5 ms·

If the ability for Wikipedia to have a neutral article on a topic hinges on the existence of a single irreplaceable person with that level of dedication, then I

by 4bpp 8y ago

If the ability for Wikipedia to have a neutral article on a topic hinges on the existence of a single irreplaceable person with that level of dedication, then I think the right solution is to not have an article on the topic. In general, for a topic area that someone out there cares enough to brigade in the fashion you describe, there surely must also exist a non-obsessive set of users capable of moderating the page without making hundreds of edits per person to it.

wazz 8y ago
"If the ability for Wikipedia to have a neutral article on a topic hinges on the existence of a single irreplaceable person" i don't think that's been said. "the right solution is to not have an article on the topic." false. or i guess we'll exclude most of quantum mechanics and dozens of other things few people are knowledgeable about. "for a topic area that someone out there cares enough to brigade in the fashion you describe, there surely must also exist a non-obsessive set of users capable of moderating the page without making hundreds of edits per person to it." maybe, but it doesn't mean they're doing it. as you say, they're non-obsessive.
- 4bpp 8y ago
  > i don't think that's been said. I think it's implied by the phrase "they are free to inject their biases unchecked." > false. or i guess we'll exclude most of quantum mechanics and dozens of other things few people are knowledgeable about. Note that I said "neutral article". For articles on esoteric QM topics, it's not like one would expect the existence of a well-organised brigade trying to push an alternative viewpoint at all costs, either.
  - Topperfalkon 8y ago
    Climate change?
philwelch 8y ago
> If the ability for Wikipedia to have a neutral article on a topic hinges on the existence of a single irreplaceable person with that level of dedication, then I think the right solution is to not have an article on the topic. This kills the Wikipedia. Unsurprisingly, there are orders of magnitude more people on the earth with some sort of agenda to push than there are people who actually care about having an unbiased and comprehensive Wikipedia, such that the good-faith Wikipedians are spread very, very thin. This is a shitty state of affairs, but it would be far, far more shitty for the Wikipedia community to just surrender to the post-truth dystopian future we find ourselves living in.
- 4bpp 8y ago
  Why do you think it is more likely that a given obsessive editor is a good-faith Wikipedian who cares about an unbiased and comprehensive encylopedia than an agenda-pusher? My proposal was implicitly based on the opposite assumption, namely, that removing obsessive editors will reduce the agenda-pushing set much more than it will the unbiased encyclopedist set. I think that, considering the real world, this is reasonable: we clearly see many more people dedicating an extreme amount of resources, up to and including their lives, to political causes than to abstract values such as objectivity and the accuracy of the historical record. The example that spawned this discussion certainly seems to involve a highly active editor being driven by a political agenda (do you dispute this?), and this is the case for almost all other instances I am aware of (though of course there is a selection bias here). Do you actually contend that the subject of the opening post has no agenda to push, or do you count him as a force for an unbiased and comprehensive Wikipedia because you think that his agenda is correct?
  - philwelch 8y ago
    > My proposal was implicitly based on the opposite assumption, namely, that removing obsessive editors will reduce the agenda-pushing set much more than it will the unbiased encyclopedist set. Which is the exact opposite of what would happen. It’s trivial to get an internet brigade of trolls to push one particular agenda. It’s easy to incite the Internet outrage machine into an angry mob. And the people who do this don’t play fair; they disappear and reappear under new pseudonyms and IPs, spurn accountability, and burn identities. Making it harder for someone to build a record they can stand behind is the wrong direction. > we clearly see many more people dedicating an extreme amount of resources, up to and including their lives, to political causes than to abstract values such as objectivity and the accuracy of the historical record Which is why allowing these mobs to brigade against the rare person who is committed to the unbiased truth is the wrong move. > The example that spawned this discussion certainly seems to involve a highly active editor being driven by a political agenda (do you dispute this?), and this is the case for almost all other instances I am aware of (though of course there is a selection bias here). Do you actually contend that the subject of the opening post has no agenda to push, or do you count him as a force for an unbiased and comprehensive Wikipedia because you think that his agenda is correct? I did some research on Phillip Cross above and beyond simply reading OP, because OP is an obvious hit piece and the group of fringe political figures who have seemingly declared war on this guy seem to be vaguely aligned with Russian propaganda operations, and this guy’s edit history, from what I’ve seen, seems to be largely in the direction of removing random vandalism and Russian propaganda from Wikipedia. The only seemingly factual criticism I’ve seen is that this guy seems a little obsessive, which is a fair point if you’re worried about this guy having a well-rounded and fulfilling life, but I trust you’ll understand if I don’t think these people who are butthurt about some obsessive Wikipedia editor deleting their propaganda from Wikipedia are genuinely concerned about his well-being.

by 4bpp 8y ago

wazz 8y ago

"If the ability for Wikipedia to have a neutral article on a topic hinges on the existence of a single irreplaceable person" i don't think that's been said. "the right solution is to not have an article on the topic." false. or i guess we'll exclude most of quantum mechanics and dozens of other things few people are knowledgeable about. "for a topic area that someone out there cares enough to brigade in the fashion you describe, there surely must also exist a non-obsessive set of users capable of moderating the page without making hundreds of edits per person to it." maybe, but it doesn't mean they're doing it. as you say, they're non-obsessive.

4bpp 8y ago
> i don't think that's been said. I think it's implied by the phrase "they are free to inject their biases unchecked." > false. or i guess we'll exclude most of quantum mechanics and dozens of other things few people are knowledgeable about. Note that I said "neutral article". For articles on esoteric QM topics, it's not like one would expect the existence of a well-organised brigade trying to push an alternative viewpoint at all costs, either.
- Topperfalkon 8y ago
  Climate change?

philwelch 8y ago

> If the ability for Wikipedia to have a neutral article on a topic hinges on the existence of a single irreplaceable person with that level of dedication, then I think the right solution is to not have an article on the topic. This kills the Wikipedia. Unsurprisingly, there are orders of magnitude more people on the earth with some sort of agenda to push than there are people who actually care about having an unbiased and comprehensive Wikipedia, such that the good-faith Wikipedians are spread very, very thin. This is a shitty state of affairs, but it would be far, far more shitty for the Wikipedia community to just surrender to the post-truth dystopian future we find ourselves living in.

4bpp 8y ago
Why do you think it is more likely that a given obsessive editor is a good-faith Wikipedian who cares about an unbiased and comprehensive encylopedia than an agenda-pusher? My proposal was implicitly based on the opposite assumption, namely, that removing obsessive editors will reduce the agenda-pushing set much more than it will the unbiased encyclopedist set. I think that, considering the real world, this is reasonable: we clearly see many more people dedicating an extreme amount of resources, up to and including their lives, to political causes than to abstract values such as objectivity and the accuracy of the historical record. The example that spawned this discussion certainly seems to involve a highly active editor being driven by a political agenda (do you dispute this?), and this is the case for almost all other instances I am aware of (though of course there is a selection bias here). Do you actually contend that the subject of the opening post has no agenda to push, or do you count him as a force for an unbiased and comprehensive Wikipedia because you think that his agenda is correct?
- philwelch 8y ago
  > My proposal was implicitly based on the opposite assumption, namely, that removing obsessive editors will reduce the agenda-pushing set much more than it will the unbiased encyclopedist set. Which is the exact opposite of what would happen. It’s trivial to get an internet brigade of trolls to push one particular agenda. It’s easy to incite the Internet outrage machine into an angry mob. And the people who do this don’t play fair; they disappear and reappear under new pseudonyms and IPs, spurn accountability, and burn identities. Making it harder for someone to build a record they can stand behind is the wrong direction. > we clearly see many more people dedicating an extreme amount of resources, up to and including their lives, to political causes than to abstract values such as objectivity and the accuracy of the historical record Which is why allowing these mobs to brigade against the rare person who is committed to the unbiased truth is the wrong move. > The example that spawned this discussion certainly seems to involve a highly active editor being driven by a political agenda (do you dispute this?), and this is the case for almost all other instances I am aware of (though of course there is a selection bias here). Do you actually contend that the subject of the opening post has no agenda to push, or do you count him as a force for an unbiased and comprehensive Wikipedia because you think that his agenda is correct? I did some research on Phillip Cross above and beyond simply reading OP, because OP is an obvious hit piece and the group of fringe political figures who have seemingly declared war on this guy seem to be vaguely aligned with Russian propaganda operations, and this guy’s edit history, from what I’ve seen, seems to be largely in the direction of removing random vandalism and Russian propaganda from Wikipedia. The only seemingly factual criticism I’ve seen is that this guy seems a little obsessive, which is a fair point if you’re worried about this guy having a well-rounded and fulfilling life, but I trust you’ll understand if I don’t think these people who are butthurt about some obsessive Wikipedia editor deleting their propaganda from Wikipedia are genuinely concerned about his well-being.