"Wisdom of the Chaperones" echoes experiences I had on Wikipedia. My field of expertise is stuttering. I've worked in this field for fifteen years and I've written two bestselling books on the subject. My books have gotten rave reviews from the journals and newsletters in the field. The Wikipedia article about stuttering, written by myself and many other people, covered all areas of the field and was accurate. IMHO there was unnecessary material, e.g., too much about Porky Pig, but other people thought that material was necessary. The article had been "peer reviewed" and had won an award (article of the day).

Then a "super editor" with a zillion edits trashed the article. He deleted most of it, citing various "rules" such as that the sections about stuttering treatments were "advice" rather than description of the disease. The entire section about childhood stuttering was gone. As stuttering is largely a childhood disorder, probably 99% of people seeking information about stuttering are parents of children who stutter.

I objected to his edits in the discussion area, looked up various other "rules" of Wikipedia that supported the inclusion of the material he'd deleted, added references, etc. This had no effect. If I or other users reverted old material back in, he'd revert it out again. When he had me suspended for three days for breaking a "rule" I called it quits and haven't edited anything on Wikipedia since.

"The Wisdom of the Chaperones" article didn't talk about the "rules" of Wikipedia. While such rules seem like a good idea at first, they're hard to find and contradict each other, so a "super editor" can easily out-lawyer a less exalted user. For example, one rule says not to reference secondary sources, but rather to look up the original sources. But another rule says that Wikipedia articles should be written from secondary sources, not from original sources! Apparently the latter rule is to encourage use of "meta studies" and medical textbooks in fields where there are huge numbers of studies. The result was that a sentence I'd written with references to five studies (violating a rule not to reference too many studies!) was replaced with a reference to a secondary source that literally started "according to anecdotal reports..." The "super editor" even included the line "according to anecdotal reports"! My objections to that sentence was what resulted in the three-day suspension.

The "super editors" know how to work the system, such as filing punishment requests against users they disagree with. Strangely, Wikipedia's "rules" aren't searchable, and their organization is a mess. I'd spend hours searching for a "rule" to support something I'd done, then within minutes a "super editor" would quote a contradictory rule. The experience felt like a system of lawyers who got to write whatever laws they wanted, and also were the judges and executioners.

tdkehoe:

"Wisdom of the Chaperones" echoes experiences I had on Wikipedia. My field of expertise is stuttering. I've worked in this field for fifteen years and I've written two bestselling books on the subject. My books have gotten rave reviews from the journals and newsletters in the field. The Wikipedia article about stuttering, written by myself and many other people, covered all areas of the field and was accurate. IMHO there was unnecessary material, e.g., too much about Porky Pig, but other people thought that material was necessary. The article had been "peer reviewed" and had won an award (article of the day). Then a "super editor" with a zillion edits trashed the article. He deleted most of it, citing various "rules" such as that the sections about stuttering treatments were "advice" rather than description of the disease. The entire section about childhood stuttering was gone. As stuttering is largely a childhood disorder, probably 99% of people seeking information about stuttering are parents of children who stutter. I objected to his edits in the discussion area, looked up various other "rules" of Wikipedia that supported the inclusion of the material he'd deleted, added references, etc. This had no effect. If I or other users reverted old material back in, he'd revert it out again. When he had me suspended for three days for breaking a "rule" I called it quits and haven't edited anything on Wikipedia since. "The Wisdom of the Chaperones" article didn't talk about the "rules" of Wikipedia. While such rules seem like a good idea at first, they're hard to find and contradict each other, so a "super editor" can easily out-lawyer a less exalted user. For example, one rule says not to reference secondary sources, but rather to look up the original sources. But another rule says that Wikipedia articles should be written from secondary sources, not from original sources! Apparently the latter rule is to encourage use of "meta studies" and medical textbooks in fields where there are huge numbers of studies. The result was that a sentence I'd written with references to five studies (violating a rule not to reference too many studies!) was replaced with a reference to a secondary source that literally started "according to anecdotal reports..." The "super editor" even included the line "according to anecdotal reports"! My objections to that sentence was what resulted in the three-day suspension. The "super editors" know how to work the system, such as filing punishment requests against users they disagree with. Strangely, Wikipedia's "rules" aren't searchable, and their organization is a mess. I'd spend hours searching for a "rule" to support something I'd done, then within minutes a "super editor" would quote a contradictory rule. The experience felt like a system of lawyers who got to write whatever laws they wanted, and also were the judges and executioners.

yes, but on the other hand, they are quite forgiving of bored high schoolers (you can check by the ip address) who like to edit articles with 'sam is so gay!' etc. because if they're not treated roughly, they may someday grow up to be good contributors.

"I called it quits and haven't edited anything on Wikipedia since."

It's horrible, I know, but I have to ask: When you quit, did you say "Th-Th-Th-Th-Th- That's all, folks!"?

;-)

I had some difficulty with the article on "Nazism," which was full of political bias: There had been an edit-war over this article, so it was protected from further changes, but this protected state included huge, glaring errors, such as:

* There was a long and irrelevant section on British appeasement, but no reference to the Reichstag fire and Enabling Act, by which the Nazis actually gained power. The article seemed to suggest that the Nazis came to power because of British appeasement, although Britain's ability to influence internal German developments (at least until 1938, shortly before the war) was quite limited.

* There was a section about anti-capitalist rhetoric, which created the impression that Nazism was a left-wing phenomenon, but failed to note that the socialist wing was crushed in 1934, and that its program was never implemented.

* Things like animal rights and environmentalism were identified as key parts of the Nazi program, presumably because they could be identified as "liberal," while important ideological elements such as the Volksgemeinshaft were omitted, apparently because the editors didn't know what these were.

I went to the talk page and attempted to establish some of the basic historical facts, which I had gleaned though long study at the Friedrich Meinecke Institute in Berlin. It was useless. The "rules" of Wikipedia trumped all scholarly references, which were quickly labelled "original research" and dismissed as irrelevant. The errors I've listed above are still there, months later, and many thousands of young people have doubtlessly copied them into their high school (or even college) papers on the assumption that they were true.

I think this is a great article, and I appreciate that tdkehoe has started this thread. I've had a similar experience with trying to introduce the page of a fine art photographer whose work is beginning to gain recognition.

I grant that my article may not have had the importance of the page on Ansel Adams, but I felt that the process which led to the eventual erasure of the entire article was conducted rather unfairly. It was done by someone who had some degree of "moderator" privilege who deemed that until the artist whose work I was introducing had some seemingly very specific kind of national prominence, an article on said artist was "irrelevant." I don't believe that it was, nor, more importantly, do I think that there were any specific rules to determine just when the artist would become relevant enough to deserve a page. With a site as inclusive as Wikipedia, it seems to me that anything which would be of general interest and could not be otherwise integrated (e.g., into another pre-existing, related article) should be fair game on Wikipedia. One moderator felt differently about it, and I was threatened with having my privileges blocked if I chose to make a fuss about it. I didn't make a fuss because that was when I had decided to stop contributing to the encyclopedia altogether.

As a side note, I object to the fact that certain authors and editors of articles should have their own pages detailing their contributions. I have added sizable portions to articles on a variety of entries which were plenty relevant, but I didn't think the point of Wikipedia was to take any kind of credit for or to claim any kind of ownership of those entries. When this happens, Wikipedia loses a good deal of what makes it unique, and it essentially becomes a normal encyclopedia with a similar cadre of authors, except these authors are not called upon, as they would be in a print encyclopedia, to have any qualifications or expertise in anything other than the "rules" of Wikipedia.

While I appreciate some of tdkehoe's complaints, particularly about difficulty navigating the Wikipedia "rules" sections and understanding the policies, procedures etc, it is not clear that his post above is all that accurate. Someone of a very similar name got into trouble on the Wikipedia stuttering page (and related pages) because he was trying to use Wikipedia to promote products made by his company despite several warnings that this was inappropriate. This was for this reason that he was briefly blocked, not for objecting to a sentence. Also, based on the discussion pages of those articles, there was not one "super editor" but multiple people who disagreed with him over a long period, noting he was introducing his own opinions into the articles and misrepresenting sources. As I said, I think there is more to this story that we have been told above (as is often the case, I guess!) I for one am actually glad that people care enough to try and weed out opinion, promotion or incorrect information out of Wikipedia articles.

I can certainly understand people's frustration with editing at Wikipedia. But there is a bit webworld out there. If you don't want to deal with the "rules" on WP then there are plenty of places you can post whatever information you want. If you want to "publish" under Wikipedia's auspices, then you have to expect to abide by their rules, surely?

The central problem with the Wikipedia is that it sometimes fails to deliver what it promises: useful and factual information. If you doubt that the article on "Nazism" is a mess, go and look at it; it's been like that for months.

The function of "rules" and "super editors" is that they are supposed to weed out material that is non-factual or irrelevant. In this case, they have failed to do so.

Last week's "The Economist" had an excellent article about Wikipedia's problems, starting with the "inclusionist debate" (relevant to beckerbri's experience about the art photographer), and moving on to the "wiki-lawyering" I described. This led me to an idea. I haven't yet posted this to the "Village Pump" policy area, so I would appreciate feedback before the following:
--

"Agree to Disagree" section format?

Is this possible: setting up a section that divides into two columns, with one view in one column, and an opposing view in the other column? There are many areas of science where two hypotheses have equal support. For example, I read in The Economist last week that malaria scientists are strongly divided on a certain issue (which the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation got tangled in).

There could be a poll at the bottom of the section for readers to vote for which view is more convincing. Sometimes the poll might make it clear that one statement has "won" and the losing statement could be removed. But an "agree to disagree" section could be left up indefinetly; I can imagine that many users will enjoy clicking on a list of "Articles With 'Agree to Disagree' Sections," reading the controversies, and voting. I can't wait to give my opinion on controversial subjects I know nothing about! Oh, wait, I already do that whenever I edit Wikipedia. :-)

This would also reduce "wiki-lawyering." Considering Wikipedia's contradictory policies, instead of "wiki-lawyers" citing policies to justify reverting each other's edits, each could have his or her own section, supported by his or her favorite Wikipedia policies.

FYI, the phrase "agree to disagree" has appeared only twice in Village pump: Policy discussions! Is this concept alien to Wikipedians? :-)

tdkehoe:

Last week's "The Economist" had an excellent article about Wikipedia's problems, starting with the "inclusionist debate" (relevant to beckerbri's experience about the art photographer), and moving on to the "wiki-lawyering" I described. This led me to an idea. I haven't yet posted this to the "Village Pump" policy area, so I would appreciate feedback before the following: -- "Agree to Disagree" section format? Is this possible: setting up a section that divides into two columns, with one view in one column, and an opposing view in the other column? There are many areas of science where two hypotheses have equal support. For example, I read in The Economist last week that malaria scientists are strongly divided on a certain issue (which the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation got tangled in). There could be a poll at the bottom of the section for readers to vote for which view is more convincing. Sometimes the poll might make it clear that one statement has "won" and the losing statement could be removed. But an "agree to disagree" section could be left up indefinetly; I can imagine that many users will enjoy clicking on a list of "Articles With 'Agree to Disagree' Sections," reading the controversies, and voting. I can't wait to give my opinion on controversial subjects I know nothing about! Oh, wait, I already do that whenever I edit Wikipedia. :-) This would also reduce "wiki-lawyering." Considering Wikipedia's contradictory policies, instead of "wiki-lawyers" citing policies to justify reverting each other's edits, each could have his or her own section, supported by his or her favorite Wikipedia policies. FYI, the phrase "agree to disagree" has appeared only twice in Village pump: Policy discussions! Is this concept alien to Wikipedians? :-)

IIRC, there exists an early splinter group from wikipedia devoted to this type of article; you'll undoubtedly be informed of what it's called by the wikipedians.