Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing: Difference between revisions

The Problem

Wikipedia, and specifically the dispute resolution process, have a difficult time dealing with civil POV pushers. These POV pushers tend to exhibit some or all of the following behaviors:

• they edit primarily or entirely on one topic, attempting to water down language with pseudoscience, crankery, conspiracy theories, and the like (PCCTL for short)
• they revert war over such edits
• they frivolously request citations for obvious or well known information
• they endlessly argue about the neutral-point-of-view policy and particularly try to undermine the undue weight clause
  • one form of this the inability to judge the importance of facts relative to the topic. They try to add information that is (at best) peripherally relevant on the grounds that "it is verifiable, so it should be in"
• they argue for the inclusion of material of dubious reliability (example: on global warming, using commentary from partisan think tanks rather than from the scientific literature)
• they use sockpuppets
• they often recruit meat puppets
• they repeatedly use the talk page for soapboxing, and/or to re-raise the same issues that have already been discussed numerous times.

The arbitration committee has a mixed record in dealing with such problem users. The arbitration committee has chosen to avoid focusing on content, because admittedly they are not subject experts, and often these issues are complicated enough that it requires someone with knowledge of the topic to identify PCCTL. (One very important reason for this is that oftentimes there is a great deal of misinformation surrounding these topics) Rather than focusing on content the arbitration committee has focused on behavior. As such, the committee has difficulty dealing with "civil" POV pushers (people who are civil - or not-quite-uncivil-enough to merit sanctions). The problem is compounded because it often takes the form of long-term behavior that cannot accurately be summarized in a few diffs.

Topics affected by this problem include (but are not limited to):

• Evolution/Creationism
• Complementary and alternative medicine
• Global warming
• Parapsychology
• The September 11 attacks
• Racial topics
• Pseudoscience
• Marginal or idiosyncratic scientific speculation

As a result of the arbitration committee's failure to deal with these issues, the committee has effectively abdicated the responsibility for taking care of these articles to a few users (mostly, but not entirely admins) who patrol these articles and attempt to keep them free of disruption . These users are generally very knowledgeable about the subject and committed to keeping it free of PCCTL. Unfortunately, they tend to burn out. Usually they burn out in one of two ways:

• The impatient ones tend to become angry as a result of the seemingly never-ending problems these articles cause, become uncivil, and be sanctioned by the arbcom for incivility. (Mongo comes to mind)
• The patient ones tend to go more-quietly - they become disillusioned from the never-ending problems, and the lack of support, and stop editing on these topics or quit the site entirely.

It has become clear to me that this is an untenable situation, and I believe the arbitration committee is gradually realizing this as well. I recently suggested, in the strongest language, that they use the DanaUllman arbitration case to set down some "far-reaching, well-written, solid, effective principles for dealing with POV pushers who are civil". It was suggested to me, in private, that I should come up with such a list of principles and remedies. The purpose of this page is to provide such a list.

Principles

• Civility is not limited to superficial politeness, but includes the overall behavior of the user. A number of behaviors may be superficially polite, but still uncivil. Examples include politely phrased baiting, frivolous or vexatious use of process, ill-considered but politely phrased accusations, unrelenting pestering, abuse of talk pages as a platform to expound upon personal opinions unrelated to specific content issues, and so forth. (Suggested by MastCell and Jim62sch)

• Just as WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR cannot be applied in isolation, WP:CIVIL, while a core policy, should not be interpreted or enforced in isolation or without reference to other behavioral guidelines and policies. Civility is important, but it does not excuse violations of other core behavioral and content policies. (Suggested by MastCell)

• Using Wikipedia as a vehicle for advocacy, or to advance a specific agenda, is damaging to the encyclopedia and disruptive to the process of collaborative editing. Wikipedia is not here to right great wrongs. Regardless of whether such behavior is superficially civil, it is inappropriate and just as harmful to the project, if not more so, than incivility. (Suggested by MastCell)

• WP:AGF is not a tool to wear down those editors who may have a differing viewpoint. There is a limit to how long good faith can be extended to editors who are continually shown to be acting in a manner that is detrimental to the growth and improvement of the encyclopedia. Nor is AGF defined as doublespeak for urging all editors to agree with a particular viewpoint and accept any changes that are advocated. (Suggested by Baegis, with help from Shoemaker's Holiday)

• PCCTL is described with promotional bias by its advocates, typically in the following media:
  • Dedicated websites (normally registered under a .com or .org -- rarely under .edu though there are occasions where this may be possible)
  • Dedicated periodicals
  • Self-published sources
  • Publications made outside the typical scientific presses
  • In-house journals (not to be confused with academic journals)
  • Occasional peer-reviewed articles -- often in more obscure journals, such as those not appearing in the ISI Citation Index
  • Propaganda published by groups with promotional agendas (such as think tanks funded by those in opposition to scientific consensus)
• These sources may be used for only describing what PCCTL advocates say they believe. They may not be used to establish the factual basis for such claims. (Suggested by ScienceApologist and Raul654)

• Non-promotional descriptions of PCCTL can only be had from second- and third-party sources. Most of these sources will not be peer-reviewed simply because science tends to ignore pseudoscience. Given that almost all sources promoting pseudoscience or fringe views are not peer-reviewed, the concept of parity of sources is applicable (sentence suggested by Arritt). This means that the following are reliable sources for describing pseudoscience:
  • CSICOP
  • Encyclopedia of pseudoscience
  • An Encyclopedia of Claims, Frauds, and Hoaxes of the Occult and Supernatural
  • Skeptic's Dictionary
  • Skeptical Inquirer
  • talk.origins archive
  • Bad Astronomy
  • Quackwatch
  • Mainstream media reports
  • Skeptical scientists speaking extemporaneously (whether it be in person, letters, personal websites, blogs, etc.)
  • Statements from scientific societies (Suggested by ScienceApologist)

• Civility does not mean that editors cannot disagree -- Academe is well-known for spirited debates and disagreement, and such debates and disagreements often point the way to a reliable representation of reality. However, the key principle should be to "stay on topic"; that is to say, arguments should be ad rem not ad hominem, and editors should bear in mind that a disagreement with their point is not an attack on their honour. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 19:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Suggested remedies

• Accounts which use Wikipedia for the sole or primary purpose of advocating a specific agenda at the expense of core policies and consensus-based editing may be warned, restricted, or ultimately blocked by any uninvolved administrator. Care should be taken to distinguish new accounts from those with an established pattern of single-purpose advocacy. (Suggested by MastCell)

• Where consensus cannot be attained through traditional remediation channels, editors can nominate "lead" editors whom are considered to have demonstrated considerable expertise from the respective POV to resolve long standing disputes that may detrimentally affect the project. Such article or pages should be locked until a consensus is achieved by the lead editors to prevent unnecessary edit warring, POV pushing, disruptive edits or other malfeasant acts. (Suggested by CorticoSpinal)
  • Alternatively, the arbcom could designate lead editors. (Suggested by Raul654)

• --Note: Some remedy is needed to deal with the persistent re-raising of already decided issues on talk pages and by edit warring. --