5 ms·

Editing Wikipedia as self-care activism

21 points by The_ed17 10y ago

jsnsjsfnts 10y ago
At what point do minority groups become proportionally overrepresented because of this kind of behavior?
- eru 10y ago
  Depends on where you draw the lines around your minorities? Strictly speaking, Wikipedia editors are the only people represented on Wikipedia; and they are a weird bunch compared to the rest of the population, but they do cut through other lines of minorities.
  - sevenless 10y ago
    > they are a weird bunch Weird, or WEIRD? http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2013/05/weird_psychology_social_science_researchers_rely_too_much_on_western_college.html http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/201...
- SwellJoe 10y ago
  I'm reasonably confident we have not yet reached that point.
- PhasmaFelis 10y ago
  I'm not sure there can be such a thing as a topic being "over-represented" on Wikipedia, only under-represented. (Though deletionists might disagree.) Historically, if a given subject is under-represented, the solution has been to either seek out experts in that subject or research and fix it yourself, not blame other editors for failing to cover topics outside their area of interest.
  - PhasmaFelis 10y ago
    (That should be "or fix it yourself".)
- 205guy 10y ago
  What does it even mean to be overrepresented in a searchable database? Seems like you're making up problems.
  - tehwebguy 10y ago
    And they probably didn't read the article
  - jsnsjsfnts 10y ago
    What does it mean to be underrepresented in a searchable database? Perhaps the author is making up problems themselves. Or you're wrong. One of the two.
- cooper12 10y ago
  That's not possible by definition since these are minority groups. The minorities and their views will always be outnumbered by the majority. Heck, Consider this: 8.5% of Wikipedia editors are women. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Systemic_bias#Women_are_underrepresented https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Systemic_bias#Women_...) That gender-gap is only widening, not closing.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
grondilu 10y ago
This is barely an acceptable behavior. You're supposed to use a neutral point of view when editing Wikipedia. As this editor publicly admits she's editing Wikipedia as a form of activism for her political views, she at least declares her intent to have a political effect while editing. She may manage to make edits that remain neutral, but still the whole attitude is edgy. There are many good reasons to be willing to edit Wikipedia, and politics is not one of them.
- em3rgent0rdr 10y ago
  the nice thing about wikipedia is that usually there are enough editors from all sides such that highly biased stuff gets moved to a bottom subheading. Over time, the more factual and neutral stuff will survive and the blatantly biased stuff gets edited out. A significant portion of people who make edits probably have an agenda. Yet, or as a result, Wikipedia manages to be an excellent resource.
  - protomyth 10y ago
    I don't think that is true for anything other than articles that have a lot of eyes on them. I tried to correct wrong information with the actual information from a printed source in one article and had it reverted with the line "tone down promotional material". I've decided that their "activism" has got in the way of the actual facts.
    - yoasif_ 10y ago
      > actual information from a printed source Can you link to the edit? Is it possible that you were posting marketing material that may be perceived as not neutral or not authoritative? Some context here would be helpful.
      - protomyth 10y ago
        I fixed the mission and vision statement for a college and sourced it off the printed, yearly report. It doesn't get more authoritative.
Mendenhall 10y ago
I find the whole of wikipedia skewed with all sorts of "activism". I find it sad how many people rely on it for information.
- crazy2be 10y ago
  What would you prefer that they relied on? In my experience, it tends to be the least biased of available sources; books are usually sold to promote a particular agenda, news articles are devoid of content and without citations. At least on Wikipedia, I can check the citations easily...
cooper12 10y ago
Do people just knee-jerk react to stories here after reading the title only? The "self-case activism" she talks about is adding wikilinks, adding info she just researched, and expanding a Wikipedia article. The only political things she mentioned at all were her own interests in African Diaspora and LGBT topics which she contributes to in order to "help this world become a more equal place". It is extremely common for Wikipedia editors to contribute in their areas of interest; in fact there are WikiProjects set up specifically to facilitate that. [0] What she isn't doing is adding bias, but helping to address Wikipedia's systematic bias by adding to those areas. [1] Not going around injecting bias into articles as the comments here are saying. (And even that is valuable in itself because Wikipedia is meant to be written from a neutral point of view, which requires that articles "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources" [2]) [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Directory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Director... [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Systemic_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Systemic_bias [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Due_and_undue_weight https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_vie...
wyager 10y ago
Wikipedia is a public information source, not a psychotherapy tool. People who are emotionally invested in the edits they're making hurt the quality of Wikipedia.
- mdholloway 10y ago
  {{citation needed}}

21 points by The_ed17 10y ago

jsnsjsfnts 10y ago

At what point do minority groups become proportionally overrepresented because of this kind of behavior?

eru 10y ago
Depends on where you draw the lines around your minorities? Strictly speaking, Wikipedia editors are the only people represented on Wikipedia; and they are a weird bunch compared to the rest of the population, but they do cut through other lines of minorities.
- sevenless 10y ago
  > they are a weird bunch Weird, or WEIRD? http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2013/05/weird_psychology_social_science_researchers_rely_too_much_on_western_college.html http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/201...
SwellJoe 10y ago
I'm reasonably confident we have not yet reached that point.
PhasmaFelis 10y ago
I'm not sure there can be such a thing as a topic being "over-represented" on Wikipedia, only under-represented. (Though deletionists might disagree.) Historically, if a given subject is under-represented, the solution has been to either seek out experts in that subject or research and fix it yourself, not blame other editors for failing to cover topics outside their area of interest.
- PhasmaFelis 10y ago
  (That should be "or fix it yourself".)
205guy 10y ago
What does it even mean to be overrepresented in a searchable database? Seems like you're making up problems.
- tehwebguy 10y ago
  And they probably didn't read the article
- jsnsjsfnts 10y ago
  What does it mean to be underrepresented in a searchable database? Perhaps the author is making up problems themselves. Or you're wrong. One of the two.
cooper12 10y ago
That's not possible by definition since these are minority groups. The minorities and their views will always be outnumbered by the majority. Heck, Consider this: 8.5% of Wikipedia editors are women. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Systemic_bias#Women_are_underrepresented https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Systemic_bias#Women_...) That gender-gap is only widening, not closing.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

grondilu 10y ago

This is barely an acceptable behavior. You're supposed to use a neutral point of view when editing Wikipedia. As this editor publicly admits she's editing Wikipedia as a form of activism for her political views, she at least declares her intent to have a political effect while editing. She may manage to make edits that remain neutral, but still the whole attitude is edgy. There are many good reasons to be willing to edit Wikipedia, and politics is not one of them.

em3rgent0rdr 10y ago
the nice thing about wikipedia is that usually there are enough editors from all sides such that highly biased stuff gets moved to a bottom subheading. Over time, the more factual and neutral stuff will survive and the blatantly biased stuff gets edited out. A significant portion of people who make edits probably have an agenda. Yet, or as a result, Wikipedia manages to be an excellent resource.
- protomyth 10y ago
  I don't think that is true for anything other than articles that have a lot of eyes on them. I tried to correct wrong information with the actual information from a printed source in one article and had it reverted with the line "tone down promotional material". I've decided that their "activism" has got in the way of the actual facts.
  - yoasif_ 10y ago
    > actual information from a printed source Can you link to the edit? Is it possible that you were posting marketing material that may be perceived as not neutral or not authoritative? Some context here would be helpful.
    - protomyth 10y ago
      I fixed the mission and vision statement for a college and sourced it off the printed, yearly report. It doesn't get more authoritative.

Mendenhall 10y ago

I find the whole of wikipedia skewed with all sorts of "activism". I find it sad how many people rely on it for information.

crazy2be 10y ago
What would you prefer that they relied on? In my experience, it tends to be the least biased of available sources; books are usually sold to promote a particular agenda, news articles are devoid of content and without citations. At least on Wikipedia, I can check the citations easily...

cooper12 10y ago

Do people just knee-jerk react to stories here after reading the title only? The "self-case activism" she talks about is adding wikilinks, adding info she just researched, and expanding a Wikipedia article. The only political things she mentioned at all were her own interests in African Diaspora and LGBT topics which she contributes to in order to "help this world become a more equal place". It is extremely common for Wikipedia editors to contribute in their areas of interest; in fact there are WikiProjects set up specifically to facilitate that. [0] What she isn't doing is adding bias, but helping to address Wikipedia's systematic bias by adding to those areas. [1] Not going around injecting bias into articles as the comments here are saying. (And even that is valuable in itself because Wikipedia is meant to be written from a neutral point of view, which requires that articles "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources" [2]) [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Directory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Director... [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Systemic_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Systemic_bias [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Due_and_undue_weight https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_vie...

wyager 10y ago

Wikipedia is a public information source, not a psychotherapy tool. People who are emotionally invested in the edits they're making hurt the quality of Wikipedia.

mdholloway 10y ago
{{citation needed}}