User:QuackGuru/Reform of Misplaced Pages

< User:QuackGuru

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Biscuittin (talk | contribs) at 20:49, 18 January 2016 (restore section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 20:49, 18 January 2016 by Biscuittin (talk | contribs) (restore section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This user page or section is in a state of significant expansion or restructuring. You are welcome to assist in its construction by editing it as well. If this user page has not been edited in several days, please remove this template.
If you are the editor who added this template and you are actively editing, please be sure to replace this template with {{in use}} during the active editing session. Click on the link for template parameters to use. This page was last edited by Biscuittin (talk | contribs) 8 years ago. (Update timer)

This page is for the development of policies for the reform of Misplaced Pages. If you think that Misplaced Pages does not need reform then you have nothing to contribute here so please go away. This is a long-term project so do not expect instant results.

Unconstructive edits

I have said many times that this page is for people who want to reform Misplaced Pages, but people who oppose reform are still coming here and writing speeches. I therefore give notice that I will, in future, revert any edits which I consider to be unconstructive. Biscuittin (talk) 19:10, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Please note that the WP:3RR rule does not apply to userpages Misplaced Pages:Edit_warring#3RR_exemptions so I will revert as many times as is necessary. Biscuittin (talk) 19:31, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Culture of Misplaced Pages

Misplaced Pages is a product of the computer age but, paradoxically, its culture is firmly rooted in a macho pre-computer age. The word consensus is widely used on Misplaced Pages but I see little evidence of it. Disputes are not settled by consensus but by shouting and bullying and the winner is the person or group who shouts loudest. Misplaced Pages has a page WP:Bullying but I have been informed that this is an "essay", not a policy. It seems, then, that Misplaced Pages does not have an anti-bullying policy and bullying is tolerated or even expected. I want to change the culture of Misplaced Pages to make it more co-operative and less confrontational.

Progress report

We have made some progress in that useful suggestions have been made by several editors. Others do not seem to understand what this page is for. It is not just about bullying and it is not just about climate change. It is about improving Misplaced Pages in many different ways. This is what I intend to do and I believe I have a growing number of supporters. Those who resist change are not welcome here because they have nothing positive to contribute. They are just taking up space with their endless carping. Biscuittin (talk) 22:54, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm quite pleased with the way things are going because the change resisters are obviously worried about my success. If they weren't, they would just ignore me. Instead, they keep coming back here and writing speeches. Biscuittin (talk) 23:44, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

See Begging the question. Jbh 15:09, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Why do you come back here instead of ignoring me? Do you just want to clutter up the page and make it difficult to read? Biscuittin (talk) 17:09, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Because your desire to increase the level of civility at Misplaced Pages is admirable. If you are going to post a circular argument like 'I am successful because people are worried I am so successful so I must be successful and that is worrying people' please do not be surprised when someone points out the fallacy in your reasoning. You have gotten some good feedback here but you seem to be listening to those who affirm your viewpoint and discount those who challenge it. For instance you seem to be conflating the proper enforcement of WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:NOR etc with bullying. That is coming off as you supporting not enforcing and/or changing our core content policies - that is a very different thing than addressing how editors are treated on Misplaced Pages. Jbh 18:15, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Aren't you also "listening to those who affirm your viewpoint and discounting those who challenge it?" Biscuittin (talk) 18:36, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

No. I am, however, discounting any idea of changing our core content policies. That was not what you presented this page as being about, you presented this as a) coming up with an different way to make decisions than consensus (Which, while I doubt it would ever be accepted by the community, I am interested in seeing what people come up with but I have not seen any proposals for here) and b) identifying possible ways to address "civility" concerns on the project (Which many others have tried and failed to do but maybe...). All the talk of "challenge the power of secret cabals" and "I should warn you that we are likely to be persecuted." and "the change resisters are obviously worried about my success" is making me think there is something else driving this though. Jbh 19:06, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Subjects for discussion

Bullying

I thought Misplaced Pages had an anti-bullying policy at Misplaced Pages:WikiBullying but I have since been told that this is "just an essay". Let's have a proper anti-bullying policy.

Civility is not only a policy, but one of the Five pillars. Anti-bullying is but one part of being civil to others. So in a way, we do have a proper anti-bullying policy. The problem is that the civility policy lacks teeth. ~ ONUnicornproblem solving 20:51, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks ONUnicorn. I see you've already solved all the problems at User:ONUnicorn/The problem with Misplaced Pages... AND the solution. Biscuittin (talk) 22:34, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Misplaced Pages has a muddled policy against bullying, however, most of Misplaced Pages does not appear to be able to clearly identify bullying and rarely (if ever) is anything done about it. It really does, like you've stated, lack teeth! --MurderByDeletionism 18:02, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:Civility is definitely enforceable, but taking it to AN/I has now become rather a nightmarish proposition given it has become a lottery dependent on the users looking at the page at that time and the complainant's ability to deflect boomerangs that are thrown at the slightest provocation.DrChrissy 23:09, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks DrChrissy. I agree. Biscuittin (talk) 23:27, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

The biggest problem will always be accurate definition. There are a number of users who cry "bullying" as a line of defence during failed attempts to push a POV: "X rejects my edits, therefore X is bullying me, therefore X must leave me alone and I must be allowed to make my edits". In most fo these cases that I have seen, the rejection of the edits is 100% correct and the user should have dropped the stick long ago. Guy (Help!) 14:16, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I wish you'd stop talking about "dropping the stick". I'm not a dog. Biscuittin (talk) 19:08, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

"Drop the stick" refers to the essay, WP:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass, itself a reference to flogging a dead horse. There is no dog involved. In short, know when you've lost a debate and it's time to move on. Since so many editors lack a clue when it's time to move on, being unable to lose a debate gracefully, "drop the stick" is a necessary concept and the essay has widespread support. Often they persist so long that it's necessary to be very forceful in response, and that is seen as bullying by many of them. I don't know whether that applies in your case, but it certainly does make many eyes glaze over whenever one complains of bullying. We've all seen too many baseless allegations of bullying; there is a continuous drone of this at WP:ANI. One's only defenses against true bullying at an article are (1) to learn policy and behavioral guidelines well and try to use them to effect, at ANI when necessary, or (2) to move on, let the bullies win, accept any consequences to the article, and blame the community's failure to enforce a higher level of discourse. Being averse to fighting, I generally go with the latter. No Misplaced Pages article is worth an increase in my blood pressure. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:19, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Bias

Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view is not enforced consistently. This must change.

Could you elaborate? In what way is NPOV not enforced consistently? Remember that, on Misplaced Pages, neutrality does not mean giving every viewpoint equal treatment... it means giving every view its DUE WEIGHT. Blueboar (talk) 17:37, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

The most obvious example is Climate change articles, where any contributions which dispute the findings of the IPCC are heavily discouraged. I know that disagreement with the IPCC view is a minority view, but it is not so minor that it deserves to be censored. I believe that QuackGuru has similar concerns about censorship of alternative medicine on Misplaced Pages but I am not commenting on this yet because I have not examined it. Biscuittin (talk) 18:05, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I think that User talk:JzG is a biassed administrator. He displays on his talk page links to Misplaced Pages:Rouge admin and Misplaced Pages:Lunatic charlatans. These may be jokes but they are jokes which administrators should not make if they want to be taken seriously. Biscuittin (talk) 22:44, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

And yet you link a climate change denialist's blog as evidence that Misplaced Pages is "biased". Odd, that. WP:ROUGE is clearly humorous (as is WP:NCR and many other essays), and Misplaced Pages:Lunatic charlatans refers to a statement by Jimbo. I am biased in favour of rationality and empirically verified fact. In fact the whole of Misplaced Pages is biased in the same way. It's by design. Guy (Help!) 22:50, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

This is the usual circular argument by CO2 haters that CO2 lovers are indisputably wrong, so anything they write must be regarded as unreliable. This is bias. Biscuittin (talk) 23:00, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

That comment speaks volumes. Science does not give a fuck about CO₂ as a substance, but it clearly and unambiguously shows that concentrations in the atmosphere are increasing, this is causing the global average temperature to rise, and it's our fault. CO₂ is essential to life on Earth, but the concentration int he atmosphere matters and the Earth's homeostatic mechanisms are overwhelmed by the pace of release right now. In excess of 99% of active scientific authors on the field are in agreement about this. That is an incredibly solid consensus. Guy (Help!) 23:05, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

If you want to debate Climate change please do it at Talk:Climate change. This userpage is about improving Misplaced Pages. Biscuittin (talk) 23:20, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Another example of bias on Misplaced Pages is the use of the term Climate change denial. This term is inaccurate and pejorative because there are very few climate change deniers. The majority of so-called climate change deniers are actually climate change acceptors. They accept that climate change is happening but they do not accept the IPCC view that CO2 is the main driver. Biscuittin (talk) 23:34, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Poor administration

The WMF must hire people to edit Misplaced Pages to police article content and resolve disputes. This can be done with a separate and new non-profit organization to avoid losing Section 230 immunity. (Suggested by QuackGuru).

And you would, what, fire over a thousand unpaid volunteers who do this now, who were selected by the community that they help administrate? Don't even bother answering that until you ask the WMF itself if there is any possibility at all that they would do this, because the answer is almost certainly "absolutely not" and there is no way to make them do it. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:13, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Democracy and consensus

I think we need a policy for sacking bad administrators. A Recall election might be a way to do this.

This has been suggested again and again. At times there has seemd to be fairly strong support for something but what that something should be has been a continual sticking point. The primary concearn is usually that any admin who is actually doing a good job is inevitably going to have angered some people who might abuse such a process for revenge, rather than to get rid of truly abusive admins. This is why arbcom is currently the only way to do this, you actually have to present compelling evidence before they will even start sucha discussion.

It is possible to get abusive admins removed this way, it just isn't easy, nor should it be. I have done it myself and also voted to remove abusive admins when I was on the committee. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:20, 16 January 2016 (UTC).

Thanks Beeblebrox. I see that there already are Misplaced Pages:Administrators open to recall but the scheme is voluntary. I think it should be compulsory but I agree that some people might abuse such a process for revenge, so there would need to be some safeguards. What those safeguards should be, is a subject for discussion. Biscuittin (talk) 14:22, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Fairness

Misplaced Pages rules are not enforced consistently. Some editors are continually being banned while others commit the same offences and get away with it. This suggests bias on the part of some administrators.

I don't think this is just a problem with certain admins, there are in fact portions of the community who believe that highly productive content creators should be given much wider lattitude than others, and although they are a minority they are extremely vocal and honestly I think that through their drama mongering they manage to intimidate or wear down admins who would prefer to apply the rules evenly. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:22, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Biscuittin (talk) 14:23, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

"This suggests bias on the part of some administrators." I think the sentence can make a stronger claim. I think it is obvious there are bias admins. Admins are extremely supportive of editors who replace sourced text with OR and white-wash articles and make disingenuous comments on the talk page. Admins don't police WP:OR. QuackGuru (talk) 17:26, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

New users

I think that new users are being discouraged by heavy-handed enforcement of rules for trivial reasons.

This is a real problem, mainly propogated by overzealous "patrollers" who lack a nuanced understanding of how to apply policies and guidelines and tend to assume bad faith when they see cluelessness. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:25, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Biscuittin (talk) 14:23, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Other

Suggestions welcome.

How about "incivil phrases"?

Should there be a section on phrases/words used to denigrate other editors. It seems to me that there is increasing use, and unfortunately increasing acceptance, of phrases such as "POV-pusher", "pseudoscience promoter", "fringe editor" etc. which are used to intimidate editors. It would be good to see a coordinated approach to having these words and phrases listed as "uncivil" and/or "personal attacks" and therefore actionable if used. Given that edits should be based on content rather than contributors, this should be relatively easy to change.DrChrissy 23:56, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Good idea. Like Unparliamentary language. Biscuittin (talk) 23:59, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I think "pseudoscience" is particularly relevant. Labelling something as pseudoscience on Misplaced Pages is clearly departing from WP:NPOV. Biscuittin (talk) 00:03, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

There is already some help here. Have a look at WP:POVPUSH. This is only an essay, but the statement that calling an editor a POV-pusher is incivil has been there since at least 2010, so it seems to be a conclusion that is widely accepted by the community. We could push for this and other phrases to be included in WP:Civility guidelines thereby making its use actionable.DrChrissy 00:15, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

See WP:SPADE. If someone is promoting pseudoscience, we should and do say so. To quote Brian Cox, "he problem with today’s world is that everyone believes they have the right to express their opinion AND have others listen to it. The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!" Misplaced Pages is a reality-based project. It has also become just about the most important place for every crank to get their views reflected as "fact". The result is an endless tide of people of varying degrees of good intentions, coming here to "correct" our treatment of topics that are, objectively, bullshit. This includes things like psychokinesis, remote viewing and cryptozoology as well as the more obvious areas like the claims of climate change denialists and SCAM proponents. We do not give equal weight to science and bullshit. This is by design. Many of those who are lining up to cry for reform, are motivated by long-standing failure to get nonsense given equal weight with fact. Like the assault by creationists on school textbooks, the only result of their being allowed to get away with this will be that the world becomes more stupid. Misplaced Pages is not supposed to give credence to nonsense, we are supposed to document it and say why it's nonsense. So any reform that fails to recognise and protect the paramount importance of remaining reality-based, must and almost certainly will fail. Guy (Help!) 14:28, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I am biassed and you are biassed. Most people are, but we have to avoid injecting our biases into Misplaced Pages articles. Piers Corbyn's theory (which I accept) that the solar cycle is the main driver of climate change is based on his research. It may be right or it may be wrong but it is not pseudoscience and it should not be labelled as such. Biscuittin (talk) 19:38, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

The whole point of Misplaced Pages's content policies is that no Misplaced Pages editor qualified to have an opinion on the matter, while the scientists, who make these subjects their life's work, are. This goes even more so for people who wish to edit against scientific consensus. If they think they are right then go, get a PhD, publish and get feedback from your peers who also have a PhD or two. If the new view is supportable then others will duplicate and build on the research and a new scientific consensus may evolve. Then it can be put in Misplaced Pages. Until that, junk science is junk science and, if Misplaced Pages mentions it at all, it should be properly labeled as junk science.

Maybe that is harsh and "undemocratic" but reality is both harsh and undemocratic. No matter what, fire still burns and gravity works against you whether you believe in it or not. To give time to 'evolution deniers', 'acupuncturists', 'climate change deniers', 'homeopaths' etc. is just as foolish and irresponsible as giving credence to 'fire deniers' or 'gravity deniers' and Misplaced Pages's rules on fringe and pseudoscience properly recognize that. Jbh 20:09, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think Thomas Edison had a PhD but that doesn't mean he should not be taken seriously. Biscuittin (talk) 12:28, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

There is a huge difference between engineering and basic science. Thomas Edison was, in any event, heavily involved in the "peer review" process of his time and in his field. Also you may want to consider that Misplaced Pages editors are not Thomas Edison and those who think they are and have been unable to demonstrate their genius to the satisfaction of their mainstream "peers" are more likely deluded (or politically/financially motivated nowadays) than they are to be enlightened with the truth that has escaped all others. Even if they have this great truth Misplaced Pages is not the place to inform the world of it.

Misplaced Pages is an easy place for cranks to try to validate their views to the ignorant, because the experts already know they are cranks and will have nothing to do with them. Misplaced Pages's sourcing policies and rules on fringe/pseudoscience recognize that. Misplaced Pages is not the place for people to get validation for their pet theories, it is to inform the general readership of the current state of scientific knowledge and consensus. Jbh 15:04, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

So now I am deluded, politically/financially motivated and a crank. How many more insults do you want to throw at me? Biscuittin (talk) 17:03, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Ummm???? Unless you are trying to insert your own pet theory, of which I am unaware, or you think yourself an unsung genius with insights overlooked by the scientific community, which I have seen no indication you believe, nothing I have said was intended as a comment about you. Jbh 17:34, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Who should we approach?

Misplaced Pages administrators
Trustees of the Wikimedia foundation
Regulators (e.g. Ofcom)
Other (suggestions welcome)

Union of Editors

I am thinking of forming a Union of Editors on Misplaced Pages to challenge the power of secret cabals. The Union will not be a cabal because it will be quite open about what it is doing and who belongs to it. If you are interested in joining, please say so here. I should warn you that we are likely to be persecuted. Biscuittin (talk) 22:53, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

There is no cabal. Guy (Help!) 22:48, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Please see my edit at "Bias" above. If there is no cabal, why do you give the impression, by a link on your talk page, that there is one? You are being provocative and this is another bad sign in an administrator. Biscuittin (talk) 22:54, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

If the cabals are secret as you say, how do you know they exist? Your opening comment is magical thinking bordering on paranoia. I might be interested in joining a union for the purpose of elevating the level of discourse at Misplaced Pages, as I believe a large majority strongly oppose the status quo but choose not to get involved in the street fighting that is the only way one stands a chance of changing anything here. But you lost my support with your first comment. I have yet to see any evidence of "cabals", only groups of editors who have similar interests, generally see eye-to-eye, and thus support each other in debates. There is nothing wrong with that. If you can prove that these "cabals" are conspiring and colluding off-wiki, please do. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:54, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

It is interesting that some groups are allowed and others are not. I am frequently accused of "canvassing" when I put a friendly message on another editor's talk page. Biscuittin (talk) 23:00, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

You say: "street fighting ... is the only way one stands a chance of changing anything here". That sounds like an admission that bullying is acceptable on Misplaced Pages. Biscuittin (talk) 23:03, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Difference of semantics. Many policy discussions are allowed to devolve into childish, acrimonious, snarky, often downright hateful argument, what I call street fighting, but there is no bullying because no one is stronger than anyone else. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:22, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Users who have been hounded off Misplaced Pages

Section under construction.

User:MacRusgail

Insults to Biscuittin

Censored by User:Jbhunley

Possibly relevant sources

References

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020515/climategate-the-corruption-of-wikipedia/

Misplaced Pages