Wikipedia talk:Civil POV pushing/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Example in Progress

If anyone gives a hoot and wants to see a civil-pov push example happening here in real time, feel free to stop by and drop a comment. The issue in question is whether or not a source from chirobase trumps a peer-reviewed source in a high impact veterinary journal. Some might have a bit of cognitive dissonance after this, but at least you learned something new. Step right up into Pandora's box... CorticoSpinal (talk) 05:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Schools of thought: WP:YESPOV, WP:UNDUE, and WP:SPLIT

A lot of these problems with content are solved in the non-science disciplines simply by splitting off articles which speak to a particular school of thought. I think you'll find that giving partisan's their own sandbox to play with ends up making everyone happy 99% of the time. -- Kendrick7^talk 18:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Often that works (at least for a while), but it just can't be done for some things. You can't have separate articles for "the drug that saved my life" and "the drug that killed my mother." These POVs tend to result in dedicated, focused editors who are looking at WP as a vehicle for promoting their viewpoint. It's difficult to just outlast them: they'll be convinced of this for years to come and energized to spread the One True POV™.

Right now, we don't have a mechanism for turning "Nobody cares about your personal experience" into "Every single editor you've talked to said "No, no, no -- a thousand times NO!", so quit demanding that your POV be the primary POV in this article -- or else."

WP:UNDUE, by the way, is the policy that these editors usually cite: don't mention this fact -- downplay that fact -- ignore those studies -- because anything unfavorable to their POV is "undue weight." WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The way forward: The homeopathy case

Looking over this page as it now stands, vis-a-vis the current homeopathy arbcom case, I've recommended that the arbitration committee adopt the proposed principle defining "involved" narrowly. I've also recommended they adopt a remedy similar to the 9/11 attacks remedy. Having see that remedy in action, I'm starting to warm up to the idea. Raul654 (talk) 23:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

(Strange... it suddenly got quiet here)

The arbcom it attempting to deal with the problems here in the homeopathy case. They've convening a committee of credentialed experts to deal with sourcing issues, and a 9/11-attacks style remedy to deal with problem users. They have incorporated my suggestion on this page for limiting the definition of uninvolved. Does this leave any big issues un-addressed? Raul654 (talk) 16:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

This should be interesting... :) MastCell ^Talk 16:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I think this sourcing board will be a great thing, if it passes. But I can already see a movement, within the community, of people who are afraid of the board being too powerful. I don't know if it is a distrust of academics or experts but people seem to think that consensus should rule all. I love how the people who think that any problem can be solved by just discussing it on the talk page are rarely involved in any controversial articles. I'm pretty sure you can hammer out the BLP issues with sourcing on the Miley Cyrus article much quicker than you can the issue of fringe journals on homeopathy. Just my thoughts. Baegis (talk) 17:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I think a wait-a-see approach is best. Rather than poo-pooing this idea and citing it's potential flaws, I want to see how it behaves in action. Raul654 (talk) 21:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Because my opinions are often given more weight than they deserve, I am reluctant to say very much. But I will say this: I am generally supportive of conservative movements in this direction.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 04:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Teaching admins how to deal with disputes

As a project from the ArbCom-created Working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars, we've been working on education, as in teaching new admins how to deal with disputes. As part of this, we have a new page we'd like to add to the "School for new admins", which is currently at Wikipedia:New admin school/Dealing with disputes. This page doesn't cover all types of disputes (which is one of the reasons for the Working Group, and other pages such as Raul654 has here). However, we think that this provides a pretty good summary of existing methodologies. The page has not been formally linked in to the School yet, but I'd appreciate if other admins (or non-admins) who have experience with dispute resolution, could look things over and offer comments. You're welcome to edit the page directly, or if you just have a tip you want to throw in, feel free to add it to the "Tips" section on the page. More complex comments can of course be added to talk. Looking forward to your thoughts, Elonka 19:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

About single purpose accounts

I'm opposed to seeing all SPA's being put into a 1RR situation since not all of them are here to promote fringe or biased nonscientific info. One SPA editor I have mentioned several times as an example is User:Peltoms (Mauri Pelto [1]), who (though infrequently) edits only articles related to glaciers/glaciology. So we have to be careful when developing any policy or guideline in which we might put these true expert SPA's in a situation that would make them less likely to contribute.--MONGO 16:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

That's a good point - being an SPA is not (by itself) indicative of a problem. There are a many good SPAs out there (arguably including Giano, half of whose edits are to architecture articles). The problem comes in when you combine the single-minded purpose of being of an SPA with the disruption that is part-and-parcel of civil POV pushing. Raul654 (talk) 18:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

From my own experiences, this intersection of an SPA and disruption may indeed be the pith of a helpful way to define a wide swath of civil PoV pushers. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Um... what exactly is the point in "defining" civil POV pushers? -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Since this discussion is about "Civil POV pushing," how would you describe civil POV pushers? Gwen Gale (talk) 03:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure that describing the people is the best strategy. I think the discussion is about POV-pushing, not POV-pushers. I'm still forming some thoughts on this, but I suspect that making it into an "identify the bad guys and beat them" kind of activity, then we'll be headed down a bad path. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, understood. It likely is more helpful to say, this intersection of an SPA and disruption may indeed be the pith of a helpful way to define a wide swath of civil PoV pushing.

an alternative is just to not tolerate it on SPAs and put them on a 1RR restriction when it becomes obvious what their purpose is. That would allow productive editors such as User:Peltoms but quickly put a short leash on disruptors. 1RR is then preliminary to the topic ban. --DHeyward (talk) 04:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

If that's what GTBacchus is getting at, I would agree, keep it as simple as can be. For example, if an SPA becomes at all disruptive (like filling talk pages with repeating arguments against consensus) invoke 1rr, maybe along with 3r/wk. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

What has civility got to do with POV pushing?

This page has seemed a bit strange to me for a while, and I think I'm putting my finger on what it is. POV pushing is POV pushing. If it's done by someone who's being civil or uncivil, it's POV pushing. That means the edits are biased, and can be fixed for editorial reasons, right?

What does it matter if the person is civil? Is there some idea that the only way to stop a POV pusher is to catch them in incivility, so the civil ones are somehow untouchable? What's up with that? -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, imagine you are looking at a color. Every reliable source in the world says the color is white. Poster X comes along and says that the color is actually black. He then quotes a whole bunch of fringey sources and conjectures which claims it's black and changes the article to say that most people think it's white but many also think it's black. He is reverted. He argues vociferously that the article should say it's black, even though the view is beyond fringe. He argue that NPOV says that the article should not present the facts as facts because some people think it's black. He argues that NPOV says the article should say it's grey and the article is in violation of an alphabet soup of policies. He tendentiously argues over sources and has novel interpretations of policies which are at odds with established practice. He continually adds material over a long period of time, and does not back down even when confronted with clear consensus against him. The talk page arguments over his edits span dozens of pages, consuming hours and hours from editors. At no point does he cross any of our lines in the sand. Suppose three or four other posters join Poster X in his actions.

Wikipedia does not do well with this situation, because editors burn out dealing with this. That's the issue here — admins are loathe to act, since they have to go out on a limb, and the editors protecting the article from POV pushing burn out under constant arguments. And, because of the way Wikipedia works, the absence of an argument is considered consensus — if and when they burn out, the article will become a POV soapbox. If they attempt to not argue every point, they will be accused of owning the article and simply edit warring without discussion. --Haemo (talk) 03:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. That is the clearest explanation of the problem that I've read so far. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, thank you. That is very clear, and I've been thinking about it for a few days. I'm replying more extensively below. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

This lack of understanding is the result of many having almost no experience in this area. Any administrator who knows the argument is not able to take action because they will be accused of being involved. And any action that does not involve WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA can easily get the administrator in trouble. --Filll (talk) 00:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

This may be true to an extent now, but I'm pretty much determined to make it not true anymore. Are you with me, or would you prefer to maintain a status quo? -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I do what I feel is appropriate and make suggestions that I believe will make things better.--Filll (talk) 01:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

So... how is using WP:CIVIL as a weapon appropriate? I thought that using WP:CIVIL as a weapon is something we were trying to discourage, not exemplify. What's up with that? Is is simply frustration (very understandable) or is something else going on there? -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I have plenty to say on the topic but given your response, I am weighing what I want to say and how I want to say it, and when I might want to say it. As far as I know, given the tenor of what you sent to me, I feel under no obligation to respond. Thanks.--Filll (talk) 01:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

You are correct that the edits can be dealt with as POV pushing. But the editors have generally not warranted any other sanction. It's the combination of POV pushing, civility and a relentless pursuit of inserting their opinion in articles. It is very hard to put in the time to continuously fight their edits on talk pages and articles when it's clear they don't hold the consensus view. In some articles the civil POV pushers are experts in the field and their topic knowledge has both depth and breadth. In controversial articles, their POV is often filled with topic "code words" that just incite their opponents that don't hold their view. That battle is often less visible than the other civil POV pursher that holds a fringe or minority view and attempts to inject as a mainstream point. Often the same article has both types of editors. Both are relentless article watchdogs and should really be curtailed, but the second variety is particuarlry insidious and needs to be dealt with as a disruption since they often add erroneous and misleading information to articles. Identifying civil POV pushers is the first step in a topic ban. --DHeyward (talk) 03:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, there are some real problems here, and I think it's important how the problems are posed. There are a couple of issues relating to that on which I'd like to comment

First, relating to the question with which I began this thread, I don't think you want to paint a picture where civility is somehow cast as the problem. If you seem to be coming out against civility, that's going to alienate a lot of people. The problem with POV-pushing isn't that the people doing it are civil, it's that we're not dealing with it - as POV-pushing - well enough, and when we can't get a pusher banned for incivility or edit-warring, we feel that our hands are tied.

The second distinction that's important to make is this: are we talking about problem articles, or about problem editors? I would submit that we're better off talking about the aticles than the editors.

There are certain articles that are simply going to attract wackos, true believers, etc. We can't actually stop that, and if we take on a mentality of identifying and topic-banning POV-pushers, then we're going to find ourselves in an endless game of Cowboys and Indians. Our time and energy will end up being redirected into recriminations about who's a Cowboy and who's an Indian, and that's not good for the project.

I think a better strategy is to identify problem articles, and set up some kind of system where we can bring those articles to wider attention. We need to develop better methods of handling articles that consistently attract POV-pushers of various fringe theories. Various methods suggest themselves: splitting off daughter articles, creating FAQs for the talk pages, creating lists of sources that have been vetted for reliability, forming something like a task force of Wikipedians who are good at, and interested in, conflict resolution... these are all good ideas, and there are others.

To summarize: in the interest of clear communication, I would avoid sounding as if the editors at this page are somehow "against" civility. Also, I think we'll have more success developing page-based strategies than editor-based strategies. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think what this page is highlighting is that civil POV-pushing is the problem. We're actually pretty good at dealing with incivil POV-pushing (a la WP:GIANTDICK) — our mechanisms handle people adding POV material and calling everyone else "damn Jews" very well. We don't do so well when people are intent on essentially gaming the system and pushing their POV at the same time. To put it another way, the issue is that they are POV pushers but are intent on working "within" Wikipedia to do it — which in their terms means asking two questions:

1. What formulation of my POV will be most acceptable on Wikipedia?
2. How can I use or interpret Wikipedia's guidelines to advance this formulation?

The basic property here is the view that Wikipedia's guidelines are not principles which explain what the project is (and so should be followed), but rather that they are obstacles or tools which must be avoided or used (respectively) to advance a point of view. This is why civil POV pushing and Wikilawyering so often go hand-in-hand — many people see policies as "laws" which they must get around to get their view included, and so attempt interpretations or arguments which seem completely at odds with the intent of the policy.

To speak to your second point, problem editors are really the issue here — but it's extremely difficult to get a targeted response from them without general restrictions which limit POV pushing. You are quite right in that certain articles attract POV pushing — however, it is usually a hard core of maybe 3-5 editors who do all the major POV pushing in a subject area. There are plenty of throw-away accounts, but the really serious issues only arise when you have dedicated people trying to advance their opinion. Wikipedia does well with people who give up POV pushing after a day or even a week — it's the months-long (or even years) campaigns of attrition which are the really damaging ones, and the ones which are mainly discussed here.

A lot of your other suggestions are good, but don't work really well "on the ground". For instance, FAQs for any given topic can never be implemented when there are ongoing POV pushers active on the talk page — thus they are good for "prevention" but generally only inflame disputes when presented as a resolution. Things like listing sources are generally not helpful, since these POV pushers either (1) recognize that attacking them is a losing battle and instead try to advance fringe sourcing in the name of "neutrality" or (2) attack the sources using counterintuitive interpretations of verifiability to argue they are "non-neutral" or "not reliable". A suggestion which I, sadly, have used — that of daughter articles — I no longer favor since it tends to simply "shunt" the editor to another article where other people have to deal with them. The problem of burn-out spreads wider, and you have editors engaged in basically a test of endurance between POV-pushers across a broad range of articles. Since many sub-articles are less patrolled, and have less editors to watch over them, they can more quickly be subverted by POV editors with more ease — by doing this, you create a kind of "POV wildfire" across many articles in the same subject area, which is exhausting for everyone involved. --Haemo (talk) 02:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your considered reply. There are four points I'd like to make in response. I'll do the three shorter ones first. They relate to: 1. The word civil, 2. The perception of policy as law, and 3. Conflict resolution strategies. The fourth point is about POV pushers themselves, and I'll save that for another post, because it's quite important, and probably quite long.

1. You're correct of course that incivil POV pushers are easy to deal with. It's also true that POV pushers who violate copyright are easy to deal with, and POV pushers who blank pages are easy to deal with. In the case of the difficult ones, the problem is that we actually have to deal with them, whereas POV pushers who blatantly vandalize, or use copyrighted material, or make personal attacks can more-or-less be summarily shot, without too much fuss. The difficult ones are difficult, not because they're civil in particular, but because they're smart enough to avoid the obvious quick blocks. You said it yourself: "the issue is that they are POV pushers but are intent on working "within" Wikipedia to do it". That's so much better than saying "civil POV pushers".

Image-wise, it looks bad to appear to be against civility. It's like saying you're against POV pushers who write original prose; after all, those who break copyright are easy to block. It comes across... odd, as if you've somehow got something against original prose. It's distracting from what you're really trying to do here, which is come up with effective ways to achieve neutral, stable articles on extremely controversial topics. That's the most important question we can be asking here; don't disguise it as an opposition to something with the word "civil" in it. It's bad PR — and PR matters.

2. Wikilawyering is a problem. The perception of policy as law is a problem. If someone is wikilawyering and trying to use policy as a shield or as a cudgel, the solution is to not let them. Part of this involves those pages, WP:CIV, WP:AGF, etc, which I'm so often accused of liking. They're terrible, and need to be rewritten to make them less law-like and more principle-like. They're supposed to be explanations, not lists of directives, glistening with potential loopholes. Anyone interpreting them as directives should not be humored, but instead corrected. That's what WP:IAR is all about - this is not a rules-game. If you're interested in talking about how to improve those pages, then let's talk, but that's not for this thread.

3. You say above, "A lot of your other suggestions are good, but don't work really well "on the ground".". My only quibble would be that they haven't worked really well on the ground. We've got to get good at this. I think we're going to get good at it by being more focused on finding out what works and what doesn't. Part of that is determining if it makes more sense to take an editor-based approach or an article-based approach (or some combination, or whatever). That gets to the fourth point, about POV-pushers. On the article-based side, I've communicated a bit with some researchers at UW who are interested in building tools to make talk-page archives more organized and more transparent.

There are a lot of things that can be tried, and I think there's a fair amount of interest in mindfully trying and documenting different approaches. I recently discovered several reconciliation groups (1, 2, 3, 4 examples); are they doing anything that works? We set up m:Dispute resolution analysis group to ask some of these questions in a systematic way, although I don't think we're certain of the best way to proceed. I think that putting more energy into article-based solutions, and studying conflict resolution techniques on the wiki are going to be good strategies. As for user-based approaches, I think you're mistaken about the nature of a POV pusher, and I think that mistake leads to other errors, but I'm going to have to address that in another post. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Rather than start a long-winded part 2, I'm going to start a new section below on POV pushers. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Lead Editors

I am concerned a little bit about the "expertise" requirement for a lead editor. I don't think it's required and I think it may be a detriment. I think neutral editors, without specific expertise, that are advised by experts will make much better lead editors. Often the experts credentials are the reason for attacks on the pages. I would much rather have a neutral editor using the experts, than an expert always in defensive mode against attacks. Experts need to argue for content and have the ear of the person adding the content. But the experts making editorial decisions is going to be a magnet for dissension. Imagine if you will, Bazant being the lead editor on the Collapse of the World Trade Center. He is certainly one of the most qualified engineers for that topic. Yet if he were to decide not to put in content that was critical of a belief that he held, rightly or wrongly, he would be villified. The page would be under attack immediately from the blogosphere. He would be in virtual lockdown mode against a massive onslaught of new editors accusing him of conspiracy or worse. This is true for almost every controversial page here. Secondly, experts are also much more keenly aware of criticism in their field. Terms that would mean nothing to the ordinary lay person are often fighting words or code words to experts and minutae fringe. For example, the term "near free fall" will evoke an emotional resposne when used in the context of Collapse of the World Trade center. Experts won't shy away from that type of needless confrontation since it's usually their phrasing that is at stake. Rather, I would like to see a non-expert that is unknown to the blogs of the minority fringe but also has contact and official guidance. Consensus between a neutral editor and the expert, with the edits being made by the neutral party is what should be done. This will hopefully ratchet down the confrontation a notch. --DHeyward (talk) 05:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

A tangential thought

I haven't proposed this at the ArbCom, because I think it's only partially relevant to homeopathy, but I would like to see it enshrined somewhere that the representation of minority or fringe views is based on their support in the relevant expert community, not upon the particular configuration of editors at an article. This should be obvious as the spirit of WP:WEIGHT, but it's sometimes problematic in practice.

To use my favorite example, AIDS denialism is completely and thoroughly rejected by the scientific community, to the point where there is, quite literally, one remaining prominent scientific adherent. However, it is often the case that of the editors active at the AIDS reappraisal article, 50% or more subscribe to AIDS denialism. This imbalance between real-life support and support among Wikipedia editors active on a particular page tends to bias our coverage. For example, I recall a recent incident in which a group of 9/11 "Truthers" conducted a straw poll and decided on a particular wording; when the few non-Truther editors objected, they were told that they were opposing a "consensus" as indicated by this "straw poll".

Bottom line: it would be nice to codify, somewhere, that even if adherents of a fringe view make up a majority or supermajority of editors active on a particular article, the strictures of WP:WEIGHT still apply. Thoughts? MastCell ^Talk 23:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I think this would be entirely appropriate for the homeopathy case. A proposed principle could be:

Neutral point of view requires that viewpoints be presented in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. When considering the relative weight to be given to different viewpoints, the extent to which those viewpoints are held among Wikipedia editors is not a criterion; it is only their relative prominence in reliable sources relevant to the topic that is to be considered.

The wording could probably be improved. Raymond Arritt (talk) 00:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, but it's understandable and I think it would help (along with strengthening the meaning of WP:WEIGHT). Gwen Gale (talk) 02:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it should also include corollary wording to the effect that WEIGHT is in relation to expert knowledge and opinion as reflected in reliable sources, rather than in relation to the proportion of the population that happens to share a view according to opinion polls. Woonpton (talk) 03:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I like Raymond's proposed addition. There may be some ideal wording, but I think this is Definitely Good Enough To Start. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm just wondering if there's something dumb, or wrong, about my suggestion, since no one has commented on it. If not, why not add a phrase, something like "the extent to which those viewpoints are held among Wikipedia editors, or among people in general, is not a criterion" If I'm mistaken in thinking this would be a useful clarification, I'd appreciate someone setting me straight, thanks.Woonpton (talk) 18:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Your suggestion might be harder to deal with in the real world: you can count up the number of reliable sources, but, if you tried to exclude "man on the street" views, then you get into endless discussions about who qualifies as a suitable expert. Finally, in some cases, the popular view is actually relevant or even important (say, on the (de)merits of a television show or a popular performer). Perhaps a middle course would be to consider the "...relative prominence in independent reliable sources..." WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I think we're talking about different things, maybe. I'm talking about subjects where there's not just differing opinions about things, but facts supported by evidence. The earth is round. 2+2=4. Dinosaurs and human beings lived on the earth in different times. Since the way our procedures are set up (NOR) doesn't allow us to present evidence ourselves to support the facts, we rely on reliable sources to present the evidence fairly and accurately; that's how we ensure that we're producing a reliable and high-quality encyclopedia. Even if 30% of people mistakenly believed that the earth is flat, or that dinosaurs and human beings shared living space, it wouldn't be appropriate for the encyclopedia to present that view as a significant view, since it's factually inaccurate according to all the expert knowledge represented in reliable sources. I know this idea is hard for Wikipedians to grasp, but out in the real world outside, people expect the information they get from an encyclopedia to be reliable and factual. So I was hoping that in addition to saying that views reflected by the group of editors working on an article should not replace expert knowledge and opinion when weighing a minority or fringe view, we could also say that views of the general public should not replace expert knowledge and opinion when weighing a minority or fringe view. Woonpton (talk) 02:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we're talking about different things: we're talking about a proposal that will apply to all articles, not simply the four (4) you have edited. Your proposal assumes that there is always a factual answer, that there are always identifiable experts, and that there is always a bright line between "mainstream" and "fringe" theories. I'm telling you that these assumptions aren't valid frequently enough for your proposal to create concerns. Your assumptions are not valid in cases when popular opinion is relevant, it's not valid when the facts simply aren't known, and it's not valid when you can't figure out who the experts are. (Go ahead: name the neutral, independent expert who is qualified to rule on the validity of string theory.)

Raymond's proposal is much smaller in scope and therefore much easier to implement. It merely says if Wikipedia editors happen to agree with a fringe theory, that doesn't give them license to push the fringe theory. I can support that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer; it makes some sense, except that I guess I fail to see how taking the pulse of the public on the subject of string theory, for example, would be useful in an encyclopedic sense. But I do take your point, and concede. I would quibble slightly with the apparent assumption that my concern has to do with the four (4!) articles I've edited. The four articles I've actually edited, where I found some little thing I could fix without getting into a battle, aren't at issue here; I can't even remember which articles I've actually edited and which I've only observed. I'm concerned with larger issues that will decide whether (in fact have already decided, in the negative, whether) I think it makes sense for me to stick with the project and commit to editing articles that I have been paying attention to and would like to edit but see no hope of editing successfully, exactly because of the issues discussed in this page. I like to know what I'm getting into before I commit, and from my observations, I can see no hope that someone trying to make a fringe topic NPOV against the polite stonewalling of vested interests (commercial, spiritual, ideological, political, whatever) will be backed by the community; your example below is just another of the dozens or even hundreds of examples I've seen in my study of the situation. Given that I can see no commitment of the community for enforcing NPOV or RS (except for the proposed Sourcing Adjudication Board, which may or not be helpful) I don't see anything here for me but potential frustration and exhaustion, and will be shortly closing out my participation here.Woonpton (talk) 15:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Counting to three

Just something I might throw out there: As the page points out, POV warriors have a strong tendency to edit war (indeed, it's pretty hard to push a POV without edit warring). Unfortunately, those who are smart enough to learn to be civil are often also smart enough to avoid blocks for edit warring. It goes down something like this: Civil POV Guy gets warned about the three-revert rule, or maybe even blocked for violating it. From then on, he's extremely careful never to exceed three reverts in 24 hours, though he gets bloody close and edit wars at the article as much as possible within the limit of three reverts per 24 hours. POV pushers who can count to three can often thrive as a result.

How to stave it off? Not entirely sure, though promoting the idea that "no edit warring" is the real policy, and that edit warring is blockable, might be a way to start. Just a passing thought. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The 3RR is a line in the sand; you can be blocked for approaching it. Encourage more blocks for edit warring even on two or 3 reverts especially when the issue is POV pushing. --Haemo (talk) 03:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes. It's absolutely within admin discretion to block for slow edit warring, even if the 3RR line is never crossed. Please add my name to the list of admins you can ask for help with that if I'm online. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Many are hesitant to block for edit warring other than 3RR. Also, in my experience, blocks I've made for edit warring that doesn't surpass the arbitrary threshold have only about a 50% chance of sticking, as another admin decides it wasn't block-worthy and unblocks. We may need to foster a different attitude/approach to 3RR. What I always emphasize is that 3RR is one way to measure edit warring (a way which is often, but not always, effective), and that interpreting 3RR without the greater context, i.e., edit warring, leads to no good. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

What about civil POV pushing of mainstream views

It seems to me that everybody here is concentrating on POV pushing of fringe views. But it is certainly not the only form of POV pushing and if we concentrate on *this* POV pushing we are ignoring an entire side of the story. It is entirely possible that an editor is biased not because he endorse and promote fringe views but because he want a minority view to be deleted, strongly marginalized or described in a non neutral and bad way. This editor would of course take part to the crusade against the "civil POV pushers" and this crusade could become a weapon to implement *his* "civil POV pushing" against the alleged "civil POV pushing" of the opposite side of the ideological struggle. Why is this possible problem ignored here?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 09:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, NPOV means that the mainstream view should be most prominent in the articles on Wikipedia. That includes articles on WP:FRINGE topics. An editor seeking to create or maintain this NPOV balance, where the mainstream view is most prominent is not a POV pusher, civil or otherwise, unless they are attempting to make the mainstream the only view represented in an article.

I have never seen this personally, although there are editors who I believe disagree about the exact nature of the NPOV balance, and some favor more heavy weight on mainstream views than others would. This is usually settled by consensus fairly easily. For example, if one editor wants the article to be 85 percent mainstream and another editor wants the article to be 90 percent mainstream, a compromise is usually fairly easy to achieve. On the other hand, if one editor wants the article to be 85 percent mainstream, and another editor wants the article to be 40 percent mainstream or less, then there is usually conflict and a compromise is difficult to achieve.

Allow me to be more explicit. In the article Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, at the start of the year, well before the film was released, the article was measured to have about 90 percent content about the views in the film and the views of the filmmakers, all from the pro-creationist and pro-intelligent design POV. This, in spite of the fact that in the relevant fields of science, the view of intelligent design is far far less favorable and a good fraction of our reliable sources about the upcoming movie were quite negative. Did this satisfy the "POV pushers" at the article? Absolutely not. The article was a battleground by those favoring intelligent design who were incensed that the article was "so negative".

Now that the film is out, and the mainstream reviews are in, over 90 percent of the mainstream reviews of the film are negative. Of course, almost every scientific source describes the movie negatively. Only the religious media and some of the right wing media describe the film positively. And as would be expected, the article has started to reflect the reliable sources as more sources have become available. But the "POV pushers" are even more enraged, because in the name of being "unbiased" or "fair" or "neutral", they insist that there be minimal negative content in the article, even though that is what is in most of our reliable sources. To write a positive article about the film, one would have to ignore all material from the science community, the legal community, the mainstream film community and some of the right wing media. One would have to cherry pick one's sources. The people who want to do this are "POV pushers". Editors who are trying to maintain an article that relies on a wide spectrum of reliable sources and keep the mainstream views in the relevant fields the most prominent views in the article are not POV pushers. See the difference?--Filll (talk) 12:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Let me describe this a bit more for you. Suppose there are two views about a subject, A and B. Suppose that in the relevant field, A is much more prominent than B (A>>B). In an article about this subject, by WP:NPOV, Wikipedia should include both A and B. So Wikipedia includes A's view of A, and B's view of B, as well as A's view of B and B's view of A. Since A is such much more prominent than B, more of the article should be devoted to A's views than B's views of anything.

Someone who tries to create or maintain this balance, where the article contains more of A's views than B's views is not a "mainstream POV pusher", or a "POV pusher" at all, unless all of B's views were to be removed from the article (a rare event, in my observation, and even explicitly allowed under policy if B is obscure enough). Far more common is that a promoter of B will want to remove almost all the material pertaining to A's views of B, and sometimes A's views of A. An editor who wants to decrease significantly the weight of A's views in the article from what NPOV would dictate is a POV pusher. And if they do it without dropping the f-bomb, or otherwise getting upset, they are almost impossible to stop under our current set of policies and in our current climate on Wikipedia.--Filll (talk) 12:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Fill. You say:

Someone who tries to create or maintain this balance, where the article contains more of A's views than B's views is not a "mainstream POV pusher", or a "POV pusher" at all, unless all of B's views were to be removed from the article (a rare event, in my observation, and even explicitly allowed under policy if B is obscure enough).

It seems that you are assuming that if I try to reduce the weight of a minority view from 20% to 0,1% (or even 0%) then it is ok and it is not a POV pushing. It seems very strange to state such a thing *in general* without considering the specific cases and the real weight of the views in the literature.

The point is the application of WP:UNDUE. We have some editors disagreeing on the correct application of WP:UNDUE. Who is the "POV pusher" in this context? You are considering here the case when these editors do not violate policies like WP:CIVIL or WP:DE, so behavioural policies are unable to give criteria to decide who is being wrong. We can just assume that "there exists" a "correct way" to interpret WP:UNDUE in the specific context and someone is being wrong, and if someone is being really very wrong and eventually is also dishonest (although he is not violating the rules) then we call him "POV pusher". Now we have two problems:

1. who has to decide who is being "very wrong"? How can we be sure that he is not being wrong?
2. if one can be very wrong when thinking that view A deserve more weight then it is possible that one can be very wrong when thinking that view A deserve less weight, why not?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 14:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Let me try to address some of your concerns:

• It seems that you are assuming that if I try to reduce the weight of a minority view from 20% to 0,1% (or even 0%) then it is ok and it is not a POV pushing.

No I do not claim that. If you read what I wrote, I do maintain that attempting to reduce a minority view from 20 percent to 0.1 percent or 0 percent is inappropriate. However, I said a couple of times I have not observed this to be a problem, in my experience.

• It seems very strange to state such a thing *in general* without considering the specific cases and the real weight of the views in the literature.

I did give a specific case, did I not? And determining the prominence of a given view comes directly from the "real weight of the views in the literature". Determining what what is the mainstream view even, and what the relevant proportions are is probably best determined by "real weight of the views in the literature" and the relative quality of the sources.

• The point is the application of WP:UNDUE. We have some editors disagreeing on the correct application of WP:UNDUE.

We have disagreements about WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NOR, etc.

• Who is the "POV pusher" in this context?

Well as I suggested above, if an editor tries to reduce the minority view from 20 percent to 0 percent, when the literature shows that 20 percent is more appropriate, then they might be classified as a "POV pusher". However, I have never observed this. I have frequently observed the opposite however.

• You are considering here the case when these editors do not violate policies like WP:CIVIL or WP:DE, so behavioural policies are unable to give criteria to decide who is being wrong.

Yes exactly. What else did you think?

• We can just assume that "there exists" a "correct way" to interpret WP:UNDUE in the specific context and someone is being wrong, and if someone is being really very wrong and eventually is also dishonest (although he is not violating the rules) then we call him "POV pusher".

Yes but the vast vast vast majority of cases I have seen are the opposite. Almost always, those with FRINGE views are arguing that FRINGE views should be more prominent in Wikipedia articles, and that mainstream views should be less prominent in Wikipedia articles.

• Now we have two problems:

who has to decide who is being "very wrong"? How can we be sure that he is not being wrong?

We have procedures for establishing this. Many of those who hold FRINGE views disagree with these procedures and their conclusions, however.

if one can be very wrong when thinking that view A deserve more weight then it is possible that one can be very wrong when thinking that view A deserve less weight, why not?

Of course people can be wrong. But there are set procedures for establishing who is right and who is wrong. And we have many who reject those procedures. And so on.--Filll (talk) 15:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I have a real, practical, and positive suggestion for you guys. It would help if you start using "mainstream science" in your discussions rather than the ambiguous "mainstream". Roughly 75% of the US and Canadian population are card-carrying, Bible-toting Christians, and in some countries that number is even higher. Anti-scientific concepts like creationism (among other popular anti-scientific concepts) are actually "mainstream views". According to Gallup, a slight majority of the US population believes in creationism over evolution. Personally, I'm an agnostic, somewhat Buddhist, and very liberal in my politics. As such, I completely oppose things like intelligent design or creationism being introduced into schools. But it's hard to argue that beliefs shared by a large portion of society, many times the majority of society, are "fringe views". It doesn't qualify as fringe science. It barely resembles science enough to be called pseudoscience. But the views are in fact "mainstream" nonetheless. What you're actually talking about is "mainstream science", not simply the ambiguous "mainstream". Many editors don't get that distinction and it leads to all manner of POV disputes. When you call the creationist's view "fringe", rather than "fringe science", the creationist feels empowered by the majority view to argue with you. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 13:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. However, I believe it reveals a wide range of fundamental misunderstandings. Permit me to elaborate:

• It would help if you start using "mainstream science" in your discussions rather than the ambiguous "mainstream".

Actually, when we use the term "mainstream" it is a shorthand for "mainstream view in the relevant field". When the subject is science, the mainstream view is the mainstream view among scientists, not Uzbeki sheep herders or Japanese pearl divers. If the subject is a book, the mainstream is the book reviewers among the mainstream media. If the subject is Christianity, the mainstream is the mainstream of academic Christian theologians. The mainstream is basically the majority opinion among relevant experts. It is not public opinion of country X or the opinion of most Sufi mystics. You get it?

• Roughly 75% of the US and Canadian population are card-carrying, Bible-toting Christians, and in some countries that number is even higher.

Few Western countries have a higher level of professed religious belief than the US. And the allusion to "bible-toting" is somewhat inaccurate because it carries certain connotations with it that are not accurate in the case of most Christian sects.

• Anti-scientific concepts like creationism (among other popular anti-scientific concepts) are actually "mainstream views".

Not mainstream among the relevant experts. Creationism, and its cousins scientific creationism, creation science and intelligent design all purport to present alternative views of a wide range of scientific facts and present alternative theories to explain these facts. Some of these movements purport to be scientific themselves or to redefine science. Therefore, the relevant fields are science, and to a lesser extent in some cases, theology. And the views of the relevant experts in those cases constitute the mainstream, not the views of the public in geographic area Y or the views of itinerant illiterate gypsy traders.

• According to Gallup, a slight majority of the US population believes in creationism over evolution.

That is a somewhat meaningless claim. It depends on the poll and it depends on what you define as creationism. Most Americans in fact are closer to subscribing to theistic evolution than anything else. However in survey after survey, the vast majority of Americans cannot pick the correct definition of "evolution" out of a multiple choice list, so it is somewhat irrelevant to quote things like this.

Actually it must also be remembered that this is not an encyclopedia for Americans, or Americans and Canadians, or one that describes the mainstream among English speakers. Among Christians, only a tiny fraction believe what would be described as creationism, in any real sense of the term (meaning some reliance on biblical literalism to accurately describe where the earth, its variety of life forms and the universe came from). This is true even among American Christians. Worldwide, the level of belief in creationism is extremely small. There are varieties of Islamic anti-evolution and Hindu anti-evolution and Jewish anti-evolution movements, but they have a different character than the Christian anti-evolution movements. Even taken as a whole, all anti-evolution movements probably constitute a minority of worldwide population.

• Personally, I'm an agnostic, somewhat Buddhist, and very liberal in my politics.

This is such a standard statement repeated over and over by those who hold a certain range of FRINGE views that has almost become a defining characteristic. We don't care, since it is irrelevant, but I doubt few would believe you in any case.

• As such, I completely oppose things like intelligent design or creationism being introduced into schools.

Irrelevant, but see above.

• But it's hard to argue that beliefs shared by a large portion of society, many times the majority of society, are "fringe views".

A large fraction of the public believes in alien abductions and 911 conspiracy theories and astrology and ghosts and reincarnation and animal telepathy and herbal medicine and chiropractic and psychokenesis and seances and unlucky numbers and winning streaks at the slot machines and all manner of nonsense. But that is not what we make the most prominent in our articles, or at least we try not to, since we aspire to be a respected reference work and encyclopedia, not joke-a-pedia or popular-a-pedia.

• It doesn't qualify as fringe science. It barely resembles science enough to be called pseudoscience.

If there are subjects which are not science, such as the scholarly views of assorted theological points, then the relevant mainstream views are those of the relevant experts, who are not scientists obviously, but the experts in that area. If areas overlap with science however, then the mainstream view of the relevant science experts is brought to bear.

• But the views are in fact "mainstream" nonetheless. What you're actually talking about is "mainstream science", not simply the ambiguous "mainstream". Many editors don't get that distinction and it leads to all manner of POV disputes. When you call the creationist's view "fringe", rather than "fringe science", the creationist feels empowered by the majority view to argue with you.

I personally explain over and over and over and over and over that it is the majority view among the experts in the relevant field that we use for Wikipedia NPOV purposes. However, many FRINGE proponents try to wikilawyer these policies in a wide variety of ways to get away from this, and to present FRINGE views unimpeded in an uncritical manner.--Filll (talk) 14:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

---

• Actually, when we use the term "mainstream" it is a shorthand for "mainstream view in the relevant field". When the subject is science, the mainstream view is the mainstream view among scientists, not Uzbeki sheep herders or Japanese pearl divers. If the subject is a book, the mainstream is the book reviewers among the mainstream media. If the subject is Christianity, the mainstream is the mainstream of academic Christian theologians. The mainstream is basically the majority opinion among relevant experts. It is not public opinion of country X or the opinion of most Sufi mystics. You get it?

Yes, I got it. I'm always pointing out that distinction that "mainstream" is contextual. That was the entire point of my suggestion. Your readers don't necessarily get it, hence why I said it'd be more effective if you weren't ambiguous about the use of mainstream. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 15:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• Few Western countries have a higher level of professed religious belief than the US. And the allusion to "bible-toting" is somewhat inaccurate because it carries certain connotations with it that are not accurate in the case of most Christian sects.

True. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 15:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• Not mainstream among the relevant experts. Creationism, and its cousins scientific creationism, creation science and intelligent design all purport to present alternative views of a wide range of scientific facts and present alternative theories to explain these facts. Some of these movements purport to be scientific themselves or to redefine science. Therefore, the relevant fields are science, and to a lesser extent in some cases, theology. And the views of the relevant experts in those cases constitute the mainstream, not the views of the public in geographic area Y or the views of itinerant illiterate gypsy traders.

Yes, which is exactly why I said it's important to be clear on the use of "mainstream". When mainstream is simply used to refer to the majority, creationists feel like they are the majority and start their arguments. When mainstream refers to mainstream thought in the relevant field, all the creationist arguments fail, because they have no support in science. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 15:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• That is a somewhat meaningless claim. It depends on the poll and it depends on what you define as creationism. Most Americans in fact are closer to subscribing to theistic evolution than anything else. However in survey after survey, the vast majority of Americans cannot pick the correct definition of "evolution" out of a multiple choice list, so it is somewhat irrelevant to quote things like this.

I mentioned that it was according to Gallup[2] and said that the problem is a perception of what's a mainstream view, and who holds the claim to the majority-view. It's easy to state that respondents were operating under a misdefinition of evolution, or a misdefinition of creationism, but what I'm talking about is perception and the empowerment that comes from feeling you are in the majority. Regardless of whether they are actually in the majority, they often feel like they are, and that's where my suggestion came in. Explain clearly that you're talking about the "mainstream science" view and they no longer see themselves as the majority. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 15:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• This is such a standard statement repeated over and over by those who hold a certain range of FRINGE views that has almost become a defining characteristic. We don't care, since it is irrelevant, but I doubt few would believe you in any case.

That was an unnecessary comment, you're wrong, and fuck you. See how civility works? You get what you give. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 15:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• A large fraction of the public believes in alien abductions and 911 conspiracy theories and astrology and ghosts and reincarnation and animal telepathy and herbal medicine and chiropractic and psychokenesis and seances and unlucky numbers and winning streaks at the slot machines and all manner of nonsense. But that is not what we make the most prominent in our articles, or at least we try not to, since we aspire to be a respected reference work and encyclopedia, not joke-a-pedia or popular-a-pedia.

Hence the need to be distinctly clear about what you mean by "mainstream" and "majority-view", which is what my suggestion was about. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 15:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• If there are subjects which are not science, such as the scholarly views of assorted theological points, then the relevant mainstream views are those of the relevant experts, who are not scientists obviously, but the experts in that area. If areas overlap with science however, then the mainstream view of the relevant science experts is brought to bear.

Yes, exactly. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 15:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• I personally explain over and over and over and over and over that it is the majority view among the experts in the relevant field that we use for Wikipedia NPOV purposes. However, many FRINGE proponents try to wikilawyer these policies in a wide variety of ways to get away from this, and to present FRINGE views unimpeded in an uncritical manner.

The first sentence is exactly what I was suggesting. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 15:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• However, I believe it reveals a wide range of fundamental misunderstandings.

Now, that's odd, because you went on to explain more or less what I was saying, just in different words. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 15:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• That was an unnecessary comment, you're wrong, and fuck you. See how civility works? You get what you give.

Feel free to show me in diffs where I ever wrote such a thing to anyone here on Wikipedia, and to you particularly.--Filll (talk) 15:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to the part where you said you doubt few would believe that I'm agnostic, somewhat Buddhist, with liberal politics. Again, unnecessary, you're wrong, and fuck you. Everything else is copacetic : ) --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 15:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

If I may move discussion away from questioning Neal's belief system for a moment... :) One issue with regard to "mainstream" is that Wikipedia is intended to be a summary of the current state of human knowledge, not the current state of popular belief. To take evolution as an example: the current state of human knowledge favors modern evolutionary synthesis as a powerfully explanatory biological tool. It is notable that a large portion of the U.S. population (in some polls) believes in creationism, but that does not make it the "mainstream" or respresentative explanation when we summarize current human knowledge. MastCell ^Talk 16:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think "mainstream" is a problematic word, because it can be interpreted different ways, some of them not very helpful to the encyclopedia. Better to stick with "reliable sources," to say that the article should faithfully represent the views of expert opinion, giving them appropriate weight as reflected in *reliable sources* on the topic. I find "mainstream" just confusing. Woonpton (talk) 16:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. "Expert view" over "mainstream view" is a great alternative I think. It implies "in the relevant field" automatically. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 16:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but that raises the thorny question of who the "experts" are in "fringe" areas. Is the "expert" view on homeopathy that of expert homeopaths, or is it that of expert researchers who have investigated homeopathy from the "mainstream" point of view? This seems to be a perpetually sticky wicket. MastCell ^Talk 16:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I share Mastcell's (and others') worries about trying to define the term expert. I think WP:V and WP:RS already give us the means to write helpful reference articles. In my experience PoV pushing has to do with behaviour, not qualifications. Truth be told, I've seen very intelligent, qualified and well-meaning academics (along with gifted amateurs) fall into corrosive, unhelpful PoV pushing, both here on Wikipedia and in life. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Let me separate the issues for a moment. The first is that "mainstream" and "majority view" is ambiguous. "Expert view" is less ambiguous, so it's already preferable. So I would use it just for that reason alone. The second issue is who are the experts? As Filll said (and I said), that's context-dependent. There's no set rule. When describing the premise that homeopathy operates under, the expert would be the homeopathist. He/she would know better than anyone else what concept they're using. When describing the science behind the concept, mainstream science takes the forefront, because the mainstream scientist knows better. I don't know anything about homeopathy, so let's switch subjects. When describing "Bigfoot", the expert surrounding the "legend" is the folklorist/cryptozoologist who wrote books about it, for example Loren Coleman. The expert on the plausibility that Bigfoot actually exists is any ol' mainstream zoologist. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 16:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes but who vets the credentials? Qualified academics who understand how Wikipedia works already tend to shine here anyway. Disruptive SPAs are by far the biggest source of civil PoV pushing. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

<undent>Let's make this concrete. We have two world experts in the WP:FRINGE area of homeopathy here as Wikipedia editors. It is clearly a WP:FRINGE area by many measures; by fraction of practitioners, from reliable sources, and from the market (for example, homeopathic medications have less than 0.5 percent of the world market for pharmaceuticals).

The two famous expert homeopaths here are User:DanaUllman and User:Peter morrell. Both have written books on homeopathy. Both have practiced as homeopaths professionally. Both have professional associations with universities; one as a homeopath, and the other as a researcher and lecturer in the study of history of medicine. However, there is a huge difference between these two, which can be quite instructive to examine:

• User:DanaUllman is a classic SPA, and a classic civil POV pusher. He is unfailingly CIVIL, but a ferocious wikilawyer. He has been the subject of repeated Arbcomm cases for his disruptive behavior and is topic banned at the moment. He is forbidden to post about homeopathy or possibly other forms of alternative medicine as well on Wikipedia because of his inability or unwillingness to edit according to the principles of Wikipedia, including WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:RS, WP:V and so on.

• User:Peter morrell has edited a wide number of topics on Wikipedia. Although he has been called on the carpet a couple of times for WP:CIVIL violations, the pro-science community on Wikipedia has not vilified him, but instead has rallied to his aid and protected him. This is not because the pro-science community likes incivility or does not care about incivility. The difference is, User:Peter morrell is willing to compromise and to live with consensus and to abide by NPOV, NOR, RS, V and so on. And that makes him a far more productive editor and a net positive to the project, instead of a net negative to the project as User:DanaUllman is.

This should make the essence of the problem more clear.--Filll (talk) 16:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Please tell me what I'm missing about this (no sarcasm meant): I agree with your take on this example. One is a disruptive SPA, the other a wide ranging, helpful, knowledgeable editor whose frustration with stuff like CPP has now and then been expressed in uncivil ways. There is no need to apply an "expert test" here. If the SPA had earlier been identified as CPPing and then limited to a 1rr along with limits on article talk page posting (disruption), an arbcom ruling would have maybe never been needed. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not think you are missing anything, or at least not anything I can tell at first glance. Why do you think you are missing something? I just think many, including some of the contributors to these pages, really have no experience or deep understanding of the issues. So I thought I would give a concrete real example.--Filll (talk) 16:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

(it didn't give me an edit conflict, but this came in way far below the post I was responding to, MastCell's comment about who are the experts). Yes, I can see the problem, and I think that's one place where Wikipedia policy can be gamed, because the policy isn't clear. But still, when people start confusing "mainstream" with "mainstream public opinion," there's got to be a way to bring the discussion back to reliable sources; we're not after all writing an encyclopedia based on the views of Joe Schmoe, but the views of reliable sources. I copied a charming sentence from a talk page discussion and taped it to my computer (unfortunately I didn't copy the user's name, because I wasn't expecting to cite it anywhere, I just wanted it for myself to remind me of what the project is about): "From every books, we have to understand (and then refer to) the things that can be trusted, not the mistakes." I can't think of a more succinct and apt way to express the core policies (NPOV, NOR, RS) in a few words.

Before I decided it was too painful to watch the dismantling and distortion of core policies, I was watching WP:NPOV and its discussion for a while. The Bates Method article was being touted as an article that shows the appropriate weighting of different points of view on a subject, and if I'm remembering this right, was cited on the main policy page as a good model to use for deciding how much weight to give different views (though happily, I don't see it there now). I didn't opine on the question publicly, but I thought the article was very POV (in its current version at the time; I have no idea how it stands now) because it was written almost entirely from the POV of practitioners of the Bates method. True, there was a sentence in the lead that cited criticism, and maybe even a short section of criticism in the body, but the article was mostly a long uncritical description of the practice of the Bates method, taken from websites of practitioners. I had to go outside Wikipedia, to databases of literature in the fields of opthalmology and optometry, to learn with what utter disdain the Bates method is held among experts in these fields, and how completely the idea is refuted by research. One shouldn't have to go elsewhere than an encyclopedia to learn the true nature of expert opinion on a topic. So no, I wouldn't agree that practitioners of a fringe view should be the "reliable sources" we rely on to draw an accurate picture of that topic, but I agree that this is a sticky wicket, that needs to be decided one way or the other: is Wikipedia going to be a serious encyclopedia, or is it going to be a catalog of all the modern versions of snake oil? Now *that* is an important question to be asking. If the latter, I could wash my hands and walk away without a backward glance. If the former, then we've got work to do. Woonpton (talk) 17:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I only use "mainstream" as a shorthand for "mainstream view among relevant experts in the appropriate field". And I explain what views are relevant over and over and over. At least in conversations I am in, I do not believe anyone has any misunderstanding of the position I am advocating and confusing "mainstream" with "mainstream among the public in the United States".

I am not suggesting that we rely on Ullman or Morrell as our reliable sources. If you believe that is what I suggested, you are definitely missing something.--Filll (talk) 17:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Fill, my post wasn't a response to yours; I hadn't even seen yours when I wrote it. Due to however the wiki software works, or a glitch or something, my post was deposited, not below Mast Cell's post that I was responding to, but far below, as if it were a response to yours. I was also in part responding to someone up above there somewhere who was equating "mainstream" with "mainstream public opinion" but it wasn't you. I can see the advantage in copying quotes and then responding to the quotes; that way there's no mistaking what's being responded to if the post lands somewhere different than where it was intended to land. Sorry about the mixup.Woonpton (talk) 17:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I think a reasonable and working definition of "expert view" can be developed using the various guidelines and policies as a template. I'd be happy to talk about that. But since my comments were just about clarifying "mainstream", I'll stay away from the homeopathy discussions (which frankly I don't know anything about... not the least bit interested in the topic). --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 17:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

"But since my comments were just about clarifying "mainstream", I'll stay away from the homeopathy discussions (which frankly I don't know anything about... not the least bit interested in the topic)"

Me too. Woonpton (talk) 18:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

What is a POV pusher?

I read a lot about POV pushers that I have a hard time believing. I've met POV pushers in the field, and I think I understand how they think, but then I read some bizarre ideas that don't jibe with what I've observed. I had an interesting interaction with Raymond over at Guy's page the other day, which you can see here. (The conversation starts out between Martinphi and Guy, but keep reading.) Later, I read this statement by Dana Ullman at ArbCom, in the Homeopathy case. It goes straight to the point.

Now, in conversation with Haemo above, I read: "[civil POV pushers] are intent on working "within" Wikipedia to do it — which in their terms means asking two questions: 1. What formulation of my POV will be most acceptable on Wikipedia? 2. How can I use or interpret Wikipedia's guidelines to advance this formulation?".

I don't think that's right. I think that most POV pushers really believe what they claim to believe. I think that they truly believe that their edits would make the article better, more neutral, and more accurate. I think this makes a huge difference, because, as I said at Guy's page, what's the point it telling someone "stop pushing a FRINGE POV" when, as far as they're concerned, they're not doing that at all?

In their mind, you're the POV pusher, and they're doing precisely the good work that you see yourselves as doing. If someone told you to stop pushing your POV, would you? I think you'd say you're not pushing a POV, indeed, see above. A "FRINGE POV pusher" believes that the jury is still out on some question, and that a neutral encyclopedia article should reflect that fact. (According to him, it is a fact.)

Isn't that very different from someone who is deviously trying to inject inaccuracy and bias? Isn't advancing the truth as you genuinely believe it quite different from naughtily trying to compromise the encyclopedia?

Perhaps the truth is somewhere in between, and some POV pushers are ingenuous, while others are disingenuous. How can they be distinguished, and what are there relative proportions? Would the same strategies apply to dealing with the two? Comments? -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Its the same thing. The exact same thing. People can genuinely believe evolution never happened. They can choose to believe it in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The people that are advancing these "truths" are doing so in spite of nearly every shred of evidence pointing to the contrary. They just choose to not hear anything bad about what they believe. It is the exact same thing as a civil POV pusher. It's just these people also suffer from a complete inability to admit when they are incorrect about hearing dead people's voices on the radio, Noah riding dinosaurs, their musings on HIV or the efficacy of magic water and that all evidence supports the opposing view. These people are pushing for greater treatment for what they believe, ie they are a POV pusher because they push for the view they espouse. And every single POV pusher believes the views they advocate. Why else would they run roughshod over the articles to try to get them included? They are the same people who try to distort sources to conform to their views. There is absolutely no difference. Baegis (talk) 22:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... I can see why someone wouldn't "admit they're incorrect" unless they were convinced that they really were incorrect. Anything else would make them rather dishonest. Thanks for your reply; I'd welcome more comments from others. I think this questions might have an important practical upshot. Maybe not. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

My statement there agrees with the notion that many POV pushers really believe what they're claiming. Many honestly believe that their view is correct. What they fundamentally misunderstand is our policies on verifiability and neutrality — which is why it's so common to have them make arguments that use the terms "neutral" and "reliable sources" but are almost totally inverted representations of the policies which govern Wikipedia. This is why I made the comment that they frequently view policies and guidelines as obstacles to be worked around, or rules to lawyer — if you can advance a new argument about the 1st Amendment which invalidates Roth v. United States, you're a genius, and they believe that the same sort of logic should apply to Wikipedia. This is exacerbated because our policies are generally pretty good at limiting fringe theories, they find it very hard to meet the guidelines for sourcing and due weight, which creates the adversarial relationship to policies that often characterizes their argumentation. One of the big issues here, and one that people fundamentally don't seem to understand, is that POV pushing is not about what you believe or what is "true" — the concerted focus on the truth is not what neutrality is about. People who are actively trying to "do good" by pushing their personal opinion on an issue which they truly believe in are what's being discussed here — there is no distinction in the outcome between these people create, and those of those who actually are trying to compromise the encyclopedia with falsely held views (fakeposting, etc). They both are disruptive, and it's overwhelmingly the "I believe this and it's right so Wikipedia should include it" crowd who are the problem here — not the "I don't believe this but check out how I can troll". The degree of dedication and time it takes to push POV on Wikipedia precludes the second group almost entirely. --Haemo (talk) 22:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I tend to strongly agree with your last sentence there. I would disagree that "there is no distinction in the outcome," because I think there is a difference in strategy in the two cases. I'm still mulling over this idea, but I'll say more soon. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

This seems another "wrong question" to me, sorry Bacchus. :--) It doesn't matter whether they believe that what they're claiming genuinely belongs in the encyclopedia or whether they're just trying to include it in the encyclopedia because it's good for (business, their activist organization, their religiious group, fill in the blank) to use Wikipedia as a platform for exposure or legitimacy. There are no doubt some of each kind but there's no point in trying to distinguish them, because it's immaterial who is who. What matters is the effect on the encyclopedia, and that's the same either way: the encyclopedia is compromised, corrupted, made to look ridiculous, or even all three at once. That's why POV pushers are so dangerous to the project. Perhaps even moreso when they truly believe they are the ones who are working for the good of the encyclopedia. Hmm, guess I'm not saying anything new, just repeating what's been said maybe better above. Just another voice adding my agreement.Woonpton (talk) 23:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, as I said above, I disagree about it being immaterial, especially if we're going to making a bunch of claims aloud about people's good faith. If they think they're right, then their good faith is beyond question, just like ours, and questioning it will be distracting, and make us look bad - childish even. Regardless of one's opinion on that question, there are going to be different strategies. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• I read a lot about POV pushers that I have a hard time believing.

I think this is the result of lack of experience.

• I think I understand how they think

Maybe, but I would not count on it.

• I don't think that's right. I think that most POV pushers really believe what they claim to believe.

Yeah. So what?

• I think that they truly believe that their edits would make the article better, more neutral, and more accurate.

That depends on one's definition of "neutral". Most of them believe that neutral means no criticism of FRINGE ideas and no negative material about FRINGE material. I am sure that in most cases, they believe their edits are making the article about the TRUTH^TM.
Only very rarely are they trying to game the system just as a joke or for fun, I would say. Only rarely are they try to create disruption purely for its own sake, I would guess.

• what's the point it telling someone "stop pushing a FRINGE POV" when, as far as they're concerned, they're not doing that at all?

It might do no good, but the basic reason is they are so convinced they are right they will ignore all evidence that they are wrong, or that they hold a FRINGE position, even up to discarding all peer-reviewed sources and sources like the New York Times and so on as inadequate or unreliable.
It is quite obvious and easy for anyone reasonable to agree what proportion of the relevant community holds a given view. The fact that FRINGE POV pushers often cannot acknowledge what the relevant community is, or what the proportion of views is or even if this sort of observation is relevant, is diagnostic of their attitudes and willingness. They will twist any rule or any piece of data whatsoever to "win" to get their version of "truth" into Wikipedia as the only information allowed.
And we let them, because we cannot really stop them given our current climate and rules. That is the point of these pages. We are unable to act given our present situation and culture. We are impotent if someone claims that NPOV does not mean "in proportion to their prominence", no matter what the policy says.

• How can they be distinguished

It is very easy to find FRINGE POV pushers. (1) They are promoting some minority view, which is easy to determine from the distribution of reliable sources, or the relative size of views in the appropriate community, or other measures.
(2) In addition, they typically want to ignore the rules such as NPOV and NOR as interpreted by the vast majority of editors.
There are many other characteristics, but those are a start.
There is also a subcategory of POV pushers that do not actually want to edit articles themselves and will decline to do so when invited. Some want to force others to edit the articles in the way they dictate. Others give the impression of only wanting to fight.

• and what are there relative proportions?

That depends on the article and the time. Some articles are overrun with them, so that FRINGE POV pushers form a majority of the article editors, and the article is even WP:OWNed by them. In that case, typically no editor who wants to present a mainstream view is welcome on the article, and any mainstream editor is quickly overwhelmed and run off.
There are even administrators who are essentially FRINGE POV pushers I have encountered. I have seen these admins make it clear that anyone who advocates including the mainstream view in a Wikipedia article, and especially making it the most prominent view in the article, will be the subject of administrative sanctions. This is a somewhat disconcerting situation, but it does happen. It would be nice if mechanisms existed to address this. No ordinary editor can do a thing about this.
On other controversial articles, at other times, FRINGE POV pushers might be as low as one out of 5 editors, or one out of 10 editors. Rarely have I seen proportions lower than that on controversial articles.

• My statement there agrees with the notion that many POV pushers really believe what they're claiming. Many honestly believe that their view is correct.

Yes they believe their views are correct. What they do not understand is that our articles are not here to present the "true view" at all, but the mainstream view, and minority views in appropriate proportions. And they believe that our articles should only include the "true view" (theirs) and right great wrongs.

• What they fundamentally misunderstand is our policies on verifiability and neutrality — which is why it's so common to have them make arguments that use the terms "neutral" and "reliable sources" but are almost totally inverted representations of the policies which govern Wikipedia.

Correct.

• This is exacerbated because our policies are generally pretty good at limiting fringe theories, they find it very hard to meet the guidelines for sourcing and due weight, which creates the adversarial relationship to policies that often characterizes their argumentation.

Our policies are not that good really, because FRINGE POV pushers do commonly misinterpret the guidelines for sourcing and due weight, and it is very hard to disagree with them because they will charge you with violating WP:AGF or WP:CIVIL etc for disagreeing with them.

• the concerted focus on the truth is not what neutrality is about.

I do not quite understand this. There are many "truths", and Wikipedia policy is to present these "truths" in proportion to their prominence in the appropriate fields. POV pushers will want to present them in a different proportion however. And they will not acknowledge that there are many truths very readily, but will usually seek to promote one and only one truth; their own personal "truth". They often do this without even acknowledging ever that a majority of the members of the relevant community subscribe to a different view.

• This seems another "wrong question" to me, sorry Bacchus.

I have a tendancy to agree. I think most of these "wrong questions" are driven by inexperience.

• What matters is the effect on the encyclopedia, and that's the same either way: the encyclopedia is compromised, corrupted, made to look ridiculous, or even all three at once.

Correct.

• Well, as I said above, I disagree about it being immaterial, especially if we're going to making a bunch of claims aloud about people's good faith.

I do not care about their good faith or not. Most of them have good faith. But they also abuse the policies over and over and over and we have no way whatsoever to stop them from doing so in the current climate. We are impotent. And they know it.

• Regardless of one's opinion on that question, there are going to be different strategies.

Well different strategies have to be tried. Because we cannot continue under the present strategies which are ineffectual and based on a complete lack of knowledge of this venemous situation that the vast majority of Wikipedians are blind to and unaware of.--Filll (talk) 04:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Filll, I have a fairly long reply for this post, but I'm going to start a new section for it. Stay tuned. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the easy to spot overlap of an SPA and disruption (repetitive argumentation against consensus, low level edit warring, filling talk pages with long loops of discussion), whatever the topic or PoV, whatever the motive or goal, is the most meaningful characteristic of civil PoV pushing I've seen talked about here. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

That suggests to me that we should find a way of structuring article talk pages in a way that makes that kind of behavior less profitable for a POV pusher. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)