
2. They are POV-pushing from an ideological stance.
3. Some combination of the two.
It seems to me that some editors want to tell the reader what to believe by means other than neutral presentation of the sources. There is in fact a faction at Wikipedia which believes that Wikipedia should present the mainstream scientific, rather than the neutral, point of view. Whatever the merits of this, it has been rejected by the community.
