3 ms·

I recently went to link a friend to the Landmark Forum Wikipedia page, and found that instead of a "Criticism" section it had a "Criticism and public option" se

by strken 8y ago

I recently went to link a friend to the Landmark Forum Wikipedia page, and found that instead of a "Criticism" section it had a "Criticism and public option" section, which contained no allegations of cult-like behaviour until the last two paragraphs, but did contain a surprising number of denials. The talk and history page showed that any piece of actual criticism levelled at the totally-not-a-cult was removed more or less instantly by a handful of Landmark Forum members on the grounds of bias. I have no idea where I would even start if I wanted to fix that article. It's pretty ridiculous.

commoner 8y ago
Landmark Worldwide has been a highly controversial subject on Wikipedia. There are 32 pages of discussions on the article's talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Landmark_Worldwide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Landmark_Worldwide To contribute to articles on controversial topics (such as politics and religion), Wikipedia recommends the following: 1) Edit the article with the changes you want to make. 2) If another editor disagrees with you, they will revert your edit. 3) After your edit is reverted, go to the talk page of the article and discuss the contents of your edit. The key step is #3. Reverted edits are to be discussed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discus... If you're unable to come to an agreement with other editors, you can use some form of dispute resolution. The most popular method is the "request for comment", in which all Wikipedia editors are invited to participate in a debate, and the results determine the state of the article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment Your point of view won't always be the one that wins the debate, but Wikipedia editors are generally reasonable, and your arguments will be fairly heard.
- zozbot123 8y ago
  > To contribute to articles on controversial topics (such as politics and religion), Wikipedia recommends the following: > 1) Edit the article with the changes you want to make. > 2) If another editor disagrees with you, they will revert your edit. > 3) After your edit is reverted, go to the talk page of the article and discuss the contents of your edit. This is actually a bad idea. It's fine for garden-variety editing that you don't expect to raise controversy, but if you want to affect something controversial and not look like you're acting in bad faith, you absolutely need to go to the talk page first and propose your edit there. If no one replies after a few days, then you have cover to just make the change 'per the talk page' (and sometimes you do get reverted here - but now you can complain that they didn't act fairly by commenting on your proposal!), but most likely they will, and you'll get to hash out the wording on talk.
  - commoner 8y ago
    Yes, the 3-step process is not appropriate for every situation. As the page notes: > It is ideally suited to disputes that involve only a small number of people, all of whom are interested in making progress. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle#Alternatives https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discus... Controversial edits in very popular articles will certainly require discussion and frequently involve requests for comment.
DoctorOetker 8y ago
It's bizarre when there is an edit war, but WP effectively pretends there is no controversy. There should be some rule that the controversy can not be denied at least not on the talk page. Perhaps some metric on the article page that indicates the level of controversy in the talk page...
- commoner 8y ago
  Controversial articles are usually tagged as such on their talk pages. For example, see the talk page for the Donald Trump article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Donald_Trump https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Donald_Trump Note the banner that says "The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute." Articles in highly controversial areas (such as American politics and the Arab-Israeli conflict) are subject to additional restrictions meant to encourage discussion and reduce editing disputes. On these pages (including Talk:Donald Trump), you'll see a "Warning: Active arbitration remedies" banner with the details.

by strken 8y ago

commoner 8y ago

Landmark Worldwide has been a highly controversial subject on Wikipedia. There are 32 pages of discussions on the article's talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Landmark_Worldwide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Landmark_Worldwide To contribute to articles on controversial topics (such as politics and religion), Wikipedia recommends the following: 1) Edit the article with the changes you want to make. 2) If another editor disagrees with you, they will revert your edit. 3) After your edit is reverted, go to the talk page of the article and discuss the contents of your edit. The key step is #3. Reverted edits are to be discussed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discus... If you're unable to come to an agreement with other editors, you can use some form of dispute resolution. The most popular method is the "request for comment", in which all Wikipedia editors are invited to participate in a debate, and the results determine the state of the article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment Your point of view won't always be the one that wins the debate, but Wikipedia editors are generally reasonable, and your arguments will be fairly heard.

zozbot123 8y ago
> To contribute to articles on controversial topics (such as politics and religion), Wikipedia recommends the following: > 1) Edit the article with the changes you want to make. > 2) If another editor disagrees with you, they will revert your edit. > 3) After your edit is reverted, go to the talk page of the article and discuss the contents of your edit. This is actually a bad idea. It's fine for garden-variety editing that you don't expect to raise controversy, but if you want to affect something controversial and not look like you're acting in bad faith, you absolutely need to go to the talk page first and propose your edit there. If no one replies after a few days, then you have cover to just make the change 'per the talk page' (and sometimes you do get reverted here - but now you can complain that they didn't act fairly by commenting on your proposal!), but most likely they will, and you'll get to hash out the wording on talk.
- commoner 8y ago
  Yes, the 3-step process is not appropriate for every situation. As the page notes: > It is ideally suited to disputes that involve only a small number of people, all of whom are interested in making progress. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle#Alternatives https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discus... Controversial edits in very popular articles will certainly require discussion and frequently involve requests for comment.

DoctorOetker 8y ago

It's bizarre when there is an edit war, but WP effectively pretends there is no controversy. There should be some rule that the controversy can not be denied at least not on the talk page. Perhaps some metric on the article page that indicates the level of controversy in the talk page...

commoner 8y ago
Controversial articles are usually tagged as such on their talk pages. For example, see the talk page for the Donald Trump article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Donald_Trump https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Donald_Trump Note the banner that says "The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute." Articles in highly controversial areas (such as American politics and the Arab-Israeli conflict) are subject to additional restrictions meant to encourage discussion and reduce editing disputes. On these pages (including Talk:Donald Trump), you'll see a "Warning: Active arbitration remedies" banner with the details.