4 ms·

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 ti

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
        Well, they could actually explain why it was allowed and then not allowed. It is not a good way to get future participation. Mission and Value statements are real for colleges and universities. You are judged on them in many situations. I have problems with the idea they are not important in an article about an institution. Founding values and chartered mission is a very important part of the University / College charter. Even if business makes fun of these things, it matters to others.
- 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.

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
        Well, they could actually explain why it was allowed and then not allowed. It is not a good way to get future participation. Mission and Value statements are real for colleges and universities. You are judged on them in many situations. I have problems with the idea they are not important in an article about an institution. Founding values and chartered mission is a very important part of the University / College charter. Even if business makes fun of these things, it matters to others.
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.