Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States Public Policy/Courses/Seminar in Intervention

Talk page for Lehigh IR 393, Fall 2010

What IR 393 tasks do and do not include

I hope that everyone will keep in mind that the research paper is our main task. The Wikipedia contribution is secondary, which has at least three practical implications:

• The paper need not conform to Wikipedia standards such as NPOV, 'encyclopedic' style, etc.--although wider and deeper sourcing is always a good thing, both for obscure facts and for controversies.
• The Wikipedia contribution should not require much (perhaps not any) additional research. If some findings of the paper are difficult to report in a way that complies with the 'encyclopedic' and related Wikipedia standards, that's OK.
• There is no expectation that anyone will spend effort on 'reversion wars' or the like. Contribute what you can and document the contribution. If others point out obvious, correctable deficiencies do something about them. But don't spend most of December, January, etc. fighting with other contributors--unless that is your idea of fun.--Ck07 (talk) 16:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

NPOV and Related Issues

I have some concern about this policy, which I plan to take up with Annie Lin and Sage Ross. "Neutrality" is defined mainly as representing points of view with weight proportional to their presence in debate among "reliable sources." Unfortunately, the description of factors that might mark a source as unreliable omits one important category--viewpoints that have little or no validity but which are over-represented in supposedly 'respectable' debate because they are disseminated or funded by an interested party due to:

-Affiliative ties to one side or faction;

-Personal political or financial interests (and, sometimes, reputational or legal vulnerabilities); and

-Concealed or indirect employment (subsidy) by an interested government or party.

Thus many such sources might pass most of the standards for “authoritativeness” described in the relevant Wikipedia tutorials below--and therefore might, under the NPOV doctrine, call for substantial and respectful treatment of what is actually a propaganda effort.

The Wikipedia policy page on 'expertise,' Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial, appears to simply omit the sponsorship problem. The nearest thing I can find three words--”promotional in nature”--in the Wikipedia: Reliable Sources tutorial. In context, even this is open to construal as referring mainly to commercial promotion.

The problem of government sponsorship of friendly "research" is real. At the retirement about a dozen years ago a man who was then considered the leading American scholar of Japanese foreign policy, he made a public statement estimating that roughly 80% of all research on Japanese FP by American scholars was funded directly or indirectly by the Foreign Ministry of Japan including, at times, his own work. He went on to describe the distorting effects on the range of expert debate.

Similarly, for some decades now, the government of Turkey has funded "research" that attempts to demonstrate that the Armenian Genocide either did not occur or was an accident of wartime conditions that does not deserve to be considered a crime. I witnessed a case where a foundation funded by the GoT paid $20 million (vs. the then going rate of $5 million) to endow a chair at an elite U.S. university-- according to then-current rumor on the understanding that the person hired would function as an apologist for the Turkish government. And indeed he did. The same thing happened at a number of U.S. universities. I myself have been approached at different times by three governments--oddly enough, two of them Japan and Turkey.

(I do not suggest that Japan or Turkey are special in this respect. Since World War II the U.S. has maintained long term efforts to influence not just foreign policy but also electoral politics and what domestic policy debates in dozens of countries--more through payments to journalists than to scholars--and is still doing so.)

The good news: The Wikipedia page on the Armenian Genocide shows no sign of being affected by this problem.

Not so good news: The page on Armenian Genocide Denial begins well with a statement that most scholars accept the genocidea as real, followed ny a discussion of the general practices of genocide deniers. Most of the page, however, reports factual and moral/legal claims of the Turkish government, most of which are treated uncritically.

Better news: You can fix it. You have the sources available to you to add the proper balance to the article. I think the reason that one article is better than the others is that the Armenian scholars have only so much manpower and time, so they focused on the article that they thought would get the most traffic. They need your help. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Main concern/bottom line

My concern is that the intersection of NPOV with debates that are heavily targeted by interested actors might see students who offer excellent reasons for rejecting certain claims nevertheless taken to task by over-zealous Wikipedia editors on the grounds that insufficient attention or respect has been paid to viewpoints that are not respectable but, because funded, are widely disseminated.

I don't know how seriously to take my concerns on this.--Ck07 (talk) 18:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I think your concerns are not only fair, they are prudent. Let me say that as an online ambassador, I and/or others will intervene so as no participants of this project are "taken to task" in any manner nonconstructive. That covers an eventuality which I rarely anticipate. My generic advice is to proceed with optimism, be bold, while maintaining civility, and dismiss any apprehensions which might otherwise be limiting. By the way, I am encouraged by the questions I am seeing on this page because they reflect well on the preparations this group is undoubtedly undertaking. My76Strat 20:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Documents Referenced

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, especially:
“Reliable sources can determine whether "a matter is subject to dispute" when there are opposing views. When discussing the facts on which a point of view is based, it is important to also include the facts on which competing opinions are based since this helps a reader evaluate the credibility of the competing viewpoints. This should be done without implying that any one of the opinions is correct;” and

“Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This applies not only to article text, but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, and all other material as well.”

Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial, especially this discussion of “expertise:”
On many scientific, technical or social problems, different points of view may be held by different experts. Wikipedia should report all major points of view; however, it should do so in proportion to the credibility of the experts holding the various theses.

Coverage should also be roughly in proportion to the number of experts holding each view.

What makes an expert credible? Factors some people use to define credibility may include:

• The reputation of the expert, the reputation of the tradition within which he or she works, the reputation of the group or institution for which the expert works
• The venues in which the expert propounds his or her views (e.g., peer-reviewed academic journals as compared with op-ed columns or self-published outlets)
• Whether the expert uses the common methods of the field or completely different ones
• Whether the expert's disciplinary specialization matches the topic at hand
• Whether the expert has responded to criticisms or has failed to do so
• Whether the expert has reputable supporters of his or her claims;

Reliable Sources, including: “Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited.”

These two suggested by Sage Ross and Annie Lin:Wikipedia's "Reliable Sources" guideline page and its discussion page.

Also:

• Wikipedia:Fringe theories
• Borderline case (author comment on authoritativeness)
• Wikipedia:Words to watch
• Wikipedia:Article development
• Wikipedia:Writing better articles
• Wikimedia study of controversial content

Reliable sources

Thanks for bringing this up. The general rule is, use common sense and give the readers all the context they need to decide for themselves. What counts as a reliable source is generally relative to the standards of the relevant field. Certainly, on controversial topics like Armenian Genocide, the viewpoints of those who say it didn't happen should be described, but readers should get all the information they need to figure out for themselves whether to take those viewpoints seriously. In cases where ostensibly respectable scholarly/professional sources are compromised in the ways you describe, that generally gets discussed in other sources.

The section on undue weight in the NPOV policy, as well as the identifying reliable sources guideline, go into more detail. But in general, using common sense about whether a source is reliable will go a long way.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 19:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Sage, in my judgment the 1st of these pages does nothing to address the issue and the second only a little, in this sentence: "Care should be taken with journals that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view. A claim of peer review is not an indication that the journal is respected, or that any meaningful peer review occurs. Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals." But the strategies of both the Japenese and Turkish foreign ministries was to sponsor 'respectable' scholars who published in mainstream journals.

I think that it would desirable to add "interested parties and scholars funded by interested parties, even if otherwise 'respectable'" to the list of reasons to suspect a source.--Ck07 (talk) 00:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC) (As you can see, I am also having some trouble inserting Wikipedia URLs properly.)

I linked to the "undue weight" section to show how Wikipedia generally tries to deal with similar issues where a lot of people hold a view that most knowledgeable people view as clearly wrong. But the bottom line is that editors should use their best judgment (and discuss things with other editors when necessary) to figure out whether a given source is reliable or not. The "identifying reliable sources" guideline isn't an exhaustive list of all the reason why a source might not be reliable. "Scholars funded by interested parties" is definitely a reason to look a source more carefully, but it will still come down to case-by-case judgments on whether a given source is reliable or not. Because of course, plenty of good scholarship also gets funded by interested parties.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 00:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Much of this discussion (and this is not uncommon in discussions of source neutrality) is centered around determining whether a given source is reliable or not. I am of the opinion that the primary consideration should not be whether a source itself is neutral/reliable. Instead, the primary consideration should be what the source is being for or what portion of the source you intend to use. Here's an example from the subject of astronomy: Let's say a research group discovers a gamma-ray burst that is very very far away. They report on their discovery and make the bold claim that it is the most distant object ever discovered. When sourcing an article on this particular event, you may be tempted to ask "Is the journal article that this group wrote reliable?" It is instead better to ask "Which statements should I use this journal article for, and which statements should I try to find a more neutral source?" In a discussion of the basic details of the object—when it was discovered, its reported distance, its characteristics—the use of the journal would be totally acceptable. In a discussion of the bold claim that it is the most distance object ever discovered, it would be prudent to find a mainstream media report or a follow-up paper from an unaffiliated research group. Hope this helps! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, in articles it is relatively common to cite book reviews or historiographic reviews which criticize positions taken by authors who have other motives. In History articles, that is what "Historiography" sections are for. For an example, you can see the one in Economy of England in the Middle Ages, which addresses serious issues with some of the accepted and likely more broad sources on the topic, Sadads (talk) 01:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Since my field (and that of this course) is politics, I am perhaps more concerned with systematic and non-self-correcting corruption of debates than an astrophysicist would be. (The astrophysics and economy of England examples do not engage not the same problem; these are commitments to particular theories and methodologies, and perhaps to personal proferssional gain. They are not systematic efforts by well funded actors create "research" in order to alter the apparent balance of 'expert' debate.)

My point is not that Wikipedia--or anyone--can solve this problem, just the concern stated above: That the intersection of NPOV with the absence of warning concerning apparently respectable scholars funded by interested parties could encourage W editors to behave in ways that my students might find frustrating. I grant that this is wholly hypothetical at this point.Ck07 (talk) 02:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

This is quite a lively discussion. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think something that many Wikipedians would agree to is that if a source is found to be significantly biased due to influence (financial or otherwise) from a government or some other interested party, that source would not be considered a reliable source. For example, if there is good evidence that a scholar ("reputable" or not) has received funding from the American government to publish work of a certain perspective about the Iraq War, I would think that I would not be alone in calling that source lacking in reliability. So to Ck07's concern, I would say that if you do run into situations where you think certain Wikipedians are using politically influenced/biased sources as the basis for challenging a student's edits, you could challenge those challenges by presenting evidence for why you think the sources the Wikipedians are using are indeed tainted. The Discussion tab associated with the Wikipedia article in question is probably a good place for this kind of back-and-forth. If the student is able to present sufficient, convincing evidence for why a particular source is significantly biased, I would personally think that's adequate grounds for dismissing that source (hence reverting the Wikipedians' objections); it the student is unable to present such evidence, however, I would think that the Wikipedians' challenges would stand, unless common sense says otherwise (as Sage mentioned).

Ck07: I would also encourage you to add the concern you raised here to Wikipedia's "Reliable Sources" guideline page or at least its discussion page (for the latter option, feel free to link to this page here if you want to reference the discussion that's already taken place). I think you're bringing up a very legitimate issue here. Regardless of whether you add it directly to the "Reliable Sources" page or to its associated discussion page, I would also suggest citing all the examples you use (e.g. the public statement from the American scholar studying Japanese foreign policy), to give the concern you raise more credibility among Wikipedians. A couple more (cited) examples would also be very helpful.

As you can see this is in some ways a catch-22. Citing reliable sources is crucial in almost every step here, including (or especially) when you're trying to say that some other source is not reliable. Ultimately a lot of this point back to a discussion around what exactly is a reliable source, which is also why I suggest adding to the "Reliable Sources" guideline page as well. -- Annie Lin (Campus Team Coordinator, Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 05:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Annie: Right. Particularly when studying political conflicts a major student task is learning the literature well enough to begin to recognize both expertise and interest--who is disinterested, who interested (and, among the latter, how much difference does it make to which claims).

Will do as you suggest. First task is to increase my attention to documentation of this issue; within a particular field, the status is often "everyone knows"--such propaganda efforts don't fool experts; the purpose is to persuade non-experts that 'legitimate debate' still continues on questions that experts regard as settled--think of energy industry funded 'research' on climate change.

But naturally my students can't rely on undocumented expert consensus. The examples I've mentioned thus far unfortunately fall into this category; the Chalmers statements re JA Foreign Ministry were a series of discussions on an e-mail listserv that may not be recoverable now.

But there are examples that are better documented. A recent famous instance involved an American scholar, Peter Galbraith, who wrote policy articles on Iraqi constitutional arrangements that were favorable to Kurdish interests. That of course, could have been honest assessment; in fact I agreed with much of PG's views (the KRG was the 3rd of the three governments that have sought to recruit me). PG was also known to have accepted medium-sized sums to advise the KRG on negotiating strategy re the new Iraqi constitution in 2005; more iffy. Then it came out that he had received, in addition, a $1 million kickback laundered through an oil concession, which destroyed his reputation in certain circles (more fool I ....). I will get a research assistant tracking down the cites.72.81.26.185 (talk) 12:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Professor, you might also take a look at WP:COI regarding contributors who have a conflict of interest in writing in an area. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Editors often argue about content on the talk pages, but persistent, polite, well-referenced arguments usually win in the long run, as your well-referenced arguments will help the editors involved in the page form a WP:Consensus. Mentors may be able to help with strategy or general advice about dealing with other editors. See also WP:FRINGE. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Generally speaking, wikipedia is (fairly) resistant to the problems you describe. Research which is funded by an advocacy group (or a government with a deep interest in the outcome) can be better exposed than in traditional channels. Compare our articles on areas where this sort of research is a problem to the presentation of those subjects in the popular press. Broad engagement and norms tend to work toward clarifying and transparently illustrating source POV. Where wikipedia is less resilient is in the case of issues which have a strong extra-community interest. Topics such as regional disputes or political disputes (cf. Liancourt Rocks, Climate change, Israeli settlement) tend to attract editors who have strong opinions about the subject matter and are not shy about pressing those opinions relentlessly until more avocational editors are exhausted and leave the local area of trouble. Where the set of external disputes and funded research intersect (Armenian Genocide being one example) we can sometimes run into trouble. The best way to avoid this trouble at the outset is to rely on third party works which address the issue of POV funding/presentation directly. It is often insufficient for an editor to declare a source to be biased. That accusation of bias must be substantiated by a source. Even then, you may run into issues of presentation and rhetoric which, though not insurmountable, may cause frustration. Protonk (talk) 20:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

What Wikipedia is Not

Not a publisher of original thought

Reading the section I realized that at the end of our project when we make our changes it's important that any analysis we add is the consensus of experts and not our personal analysis. IR393Anjan (talk) 12:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

This is indeed a very important aspect of Wikipedia and one that is quite relevant to your assignment. With rare exceptions, the rule of thumb is that if you can't find a piece of information in the literature written by experts, it probably shouldn't be included in a Wikipedia article. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Right. This is also (not denigrating the policy, just noting) a bit of a dance. Summary and presentation are components of original thought; a good wikipedia article on a scholarly topic ought to look like a literature review and no one will argue that a literature review is not an original work! The surest case of original thought which is proscribed by NOT is a novel theory--we get a lot of "crank" science from authors and this is something which wikipedia cannot accept. But in some cases a wikipedia article may be the first instance of a broad summary in a topic area. A good path is to stick to sourcing, avoid making what feels like a strong rhetorical case for a position unless such a position represents a preponderance of thought on a topic (a tall order in itself), and footnote everything to start. As you edit the article (hopefully with some help from classmates and other editors) you can winnow down the sourcing to essential elements, but start off by assuming your reader is not a subject matter expert and will not immediately understand connections and implications which are second nature to you. Protonk (talk) 17:56, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Anjan, it is probably going too far to say that 'no original research' prohibits original analysis. If you can show that the best verifiable, reliable sources support some judgment better than they do some alternate judgment that should be--I would hope--not just fair game but a marker of excellent work.

Note of course that NPOV requires reporting the existence of alternate judgments, identifying their supporters, and reporting the evidence that has been claimed in support of these judgments. (This comment by User:Ck07)

It seems that creating original analysis while not straying too far from expert opinion may be a bit dicey. It may not be so easy to know where to draw the line in terms of how how much orignal analysis should be posted, even if it is derived from the best of the sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IR393DrewGolding (talk • contribs) 02:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

There are likely additional sensitivities worth considering, which I hope and expect diligent Wikipedians will point out to us.--Ck07 (talk) 21:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with IR393DrewGolding although the theses of our research papers should be appropriate for incorporation into Wikipedia articles, at least to some extent, provided that they are well founded on factual and expert sources and that these sources can be referenced in an encyclopedic manner to build to the same point either implicitly or explicitly. IR393davis —Preceding undated comment added 00:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC).

When I do research at school, I like to think of Wikipedia articles as my oppurtunity to create an annotated bibliography or literature review, where I can message the concepts that are present in the scholarship in my mind before I add my own thoughts to it. Sadads (talk) 00:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Anjan and Drew, you are very perceptive and correct in understanding that when you convert your paper into a Wikipedia article, some changes will likely be necessary to make it "encyclopedic" rather than "scholarly". For example, all terms of art and industry jargon will need to be explained in "plain English" or linked to WP articles that explain the terms. You can rely on links, in fact, to give context to some things that you may have spelled out at length in the scholarly version of the paper. For instance, if a person has a bio article on Wikipedia, you can just link her name to her article, and you don't have to say much about her background, since interested readers can just click on the bluelinked name. Your Wikipedia article will need to be readable by the general public. (Ssilvers (talk) 14:51, 17 September 2010)

An important point, considering that the audience for your course papers will be your colleagues and me.--Ck07 (talk) 22:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

You will see how we use headings and organize information in the encyclopedia, as well as images and perhaps sound files to make the information interesting to general readers. It is also true that the "creative" parts of your analysis -- i.e., those parts that are the original product of your mind, rather than something that is verifiable from your sources -- will need to be deleted, and instead the discussion and description of the information in sources will be the content of the article. As your professor notes, however, you can and will analyze and weigh your sources in the WP version. See also the note above about historiography. In an encyclopedia, the creativity comes in how to organize and present published information to extract the most informative content from the sources and give it appropriate balance (see moon example below). Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

In general, viewpoints should be discussed in encyclopedia articles in a neutral and proportional way, spending the most ink on the most accepted views in the applicable literature and mentioning minority views as appropriate. Truly fringe viewpoints should not be allowed to distract from evidence-based views. See WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. As Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales has said:

If you have an article about the moon which treats equally the idea that the moon is made of rocks, and the idea that the moon is made of cheese, you don't have neutrality, you have extreme POV pushing for a radical minority view! How, in practice, to sort out a proper sense of proportion and balance is always going to be tricky and involve thoughtful consultation and dialog, of course. There is no magic formula. But a recognition that some views are widely held and grounded in a reasonable analysis of evidence, and that some views are extreme fringe views and not based in evidence, is pretty important to achieving neutrality.

——Jimbo Wales, 18 May 2008

-- Ssilvers (talk) 22:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The moon example illustrates the point that analysis is not impossible; "the moon is made of rock" is itself an analysis based on well-verified data that can be shown to be inconsistent with any other analysis--indeed, can be shown so persuasively that have become so confident of this judgment that we don't, in most contexts, feel compelled to defend it.

Protonk and SSilvers are right, however, where less solidly established judgments are concerned. While in a scholarly paper one might argue that "given dataset X interpretation A is more likely than interpretation B, because if B were right we would likely have found X' or X," the same point would be harder to make in an encyclopedic article. If some of your findings cannot be reported in Wikipedia, that will be a good thing; it will mean that you have learned something that not everybody is yet willing to accept.--Ck07 (talk) 22:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The practical effect of all this is that the scholarly version of each student's paper and the Wikipedia version will each need tweaking, as suggested above, to finalize them in the format required for their intended target audience and forum. Your online ambassador mentor can advise you when you go to finalize the WP version. Indeed a student could prepare a third version intended for, say, U.S. News & World Report, which would require still other tweaks based on the publication's editorial process and policies, but all three versions would be based on the same rigorous research. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Article was read and I thought most of it was pretty obvious. As I begin my research for East Timor, I need to be very diligent with finding multiple sources of information and if any analysis is made, to make opposing analysis as well. IR393DEME (talk) 18:06, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's the right strategy. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored

I was a little surprised when I saw this section of the article. Because Wikipedia tries to uphold a neutral point of view, I believe that it is censored to some degree. For instance, wording might be changed because some group of people might find it objectionable, or statements might be taken out if there is even a little dispute about NPOV. I don't think that this is necessarily a bad thing, but I do believe that it is censorship. IR393Sadar (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC).

The idea is more that any topic is up for discussion as long as it is WP:Verifiable. So yes, we censor ideas if they are not covered by traditionally fact checked sources. However, you will find that we still cover them, which is very different than where other sources won't cover Porn Stars or Pornographic terminology because someone might find them offensive (which in fact we have in quite a large number see Category:Pornographic film actors and Category:Pornography terms). NPOV is more suggesting that if we cover those issues we also must cover the other side of the coin, such as the articles found at Category:Anti-pornography activists.

NPOV is not an excuse to remove objectionable material, but rather a demand that objectionable material be treated in a non-Biased way. This is part of the reason why editors at articles like Jesus and Global Warming have so many debates, because a good Encyclopedist can't simply ignore the other position because they find it objectionable, but often more than not the sources fall into several categories that have distinct objectives. NPOV seeks to find a middle ground by either weighing the sources evenly based on impact, or finding the sources that reflect on both arguments evenly, Sadads (talk)17:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

You have made an interesting comment as to your interpretation of the policy as understood by you. I fully agree that the policy lends itself to ambiguity. In some regards, Wikipedia absolutely does censor content. Perhaps the policy itself could be clarified to reflect reality opposed to the ideal. What is interesting is that all of these pages are part of Wikipedia, and to some extent able to be edited by any user. Therefore, if you feel strongly enough in your assertions, even you can affect this encyclopedia, using words of your own devise, when such words result in an improvement. This example shows where I once changed what was theretofore a guideline. Be inquisitive. My76Strat 19:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is censored in a certain manner, though not in the normal manner per se. Wikipedia does include fringe theories for which there are reliable sources, although it does so without giving them undue weight. So although certain contributions may be censored in the sense that they are objectionable, this is usually because they aren't objective or reliably sourced. Anything sourced that is presented in a neutral manner won't be censored, provided it doesn't violate an office action.Smallman12q (talk) 23:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with IR393Sadar and was also surprised when I read this section of the article. While I do not support the use of inappropriate content on any Wikipedia pages, the fact that inappropriate content is removed quickly is certainly censorship. If Wikipedia controls what type of information is available on its webpages (i.e. no encyclopedia entries, "not a battleground") then it is censoring what users can post. -- IR393aes (talk) 19:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, I think you guys are taking the section too literally. It just explains to users and editors that we do not use euphemisms (there is an article called Fuck) and include photos of body parts (Penis) and discussions of sexuality, and that we won't delete images or text just because some people will find it ideologically offensive, such as depictions of Muhammad, as long as the information is notable, referenced and encyclopedic - that is, of interest to the general encyclopedia reader. See also WP:COMPREHENSIVE. Yes, this does occasionally come into conflict with other editorial polices, such as WP:BLP. What does "inappropriate" content mean?: WP:OR, unintelligible text, vandalism, things that are not relevant to the article, unreferenced POV, libel, advertising, spam, etc. So, yeah, we remove a lot of stuff, but not because "We don't like it". -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Ariel, I agree with you to some extent. Some of us (including myself) have been subjected to "instant revision" by over-zealous editors. So far I have, in each case, been able to talk them out of it. --Ck07 (talk) 14:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Ck07: If you are referring to this exchange, your edit was viewed with suspicion because you were editing anonymously at the time (that is, you were not logged into your account), and you did not give an edit summary. It is extremely helpful to log in (and so, edit using one's username), and everyone should also give a good description in the edit summary of what you are doing. The other editor in this instance was simply trying to protect your course page from being edited by an anonymous editor. Once an explanation was given, he did not continue to challenge the edit; so the system worked. However, it IS likely that, at some point, one of you will have an actual content disagreement with another editor. The most important thing is to be polite in such a situation, to keep matters under control. See WP:CIVIL. Please let us (particularly your mentors) know if you run into any issues with other editors. We're here to help! Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Ssilvers: Quite right, I have not yet assimilated that as second nature and indeed this time too I did not remember it right away. I am the students do need to learn about edit summaries. I do hope that editors will remain--as they mostly have been--quite tolerant of course pages since that constitute support, not Encyclopedic content.--Ck07 (talk) 21:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

One nice thing to keep in mind is that nothing on Wikipedia is permanent. If anyone makes a mistake by deleting something, it can always be fixed, because we have all the old versions of every article available to us in the Article History. So, if people make edits you don't agree with, either revert it (with a good edit summary), or, even better: start a discussion on the talk page to explain why you want to do what you want to do, and then, if no one objects after a while, go back to the preferred version. If someone does object, then discuss it, and build a consensus. Your mentor (or any of us) can help you! All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:11, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

OOH! Check this out - quite relevant to several of these discussions, I think: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2010_Wikimedia_Study_of_Controversial_Content -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Ooh indeed; will call students' attention to this.--Ck07 (talk) 21:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Who decides

So is the decision to juxtapose an "objectionable" article with the opposing side of the disagreement the decision of various editors, or are editors reached out to provide information on the opposing side? IR393BradenSmith (talk) 23:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Well it's complicated. Generally it just kind of happens on topics with extreme positions. As articles expand, they tend to attract users who are interested in similar topics because of watch lists, etc. Also, readers are more likely to make edits when they object to material, and their are a lot of people that read articles very carefully all the time. Also, editors who are working on pages with the intention of GA or FA review will ask other editors to review topics before the actual FA and GA reviews. These reviewers often can catch the bias when the article is not acting neutrally. And readers are often very likely to comment on talk pages when they feel the article is not treating individuals right. For examples of how talk page discussions slowly shape articles I would take a look at Talk:Japanese_American_internment, where you can see comments being made as well as changes in the edit history which push for neutrality. Neutrality also is one of the WP:Five Pillars, so many Wikipedians embrace it very thoroughly, and are very vigilant when reading articles. In general, the older the page, the more the sets of eyes that have seen it, the more likely it is neutral. Also, articles that go through the GA and FA reviews, get fact checked and often the reviewers take a glance through the scholarship looking for obvious omissions of positions.

Therefore, the big answer is Consensus and reviews generally decide. Sadads (talk) 01:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

This is another fine example of a good question reflective of quality preparation. The answer is multifaceted therefor I offer this overview. The decision was made when it was enshrined in policy that Wikipedia present information from a neutral point of view. The policy states "This means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources". From this perspective, if you see an article which presents one viewpoint to the exclusion of another, you can either add the opposing view as well as the source which it elaborates from, or you can add a maintenance template, which alerts the community of a deficiency within an article needing attention, thus leaving it for other editors to address. Here is one example from many possibilities which alert to an imbalance. It is also possible, and often necessary, to solicit an expert opinion according to an appropriately specific matter when expert guidance is best suited to reach the same end. This example shows one-such expert template. I hope this is helpful regarding your question. My76Strat 02:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Not a battleground

This article makes it pretty clear that Wikipedia is not a battleground, nor is it an anarchy. I'm curious however, what measures are in place to prevent it from becoming a battleground. Say two individuals are engaged in an "edit war." How does this situation get resolved? Who has the last say? IR393 will (talk) 02:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Good question. There are various protections. One is the WP:Three revert rule. That says that you can't revert people more than three times in 24 hours, or you get blocked from editing. Indeed, if you make an edit and someone else reverts it, they should give a reason in their edit summary. If you are not satisfied with that, the best thing to do is initiate a discussion on the article's talk page before simply reverting the other editor. Hopefully, a consensus of the editors reading the page will be reached, and you can move on. Of course, disagreements are sometimes persistent, but getting more editors involved in a discussion is often helpful. Your mentor can usually give you advice in a particular instance. Also, if you have a reference to a WP:Reliable source that supports your edit strongly, and the material that you wish to add is important to the article, you are in a good position. There are many other related issues. See, for example, WP:Trivia. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There is a series of more and more formal means of mediation for helping reach consensus in conflicts (not just edit warring). They happen roughly in this order though very variant especially in the early stages and based on the situation: (this is just for your information, and you should let your mentors manage such approaches if you encounter a serious conflict)

• Discussion after three reverts, where the edit comments don't convince one of the editors
• Mediation from a editor watching the page
• Mediation from a editor who works with one of the editors fighting
• Mediation from someone responding to a comment on a WP:Noticeboards
• Administrator intervention if one editor is outright disruptive in the community (usually not the case with experienced editors)
• Mediation from the WP:Mediation Cabal - informal resolution process
• Mediation from the WP:Mediation Committee - more formal resolution process
• Arbitration by the WP:Arbitration committee - final ruling committee on particularly disruptive editing, usually effecting a large swath of articles

Also, WP:Requests for Comment allow editors who disagree and have not had much external input to poll the community.This is a common solution for policy related issues, less content.

Most of the time, the first 3 or 4 actions will find some type of compromise, especially if the editors don't start throwing verbal punches. Anything further is rare and few and far between, except maybe request for comment, where generally both editors openly acknowledge the questionability of their position . However, this mediation process generally only happens on pages with very strong ideological or political implications, and should not effect the articles that we help you pick. I hope that helps, Sadads (talk) 02:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

There are lots of dispute resolutions procedures too. If two people are 'deadlocked' - which is very common - then I usually recommend asking for comments from more people. We have a policy against canvassing, however a neutral request to "please take a look at this discussion" to a non-selective group, such as a related Wikiproject, can help get more opinions, hopefully leading to agreement. Another option is to seek a third opinion.

If that does not work, then the mediation cabal does a fine job of resolving issues. And beyond that, there is request for comments, and ultimately - the 'last word' - is Arbcom.

In many disputes, there are two totally separate issues - and the distinction is important; the above is all concerned with resolving a content dispute. Often, simultaneously, there will be other concens, but those are handled through our normal policies on such matters as civil conduct, verifiability, and so on - by warning and then blocking users whose edits are detrimental to the project.  Chzz  ►  02:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

LOL. May I point out that most articles never have a major dispute. I have created many articles, and only a small minority have become the subject of an edit war or major dispute among editors. I have *never* had to send an article to mediation or arbitration. Please check out WP:Assume Good Faith, which, together with WP:CIVIL, usually keeps interactions among editors mostly positive. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

At what point does a article become so much of a battleground that it needs to be locked from editing by averager users? Does a topic need to be especially controversial/offensive or is it a matter of the magnitude of the dispute? For example is the article on the Holocaust locked because it is an especially sensitive issue or because holocaust deniers are constantly trying to edit it? Also, who is allowed to edit locked articles? IR393harrisonkatz (talk) 21:31, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

As a non-administrator, I can't say much on the subject of when article reaches the threshold that requires protection. However, in regards to your question of who is allowed to edit locked articles, the answer is twofold. If an article is semiprotected, then any user with an autoconfirmed account (at least 4 days old, at least 10 edits) can edit it. If an article is fully protected, then only administrators can edit it. There are a few other flavors of locking for special purposes which can be found here. --Cryptic C62 · Talk

Out of 3 million+ articles there are probably around 1500 that are long-term fully protected, so around 0.05%. The reasons vary pretty widely. Sometimes, it's some weird thing where the article seems like an invitation to play around for some group of people; sometimes, it's a fringe idea with an activity community around it trying to game the system; sometimes it's a reflection of serious political/cultural disputes about a topic. Even then, though, most such topics don't get fully protected, for the reasons Ssilvers points out. Holocaust, for example, is only semi-protected; anyone with a 4-day-old account with at least 10 edits can edit it.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 00:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Protection is mostly for vandalism prevention purposes. Thus, pages that regularly get full protection are actually logistical pages, like the Main Page, which shouldn't be edited unless there is considerable discussion. Also, the largest number of protected pages are templates which get used on large numbers of pages, so one edit could cause serious repercussion Wikipedia-wide. Sadads (talk) 00:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal

I found this section a very important one. As expansive as wikipedia has become, many people turn only to it for research and information on a topic. Although wikipedia is good for gaining a basic knowledge on a topic, if one desires to truly learn about something further research must be done from sources that have been approved and are endorsed by the respective experts. I hear many peers say 'oh I will just go on wikipedia real quick and learn x." This is not a good habit to fall into and people must catch themselves from relying on a source that does not, nor try to claim supreme authority or knowledge in every wikipedia page and range of topics discussed.--IR393ANDRICA (talk) 20:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Something which you yourself are about to improve, at least for one article.  :) --Ck07 (talk) 14:34, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

True. Wikipedia is a good place to begin research, because it gives an overview of a topic and (hopefully) a list of good references. But it's just an encyclopedia entry! To gain an expert-level understanding of something, one has to do additional research. One of the things you will see in this project, also, is that Wikipedia articles vary greatly in quality and comprehensiveness. An FA or GA-class article will be far more informative and reliable than a "start-class" article. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, yeah, like what Ssilvers said, Wikipedia is just an encyclopedia after all. That's why we have policies like Wikipedia:MEDICAL. We can/might be wrong, so don't take our word as the last word. We do have subject expert contributors, but in the millions of articles, it is impossible to verify that all of them have had a look-through by these experts. :) Bejinhan talks 14:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Andrica, that is very astute. The community agrees with you 100%, we don't see ourselves as the final authority, and, hopefully, never will. However, because of our unique position on the internet and our standards for content, we are able to cover topics way more comprehensively then any other 1 location. For example, the articles on the first season of South Park are phenomenal, I would never expect such good work anywhere else on such a popular but "un-academic" topic.Sadads (talk) 17:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy

I found this section under What Wikipedia is not particularly interesting. Although brief, it explains that Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy and that its primary method of determining consensus is through editing and discussion - not voting. However, when one makes an edit or contributes to a discussion, s/he is essentially casting a vote - albeit through another means - but never the less - s/he is still casting a vote. Given enough edits and discussion, a consensus will eventually emerge. In this sense, Wikipedia is a lot more democratic than it claims to be. Furthermore, the whole idea of a forum that anyone can edit - regardless of rank or status - screams of democracy.

This is interesting because the structure of democratic systems tends to promote the interests of the majority group at the expense of the minority. And this just happens to be in line with Wikipedia's NPOV policy as long as the content is represented proportionally. But how can we ensure that competing explanations that are not represented as strongly are not deemed any less credible? Throughout human history we have watched the majority of society reinforce a position through sheer manpower.

I know that I'm being overcritical, but I would like to know what actions Wikipedia has taken to ensure that the "minority perspective" is well represented in its online content? --IR393.sae211 (talk) 23:16, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Let me throw out a few thoughts. First, I think you are right that WP is pretty democratic in practice most of the time. When a large number or ratio of editors agree on something, they can usually prevail in a discussion. However, I can tell you from personal experience that good arguments win over sheer numbers. For example, I have seen articles deleted for lack of WP:Notability, even though, in one case I remember, a 3:1 majority of editors recommended to keep the article. Why? It had no references from independent, WP:Reliable sources that showed that it satisfied the criteria of the Notability guidelines. So Wikipedia is a democracy of ideas rather than numbers. Pretty cool, right? Indeed, what happens here is, in my experience, the opposite of what you suggest: not only are minority perspectives well represented, they are over-represented. Lots of rather fringe ideas are very thoroughly chewed over despite the guideline WP:FRINGE. If there is a very strong consensus view about something, the editors who feel marginalized often start a new article called, say, Baconian theory, where people can write about whether Sir Francis Bacon was really the author of Shakespeare's plays, even though not one academic (i.e., no reliable source) in the field gives any credence to the theory. But, if a view does have reliable sources to back it up, it is usually represented in the main article by quotes and references to those sources. Also, you ask "what actions Wikipedia has taken". Wikipedia doesn't normally "take action"; rather, editors do - by researching, writing, editing and discussing on talk pages. As we note elsewhere, there are various mechanisms for addressing content disputes, but those involve, again, making good arguments that are backed up by reliable sources. Note also the behavioural guidelines for editors that are intended to make sure that disagreements are polite: WP:CIVIL, WP:Consensus, WP:Edit warring, WP:Editing policy, WP:No personal attacks, WP:Ownership of articles, WP:Assume good faith and WP:COI. I'm not a philosopher, so this is the best answer I can give.  :-) -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:07, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

So what is Wikipedia?

This might seem like a silly question, but it seems like Wikipedia devotes so much time and energy to saying what it is not, instead of what it is. My head is spinning from reading all of the comment on NPOV and What Wikipedia is Not, that I wonder if almost too much energy is spent on teling people what they cannot do. I understand that the point is to make sure that all issues are covered, but I almost feel so overwhelmed by all of the "rules" that I am afraid to make an edit, and I feel like a lot of other people might be similarly intimidated.IR393ldc211 (talk) 12:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Lauren, can you be more specific? What are some of the worrisome scenarios that you imagine?--Ck07 (talk) 14:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

As college students in an especially writing-intensive major, I feel that we have been taught to write freely, write more than you actually will need and then go back and edit. While Wikipedia is obviously not a place for creative and eloquent writing, having all of these "can'ts" and "don'ts" in our heads while we are trying to write a page(or edit an exisitng one) is in no way conducive to good, effective writing. The intense amount of "rules" makes creating a page seem like an extremely daunting task. It changes the writing process to editing/censoring before/while writing insteade of after. I am worried that because of this, we might all omit information that could actually be appropriate to include, and in fact enhance the quality of the article, out of fear/concern that it does not comply with Wikipedia's stringent standards. This might be an overexaggeration, however I just feel some frustration at the amount of different issues myself and my classmates are going to have to be thinking about while trying to write a page, such as the issue of world choice that Mike brings up below. 128.180.137.225 (talk) 03:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Lauren, I see your point. As a first resort, just don't worry about this until the main project is substantially done. Second, we probably need to learn how to creat "edit summaries" to explain our reasons for edits that others might consider controversial. Maybe our task for early November? Third, I hope we can get reaction to this issue from Sage Ross, Annie Lin, or some of the online ambassadors who have been supporting us.--Ck07 (talk) 22:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

See WP:About Wikipedia, which describes what Wikipedia is. The main question I ask myself before adding information is: Will this information be of interest to a significant number of encyclopedia readers now and in 5 years? If so, and if I have a WP:Reliable source, I go ahead. See WP:BOLD. See My76Strat's excellent response to your professor above under the heading "Main concern/bottom line". -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that supportive comment Ssilvers. It is always great to have feedback when assessing your own efforts. I have wondered how some of this information is being received. These are excellent questions being presented, and each response is a good faith attempt to answer. As a group please consider the value of such feedback. For example, If your question has been answered, It would be great if the questioner would indicate their understanding. And certainly if the answer caused confusion, or didn't satisfy the query, ask a follow on.

Having said that, and to the question from IR393ldc211, it is often we loose sight of the forest because of the trees. What is Wikipedia? Well it is of course an encyclopedia. It is primarily an online media, but there are projects to consider a printed version as well as a CDROM version. The latter will be limited by space restrictions whereas the online version is practically unlimited. So that's kinda the forest. Each policy, guideline, discussion, article, essay, and others, are metaphorically contrast by the trees. And naturally, one can not exist without the other.

The existence of so many trees in this forest is not a threat and never have I seen them used to hamper or harass. They exist to ally our good faith efforts. They exist to ensure quality and to provide means of enforcing quality standards. And this derives mainly from the sad fact that not all contributors have good intentions when editing Wikipedia. I could easily show numerous acts of obvious vandalism. At the same time I could challenge anyone to show where a well referenced, encyclopedic inclusion was ever impeded. It just doesn't happen to the extent seemingly feared. And knowing that the absolute worst thing that could happen is being blocked or banned, really does make fear an over-exaggeration. Even if ever a writing of your attribution is deleted, you are entitled to a copy of your work. So it can't be lost.

Having said these things, I do hope it answered your question and was perhaps helpful. From my perspective, I am truly looking forward to seeing the contributions which I anticipate from this group. With esteem. My76Strat 05:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I have recently seen this and think it also offers insight. Regards. My76Strat 04:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary

This is an interesting assertion by Wikipedia, and I would love some feedback. Through reading the aforementioned comments it is clear to me that there are many things Wikipedia is not. However, I am not sure how Wikipedia is entirely unrelated to any other internet sources that provide clarity on the substance, or intended meaning of certain words. If I was to Google the word "Intent", the first article that appears is that of a Wikipedia page. Therefore, it is the intent of a Wikipedia editor, to provide me with their intended meaning of the word intent. This is extremely vague, and I think it points to the difficulties of relying on Wikipedia as a reliable academic source. For example, if President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad publicly claims his intent is not to develop nuclear weapons, but in reality he's doing it anyway (purely an example), his use of semantics dissuade the public from the truth. Therefore, any Wikipedia editor can present his/her material toward their own subjectively defined ends, while appearing to be objectively neutral. To what ends can Wikipedia actually go to prevent the thousands of opinions of its editors from being voiced? 1Ridwan (talk) 17:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

See WP:OR, WP:RS and WP:NPOV. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Regarding your questions, I would look at the various policies the Ssilver points to, the community takes those very, very seriously. As to your point about not being a dictionary, we have a really great sister project which focuses on the more dictionary like aspects of topics such as standard definitions, grammatical usage and origin of terms, which unfortunately doesn't get the same level of traffic because of Wikipedia's prominence amongst other topics called Wiktionary. If you get a chance, I would suggest checking it out. It is even multilingual! Sadads (talk) 19:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Concerns of first-time contributors

Since I thought that Lauren's concerns in 3.7 above might be shared by more than a few, I contacted the online ambassador's e-mail group and got several helpful responses, some of which I repeat here:--Ck07 (talk) 13:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Ssilvers found this Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content for us. Parts look very useful. -Ck07 (talk) 13:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Sadads (Alex Stinson) wrote

The best advice I can give is that they should go into this not thinking, "Oh no, so many rules" but instead, "My ambassadors will keep an eye on my changes and anticipate anything that the community may have issue with." As SSilvers commented on the project talk page, "Be Bold" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bold). We want to make the best contributions we can and if the students make mistakes, the community, especially the ambassadors are there for them. We contributors have a certain pride in the project, and won't let them get too far adrift. So as my fellow ambassadors are saying, Ignore the Rules! Don't let it stifle creativity.

And expanding on the intention of My76Strat's metaphor in the discussion, lets plant some trees, which, thought they may have a few small flaws, can help build the forest, that way the global ecosystem of knowledge can have some more biodiversity!

User:Protonk (Adam) wrote

My immediate instinct is to say that they are right, but it only applies to new users who approach editing wikipedia as they would piloting a small plane. If you try and learn all the nuance and chaff enveloping a decade old community before editing a page, you will be paralyzed.

Instead I recommend a different tack. When you are advising grad students you find a similar problem. New grad students get an idea and then you tell them (with the best of intentions) to check through the literature to see if the idea is truly novel. What happens next is common but unfortunate. The grad students usually get lost in a sea of articles, reviews, comments and permutations of models, attempting to make sure they have covered the literature exhaustively rather than exploring their idea! After you discover this, your next bit of advice might be counter-intuitive, but it works. Tell them to ignore the literature and start writing. Explain to them that good papers don't start with a literature review (even though such a review is often in the beginning of the final article) but start with a germ of an idea and grow through exploration and persistence.

New wikipedia editors should start the same way. We should nudge newcomers toward editing articles with simple suggestions, then once they are confident of the medium we should introduce the nuances of the social world they have entered.

User:Awadewit wrote

Perhaps I am just gun shy after having edited a few controversial articles or perhaps I just don't like controversial articles, but I would advise students to read the article talk pages thoroughly before editing a controversial article. I feel that that the rules and norms for editing controversial articles are entirely different than for "regular" articles - there are lots of "unwritten" rules (perhaps only known to the community which edits that article). One way to figure out what these rules are is to look at talk pages - one will also discover what parts of the article are the most disputed (usually the lead and one or two other sections). It is often best to start editing in one of the least disputed sections - and always discuss changes in controversial articles. Always.

Chzz wrote (This reply condensed)

My own 'welcome' to new users does not detail a zillion rules. It says this;

• You don't need to read anything - anybody can edit; just go to an article and edit it. Be Bold (link to WP:BOLD, but please don't put silly stuff in - it will be removed very quickly, and will annoy people.

• Ask for help -(link to live help, http://webchat.freenode.net/?channels=wikipedia-en-help Talk to us live), or edit this page, put {{helpme}} and describe what help you need. Someone will reply very quickly - usually within a few minutes.

• Play in your user area. For example, create User:THEIRUSERNAME/test.

• Edit existing articles before you make your own. Look at some subjects that you know about, and see if you can make them a bit better. For example, Wikipedia:Cleanup#2009.

• When you're ready - read about Your first article. It should be about something well-known, and it will need references.

(You can see the welcome, on http://enwp.org/User:Chzz/w )

Use of Language

What I found most interesting about these two articles was the section regarding how when editing an article you must be very careful of the language you choose to employ. For example I had never really thought about the implications of saying something like the author 'claims' (the article states that this implies what is being claimed is wrong) and how that might affect the tone of the piece and how it is received by the reader.IR393TheSituation (talk) 04:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Which two articles are you referring to? I think one of them must be Wikipedia:Manual of Style (words to watch). What's the second? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Mike, were you referring to the heading of 'Bias in Attribution: Mind your nuances' in the Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial? Diction is obviously of the utmost importance for a NPOV, but I'm curious as to whether or not the english language will suffer by it. Their example contrasted using "said," with other words such as "noted, pointed out, suggested, claimed," etc. While certainly these words have different connotations, it seems to me that there is a difficult line to walk between staying extremely neutral in writing and becoming boring. IR393.awc211 (talk) 12.38, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

That is very true, and often we are criticized in academic studies for being not as readable as academic encyclopedias because we use a more technical of a writing language sometimes. However, people who wish to diversify their language, can turn to stylistic choice not necessarily word choice. Take for example the legacy section of todays feature article, Charlotte Stuart, Duchess of Albany, the article uses various different phraseologies that could easily be turned into "Such and such said this" instead the authors said "However, according to Peter Pininski's research," or "research by the historians Alasdair and Hetty Tayler revealed " when the context allowed them to chose phrasing which is essentially neutral but doesn't have to revert to reallying on said. Such wording only becomes a real issue when you are dealing with hot topics, when someone disagrees with the POV of your language in most articles, they will simply change it and leave an edit summary explaining the possible misinterpretation caused by word choice, thus helping you understand, without actually razing an issue. So all and all, be conscious that you are writing a neutral piece, but don't let that significantly hamper your language or style, someone else will fix it if they have issue. Sadads (talk) 17:18, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: readability, check this out: Wikipedia:Writing better articles. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit conflicts

Some of you may experience an WP:Edit conflict when saving a page. This occurs when another user made an edit to the page and saved it while you were editing. That link pretty much explains what an edit conflict is so if you guys want to know more about it, please read that page. If you are editing a specific subsection and the other user another subsection, there won't be any edit conflicts when both of you save the respective pages. If, however, you do run into an edit conflict, please check the other user's change to the article or section.

For Firefox browser users: Using the Firefox browser is not a must, but it'll greatly help in this case if you are using that browser. Just click back, copy your change, click the edit tab at the top, paste your change where it should go, summarize your change in the edit summary, and hit save. Bejinhan talks 03:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

For IE users, if you have an edit conflict, scroll all the way down to find your changes at the bottom, since the first version listed shows the other editor's changes. In case of an edit conflict, don't hit "back" in IE, or you may lose the work you just did. Also, if I make an extensive edit, I usually copy it before I save to make sure it doesn't get lost in case of an edit conflict or server problem. Then, after you have added back your changes, regardless of what browser you are using, you will need to check the "Article History" tab to make sure that you have not lost the other editor's changes. You may need to add those back in. If you get confused, your mentor or any of us can help you. -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit summaries

As some of the students have already started editing articles, it's good to learn about WP:Edit summary. When editing an article or page, there is an edit summary box at the bottom of the edit box. Please fill in a summary of the change you made before you save it. Cheers, Bejinhan talks 03:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Internet browsers

There are certain pages in Wikipedia that may not work well for those using the Internet Explorer browser. Pages such as this would load slowly in an IE browser. Furthermore, not every script works well in IE. If you have a Mozilla Firefox or Google Chrome browser, please use it while editing Wikipedia to make your editing more enjoyable. Again, this is a personal preference as IE generally works on Wikipedia article pages. Bejinhan talks 13:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Chrome and Firefox, besides loading much faster than IE, also have other useful features like spell check and autosaving of pages, which help make editing more efficient. Sadads (talk) 13:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

As an IE user (mostly), I can say: don't worry too much about this. IE has worked fine for me for over 4 years and over 65,000 edits on Wikipedia. The performance of the website also has to do with what version of windows you are using and your system resources. If you feel that the site is performing slowly for you, try another browser. Happy editing! -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

If you have IE8 it should be more than fine. I think most of the schtick about "modern browsers" really only separates IE6 from the rest of the crowd (and to a large extent IE7 as well). Protonk (talk) 16:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

IE9 beta works fine as well (for those of us running propriety Win 7).Smallman12q (talk) 22:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Question about User names for students

Would it be alright to add the {{user}} template for each of the user names to make it easier for the ambassadors to monitor what the users are doing? Sadads (talk) 01:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. — The Earwig ^(talk) 01:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Didn't want to complicate anything with templates, if they weren't expecting it, Sadads (talk) 01:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Right, I see your point. Fortunately, {{user}} is pretty simple, no? I was hoping {{user|IR393.Whatever}} would be easy to follow; it also provides an opportunity to explain a very basic form of templating if they're curious. — The Earwig ^(talk) 01:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah definitely, are there more students in the class? If so, we can write a little instruction blurb in the sign up explaining it, Sadads (talk) 01:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Was just thinking about that. If we only look at registered accounts, there's:

Extended content

mysql> SELECT user_name FROM user WHERE user_name LIKE "IR393%"; +-------------------+ | user_name | +-------------------+ | IR393 will | | IR393.awc211 | | IR393.cfc211 | | IR393.sae211 | | IR393ANDRICA | | IR393Anjan | | IR393BradenSmith | | IR393DEME | | IR393DrewGolding | | IR393Sadar | | IR393TheSituation | | IR393aes | | IR393davis | | IR393harrisonkatz | | IR393ldc211 | +-------------------+ 15 rows in set (0.00 sec)

Is that enough? Fifteen students? — The Earwig ^(talk) 01:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

That is all of us. Thanks for the offer of help, but I'm afraid that so far I don't understand exactly what the suggestion is or what the impact would be.Ck07 (talk) 02:10, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

We are inserting their usernames with a Template which allows us to go directly to pages relevant to the User, to help keep track of their contributions and general activities. It's mostly a convenience thing, and we were wondering if we should make instructions so that each student can add the template, instead of us going in behind them and inserting the template. This offers a chance for the students to begin to look at Wiki-code,Sadads (talk) 02:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm all for the instructions idea. It should be pretty simple. Just explain to them what it is for and ask them to put it in themselves for a try. Bejinhan talks 06:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I see. Thanks. Please go ahead.--72.81.26.185 (talk) 12:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Instructions are up, please go ahead and modify if neccessary, the most recent student seems to understood it, Sadads (talk) 12:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Signing

Please sign by typing in 4 tildes (~~~~) when leaving a message on any talk page, whether it's a user talk page or an article talk page or a Wikipedia talk page(this course page, for example). Signing your messages is a requirement as it helps us identify who left the message. Alternatively, you can also click on the 4 tildes in the edit toolbox below this edit box to sign. Bejinhan talks 03:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

On a related note, you can change the way your signature looks by clicking "my preferences" at the top of the page and scrolling down to the "Signature" box. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)