5 ms·

Good. I have seen editors exclude articles on actual public figures — multiple (credible) books published, academic publications, interviews on mainstream media

Good. I have seen editors exclude articles on actual public figures — multiple (credible) books published, academic publications, interviews on mainstream media — as being "irrelevant", "unimportant", etc., etc., all seemingly because, when the editor's chain of edits is examined, that person took a position with with the editor strongly politically or policy-wise disagreed with on the strongest terms. The editor system is one of Wikipedia's greatest weaknesses — people with bones to pick and hills to die on work to exclude even mainstream views with which they disagree, and there is no way to stop them from running amok. Something really needs to be done about this.

cmeacham98 4y ago
I read through wikipedia AfD occasionally for fun (yeah, I know, I'm a weirdo). I'm not going to say it's never happened ever, but I've never noticed an AfD that ended up with a delete consensus that was obviously started due to an editor's political bias. Can you provide examples to substantiate this claim?
- flenserboy 4y ago
  Sure. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Malcolm_Kendrick https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletio... https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/female-scientists-pages-keep-disappearing-from-wikipedia-whats-going-on/3010664.article https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/female-scientists-pages-... https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/wikipedia-bias-1.6129073 https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/wikipedia-bias-1.6129073
  - cmeacham98 4y ago
    Can you elaborate on how those examples prove your claim? None of those examples seem to show a political bias.
    - flenserboy 4y ago
      Ok...Kendrick — attacked specifically for questioning the role the cholesterol in heart disease and the efficacy of statins. Read through the discussion and it becomes clear that there are fundamentalists who don't want anyone who, rightly or wrongly, questions a current medical orthodoxy to even be noted. Keeping them off WP in this way is an attempt to write such dissident voices off as loons and not even worth investigating, to make it such that when someone does not appear on WP, it will be a sign that they're not even at the edge of the conversation.
      - cmeacham98 4y ago
        Is the role of chloresterol in heart disease a political topic somewhere I'm not aware of? I'm not here to argue about whether or not other biases exist on Wikipedia. You specifically claimed political bias and I specifically challenged that claim. If you'd like to retract that claim and walk it back to bias against medical unorthodoxy, that's ok with me.
        flenserboy 4y ago
        I'd suggest that it is political insofar as money = power. Consider how valuable an editor could be to a company with an interest in keeping criticism of its product(s) out of the public eye — WP's lack of transparency makes questions about the above possible. At the same time, note I also said or policy-wise — there are plenty of vested interests with government backing for standardized care policies, which can include prescriptions (side example — government diet standards trickle down into the food provided for everyone in Federal care of one sort or another). Standards of care put requirements on doctors, and maintaining those standards of care is of quite some importance to those who have built reputations and careers based on certain drugs and procedures, and to a host of other parties. If these sorts of things aren't political, and tied to political interests, I'm not sure what could be.
        cmeacham98 4y ago
        This is just generic speculation about how the issue could be political. Yes, if someone is influencing governments to say chloresterol is bad because they benefit from a related drug/procedure - that _would_ be political. However, all we have so far is baseless speculation. You are yet to provide any evidence to support any of the claims that: - Anti-chloresterol lobbying/bribery/influence exists - Kendrick's ideas are political in any other way (not imaginations about how they could be political with no evidence) - The poster of the AfD has a political bias against Kendrick (ex. they support anti-chloresterol lobbyists) Unfortunately, this discussion is looking more and more like those I've had with conspiracy theorists, so I assume any future posts you make still won't contain any proof of these claims - please prove me wrong.
wwwwy 4y ago
- KarlKemp 4y ago
  Difflinks or it didn't happen.
- Dylan16807 4y ago
  > (I would go into more detail, but I'll be flagged to oblivion, as this is also the prevailing opinion on this site too.) You're on a throwaway account. That's not a valid excuse.
- donio 4y ago
  > (I would go into more detail, but I'll be flagged to oblivion, as this is also the prevailing opinion on this site too.) It's the opposite, not supporting your claim with evidence when it should be straightforward to do so is what's going to get you flagged into oblivion.
Ekaros 4y ago
I'm kinda wondering about future. I can well imagine that some current minor minister of a country is notable enough for now, but what about 10 or 20 years in future? Will their articles just end up deleted? Even if they were perfectly good and factual?
- archon1410 4y ago
  Notability is not time limited on Wikipedia. Wikipedia notability guidelines on politicians states that members of national level legislative bodies are automatically notable, so the articles will stay as long as Wikipedia in all likelihood.
q1w2 4y ago
I wonder if a editor action review process would help here. If reviewers were themselves reviewed for their actions, and promoted/demoted based on their adherence to a set of public guidelines. ...for example, deleting an article that you took a political position on - should get you demoted from being a reviewer in general.

cmeacham98 4y ago

I read through wikipedia AfD occasionally for fun (yeah, I know, I'm a weirdo). I'm not going to say it's never happened ever, but I've never noticed an AfD that ended up with a delete consensus that was obviously started due to an editor's political bias. Can you provide examples to substantiate this claim?

flenserboy 4y ago
Sure. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Malcolm_Kendrick https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletio... https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/female-scientists-pages-keep-disappearing-from-wikipedia-whats-going-on/3010664.article https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/female-scientists-pages-... https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/wikipedia-bias-1.6129073 https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/wikipedia-bias-1.6129073
- cmeacham98 4y ago
  Can you elaborate on how those examples prove your claim? None of those examples seem to show a political bias.
  - flenserboy 4y ago
    Ok...Kendrick — attacked specifically for questioning the role the cholesterol in heart disease and the efficacy of statins. Read through the discussion and it becomes clear that there are fundamentalists who don't want anyone who, rightly or wrongly, questions a current medical orthodoxy to even be noted. Keeping them off WP in this way is an attempt to write such dissident voices off as loons and not even worth investigating, to make it such that when someone does not appear on WP, it will be a sign that they're not even at the edge of the conversation.
    - cmeacham98 4y ago
      Is the role of chloresterol in heart disease a political topic somewhere I'm not aware of? I'm not here to argue about whether or not other biases exist on Wikipedia. You specifically claimed political bias and I specifically challenged that claim. If you'd like to retract that claim and walk it back to bias against medical unorthodoxy, that's ok with me.
      - flenserboy 4y ago
        I'd suggest that it is political insofar as money = power. Consider how valuable an editor could be to a company with an interest in keeping criticism of its product(s) out of the public eye — WP's lack of transparency makes questions about the above possible. At the same time, note I also said or policy-wise — there are plenty of vested interests with government backing for standardized care policies, which can include prescriptions (side example — government diet standards trickle down into the food provided for everyone in Federal care of one sort or another). Standards of care put requirements on doctors, and maintaining those standards of care is of quite some importance to those who have built reputations and careers based on certain drugs and procedures, and to a host of other parties. If these sorts of things aren't political, and tied to political interests, I'm not sure what could be.
        cmeacham98 4y ago
        This is just generic speculation about how the issue could be political. Yes, if someone is influencing governments to say chloresterol is bad because they benefit from a related drug/procedure - that _would_ be political. However, all we have so far is baseless speculation. You are yet to provide any evidence to support any of the claims that: - Anti-chloresterol lobbying/bribery/influence exists - Kendrick's ideas are political in any other way (not imaginations about how they could be political with no evidence) - The poster of the AfD has a political bias against Kendrick (ex. they support anti-chloresterol lobbyists) Unfortunately, this discussion is looking more and more like those I've had with conspiracy theorists, so I assume any future posts you make still won't contain any proof of these claims - please prove me wrong.

wwwwy 4y ago

KarlKemp 4y ago
Difflinks or it didn't happen.
Dylan16807 4y ago
> (I would go into more detail, but I'll be flagged to oblivion, as this is also the prevailing opinion on this site too.) You're on a throwaway account. That's not a valid excuse.
donio 4y ago
> (I would go into more detail, but I'll be flagged to oblivion, as this is also the prevailing opinion on this site too.) It's the opposite, not supporting your claim with evidence when it should be straightforward to do so is what's going to get you flagged into oblivion.

Ekaros 4y ago

I'm kinda wondering about future. I can well imagine that some current minor minister of a country is notable enough for now, but what about 10 or 20 years in future? Will their articles just end up deleted? Even if they were perfectly good and factual?

archon1410 4y ago
Notability is not time limited on Wikipedia. Wikipedia notability guidelines on politicians states that members of national level legislative bodies are automatically notable, so the articles will stay as long as Wikipedia in all likelihood.

q1w2 4y ago

I wonder if a editor action review process would help here. If reviewers were themselves reviewed for their actions, and promoted/demoted based on their adherence to a set of public guidelines. ...for example, deleting an article that you took a political position on - should get you demoted from being a reviewer in general.