6 ms·

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 Wik

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.
      - yoasif_ 10y ago
        Which college? Would love to see the edit history (and maybe even put it back).
        protomyth 10y ago
        http://bit.ly/2aiDI7v http://bit.ly/2aiDI7v
        yoasif_ 10y ago
        Yeah -- that does seem like promotional material to me, and I looked at a couple of other university pages, and I don't see the "mission" and "values" statements reproduced on them. This policy may be helpful in getting some context around why the reverted edit seems acceptable to me: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Impartial_tone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_vie...
        protomyth 10y ago
        Except I was fixing the previous mission statement that was there and wrong. If mission and values are promotional, then people have a really broken view of what colleges and universities are.
        yoasif_ 10y ago
        That's unfortunate that you were correcting something another editor felt doesn't belong in the article in the first place -- but it happens to every wikipedian at some point. > If mission and values are promotional, then people have a really broken view of what colleges and universities are. If the mission and values are "real", there will be actions borne of that mission and values, which are likely encyclopedic. "What happened" is not likely to get removed.
        protomyth 10y ago
  - yoasif_ 10y ago
    Given that the additions you made were of the "mission" and "values" of a college (which is different from mottos, which are prominent in articles), do you feel that these sections belong in all articles about colleges? Just want to understand your perspective here, because that information seems promotional to me, and adding those blurbs to every college article feels like it would do basically nothing, especially since I can just go to the college's web page to get that same information.
    - protomyth 10y ago
      I was editing an incorrect entry that stated mission/values that are not current. My position beyond that is that mission and values for a university / college are never promotional. I believe mottos are promotional since they don't actually affect governance. I think the idea that if it is on the web, then it shouldn't be in the entry is problematic. In any case, I'm done with the whole trying to fix what's there thing.
exolymph 10y ago
No human communication can be apolitical, since politics is just formalized social relationships.
- ralfd 10y ago
  This reply from me to you is not political.
  - rhizome 10y ago
    It absolutely is if you're asserting that your statement isn't self-refuting.
    - ralfd 10y ago
      Explain please: How is it self-refuting?
      - rhizome 10y ago
        It's along the lines of "this sentence no verb."
  - pasquinelli 10y ago
    it also communicates nothing ;)
  - bertiewhykovich 10y ago
    Arguably it is -- it implies that non-political communication exists, which (as this thread demonstrates) is a politically-laden claim. This, of course, doesn't demonstrate that nonpolitical communication is in fact impossible, but it does show that it's harder to construct than one might expect.
  - Retra 10y ago
    Yes it is, it is overtly political dissent against their point concerning acceptable behavior of groups of humans.
PhasmaFelis 10y ago
I think you're badly misinterpreting her use of the word "activism." The behavior she actually describes in the article is nothing more or less than a person with a particular interest trying to improve articles about their interest, which is the bedrock of Wikipedia. No one would claim that a physicist shouldn't edit articles about physics because they might introduce undue bias regarding the validity of string theory.
fphhotchips 10y ago
To me, the author is simply choosing to improve articles that are related to minority causes. That's not any more edgy than me (hypothetically) focussing my edits on Australian history articles so that Australians are better represented on Wikipedia. That's not a nefarious goal so long as I stick to the facts, and if I don't it's highly likely that someone will fix the edit - that's the whole point of Wikipedia.
- grondilu 10y ago
  There are articles about politics, and there would be no surprise if for instance articles about Marx are written mostly by Marxists. There is nothing wrong with this. But the author here is going beyond that, as she states that she edits Wikipedia for political activism, that is that she intends to propagate a political message through her edits. As long as what she writes respects the neutrality of point of view rule, it's technically OK, but the neutrality of point of view is a blurry line on Wikipedia, and this author clearly stated her intent to walk on this fuzzy line in order to propagate her political opinions.
  - PhasmaFelis 10y ago
    It sounds like you're okay with all of the author's actual actions, but are upset that she used the word "activism."
Retra 10y ago
If you went around wikipedia enforcing a neutral POV, you'd be just as much a political activist as she. What is your metric for 'neutral' anyway? Refusal to use the term 'activism'?
mdholloway 10y ago
NPOV applies to content, not the editor's motives. People have all kinds of reasons for editing Wikipedia. Trying to police those reasons would be neither possible nor desirable.

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.
    - yoasif_ 10y ago
      Which college? Would love to see the edit history (and maybe even put it back).
      - protomyth 10y ago
        http://bit.ly/2aiDI7v http://bit.ly/2aiDI7v
        yoasif_ 10y ago
        Yeah -- that does seem like promotional material to me, and I looked at a couple of other university pages, and I don't see the "mission" and "values" statements reproduced on them. This policy may be helpful in getting some context around why the reverted edit seems acceptable to me: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Impartial_tone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_vie...
        protomyth 10y ago
        Except I was fixing the previous mission statement that was there and wrong. If mission and values are promotional, then people have a really broken view of what colleges and universities are.
        yoasif_ 10y ago
        That's unfortunate that you were correcting something another editor felt doesn't belong in the article in the first place -- but it happens to every wikipedian at some point. > If mission and values are promotional, then people have a really broken view of what colleges and universities are. If the mission and values are "real", there will be actions borne of that mission and values, which are likely encyclopedic. "What happened" is not likely to get removed.
        protomyth 10y ago
- yoasif_ 10y ago
  Given that the additions you made were of the "mission" and "values" of a college (which is different from mottos, which are prominent in articles), do you feel that these sections belong in all articles about colleges? Just want to understand your perspective here, because that information seems promotional to me, and adding those blurbs to every college article feels like it would do basically nothing, especially since I can just go to the college's web page to get that same information.
  - protomyth 10y ago
    I was editing an incorrect entry that stated mission/values that are not current. My position beyond that is that mission and values for a university / college are never promotional. I believe mottos are promotional since they don't actually affect governance. I think the idea that if it is on the web, then it shouldn't be in the entry is problematic. In any case, I'm done with the whole trying to fix what's there thing.

exolymph 10y ago

No human communication can be apolitical, since politics is just formalized social relationships.

ralfd 10y ago
This reply from me to you is not political.
- rhizome 10y ago
  It absolutely is if you're asserting that your statement isn't self-refuting.
  - ralfd 10y ago
    Explain please: How is it self-refuting?
    - rhizome 10y ago
      It's along the lines of "this sentence no verb."
- pasquinelli 10y ago
  it also communicates nothing ;)
- bertiewhykovich 10y ago
  Arguably it is -- it implies that non-political communication exists, which (as this thread demonstrates) is a politically-laden claim. This, of course, doesn't demonstrate that nonpolitical communication is in fact impossible, but it does show that it's harder to construct than one might expect.
- Retra 10y ago
  Yes it is, it is overtly political dissent against their point concerning acceptable behavior of groups of humans.

PhasmaFelis 10y ago

I think you're badly misinterpreting her use of the word "activism." The behavior she actually describes in the article is nothing more or less than a person with a particular interest trying to improve articles about their interest, which is the bedrock of Wikipedia. No one would claim that a physicist shouldn't edit articles about physics because they might introduce undue bias regarding the validity of string theory.

fphhotchips 10y ago

To me, the author is simply choosing to improve articles that are related to minority causes. That's not any more edgy than me (hypothetically) focussing my edits on Australian history articles so that Australians are better represented on Wikipedia. That's not a nefarious goal so long as I stick to the facts, and if I don't it's highly likely that someone will fix the edit - that's the whole point of Wikipedia.

grondilu 10y ago
There are articles about politics, and there would be no surprise if for instance articles about Marx are written mostly by Marxists. There is nothing wrong with this. But the author here is going beyond that, as she states that she edits Wikipedia for political activism, that is that she intends to propagate a political message through her edits. As long as what she writes respects the neutrality of point of view rule, it's technically OK, but the neutrality of point of view is a blurry line on Wikipedia, and this author clearly stated her intent to walk on this fuzzy line in order to propagate her political opinions.
- PhasmaFelis 10y ago
  It sounds like you're okay with all of the author's actual actions, but are upset that she used the word "activism."

Retra 10y ago

If you went around wikipedia enforcing a neutral POV, you'd be just as much a political activist as she. What is your metric for 'neutral' anyway? Refusal to use the term 'activism'?

mdholloway 10y ago

NPOV applies to content, not the editor's motives. People have all kinds of reasons for editing Wikipedia. Trying to police those reasons would be neither possible nor desirable.