User:Davidwr/AGF Challenge 2 Exercise Answers

Note: I am no longer interested in adminship This page is kept for posterity and in the hopes it will be useful to others who might want the bit. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 10:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Responses to User:Filll/AGF Challenge 2 Exercises:

2.1 Taking a Leak

Do the negative reviews of Leak's work constitute a WP:BLP violation? Can Wikipedia link to these negative reviews?

In general they are fair game, but care must be taken to make sure that the reviews are indeed of the work, or the author's collective body of work, not the author. If someone links to a review that says "Leak is an idiot" that's a lot more suspect than one that says "Leak's theories are unsound." In no case would I allow a quote that said "leak is an idiot"<ref>...</ref>. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Can Wikipedia state that the "scientific community" agrees or disagrees with his theories?

Yes, see WP:FRINGE. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Are articles on this author's ideas WP:FRINGE theories since most of the public subscribes to them?

No, they are WP:FRINGE in spite of what most people think. They become not-fringe when either a sufficient number of scientists buy into his theories that it crosses from fringe-dom to minority scientific theory-dom. It can also cross over when the general population no longer takes geologists in general seriously. The general public generally uses scientists as their authority for matters of geology. Unless and until that changes, it's the geologists that determine what is and is not fringe for geology-related science and pseudoscience. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

What does WP:NPOV state about how these ideas should be presented on Wikipedia?

This depends on the article. If the article is about Dr. Leak or his theories, then they should be the bulk of his article. If the article is about things that his theories have greatly impacted, such as government policy, or oil riots, or what-not, they should be given due weight but not undue weight. In articles related to the formation of oil, they deserve little or perhaps no mention, beyond a mention in the "See also" section or a brief mention in an "other theories of oil formation" section. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

How many hours of editor time should Wikipedia spend to deal with this?

Assuming editors remain civil, this is not an administrative question. If a group of editors want to spend all their free time hashing this out on article talk pages, it is not the administrator's job to interfere. Likewise, if they spend little or no time dealing with it, that's fine too. Now, how much time should administrators or outsiders such as mediators spend? As much as it takes to get all editors behaving in accordance with editing standards, or sanction those who are unable or unwilling to do so. Beyond that, the only involvement should be either sanction enforcement or, in the role of an experienced editor, helping a sanctioned editor who belatedly realizes the error of his ways learn to edit properly, then, as an editor, support him in his efforts to get his sanctions commuted. Unfortunately, once you've started coaching him with an eye toward reducing his sanctions, you have a conflict of interests and should not unilaterally lift the sanctions without getting a second administrator's opinion and/or getting a higher authority such as ARBCOM involved. It's also courteous to try to get the original blocking admin involved. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

2.2 It is not free

Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.

What does Clause 8 of NFCC really mean?

It means both-and. In the cases about articles related to Quantum Healing and Institute of Quantum Healing, while the book cover would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, it's omission would not be detrimental to that understanding. Let me rephrase that: It would significantly shorten the time it took for people to understand the topic thereby significantly increasing the understanding for those readers who only skimmed the article, but it would not carry any meaning that could not be expressed in words. In this case, expressing it as words or convincing the publisher to release the book-cover art under a free license is the better way to go. There may be other alternatives, such as getting look-alikes to dress similar to the book-cover image and use that. This may be a better solution if fans of the book dress like that from time to time anyways. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Do images help or hurt Wikipedia articles, making them appear less serious?

They can do both. Like words and even the very layout of an article, images should be carefully chosen so they help rather than hurt the article they are in. Even a featured picture can harm an article if it is the wrong picture for the article. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

2.3 Shockingly

Regarding disciplining an established editor who loses his cool. What should Wikipedia do in this case? What would you do? What is reasonable?

I can only hope my answers are the same as what should be done and what is reasonable.

As for the flame itself:

If it had been a new editor, he would have been warned and asked to apologize, and if he didn't do it again, it would be forgotten. Established editors are held to a slightly higher standard but there are things called mitigating circumstances and being a human being.

In this situation, if I saw the flame before the pile-on began, I would privately ask the editor to apologize for losing his cool. If he refused, I would give him a single strong, personalized warning on his talk page. That warning would include statements like "I understand you are frustrated," "we all lose our cool from time to time," "you are a valued editor," and "as an experienced editor, you are expected to know the rules, so don't do this again."

If he did it again, I would probably treat the first warning the same as I would a "2nd warning" or even "final warning" of a novice editor. I would make this clear in the original warning.

If the pile-on had already begin, I would either plea for calm or, if I didn't think anything I said would make a difference, spend my time elsewhere on the project. As for what Wikipedia should do about the pile-on:

Grant a general amnesty to all involved in the pileon, but accompany it with a "final warning." If we are lucky, cooler heads will prevail. If we are not, sanctions can be handled on a case-by-case basis.

Even though I personally don't like it, out of fairness, grant the same amnesty and final warning to the "sigh clone" guy. If we are lucky, he'll just go away. If not, we'll be watching.

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

What direction is Wikipedia heading in? Should it continue in that direction? What is the best way to create a respected reference work? How many hours of editor time should Wikipedia spend to deal with this?

I don't understand what you mean in the context of the "sigh clone" example.

If you are asking these as stand-alone questions, I don't see Wikipedia heading in a single direction, but I do see individual articles and groups of articles heading in the direction of whatever their editors-de-jour steer them. I don't know if Wikipedia "should" be operating this way, but as long as it is edited openly, without much content oversight by administrators acting in their administrative capacity, it will continue in that direction. The best way to create a respected reference work depends on your definition of "best way." The way to create the best reference work possible is to allow public submissions to drafts but expert reviews of all published content. This is not the way of Wikipedia, and that is okay. Wikipedia's way is better even though it leads to somewhat inferior long-run results because it is quicker and cheaper. How many hours of editor time should Wikipedia be spending creating the best reference work possible? Ideally, every minute spent editing Wikipedia will be toward that goal. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

2.4 The Naked Truth

Note: My religion prohibits me from reading about naked people. At the risk of going to Hell, I'll attempt to answer.

Regarding massive edit-warring on articles about Christianity to support a particular POV, with obvious undue weight issues.

What should Wikipedia do?

• First and foremost, Wikipedia administrators need to appeal for calm and use the lightest touch necessary to protect the encyclopedia. This case will very likely land in the hands of ARBCOM eventually, but in the meantime:
• Fully- and semi-protect articles as necessary and in accordance with established practice.
• Block users who 3RR or are otherwise disruptive.
• Participate in or even file an ARBCOM case. As an administrator, consider asking for article probation, effectively imposing 1-RR on the articles.
• Get disinterested parties' opinions. Seeing the input from multiple non-Christian non-nudists will give both sides a way to get away from the "us vs. them" mentality that frequently arises from such situations.

Is it a restriction of their religious freedom to have other versions of Christianity described on Wikipedia?

• These "other versions" should be described in their own articles if possible. There are already separate articles on most major denominations, sects, and cults that claim to be Christian. As far as articles about Christianity as a whole, the weight given to minority views should be in rough proportion to that minority view among all Christians, with the caveat that if the "allocated amount of discussion" is less than one sentence, you pretty much have to either allow a full sentence or claim the view is too fringe to even warrant a mention. Personally, if editors are having heated discussions about whether to allow a minority view to have a sentence or not, they may need to take a wikibreak.

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Do they have the right to not be offended?

Yes and no: They have a right and even a responsibility to say "I will not be offended by the other person's behavior" but they may or may not have a right to demand that the other person change his behavior. They can of course ask that the other person change his behavior.

With respect to pictures of people with clothes on, it's going to boil down to "he who can command more than 80% of the !votes wins" in the discussions. Administrators should almost always treat 80% non-corrupted !vote as a consensus. Things get trickier when it's 40/60 or 50/50, but that's clearly not what's going on in this hypothetical scenario.

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Should Wikipedia give in to their demands and remove pictures of clothed people worshiping in churches from all articles on Christianity?

It should be decided on an article-by-article basis, or at the Christianity-related Wikiprojects. The only thing Wikipedia should do as a whole is to offer a centralized discussion for those articles whose editors what to participate, probably on a subpage of WikiProject Talk:Christianity. This can happen without administrator action if everyone keeps their cool. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Should Wikipedia remove all pictures of all clothed people indoors to try to assuage the Nakedites?

Again, this should be done on an article-by-article basis. In this case, since the articles aren't related, it's unlikely that a centralized discussion would help. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Should anyone from any FRINGE movement be allowed to show up on Wikipedia and demand to be able to dictate how all articles in some area are written?

Individually, no, at least not without a court order, a COPYVIO correction, a BLP correction, or something else we would do anyway. As a group of meat-puppets, probably not - see WP:SOCK. But as a "group" of independent-thinking editors who happened to agree with a particular FRINGE movement, yes, provided they understand WP:UNDUE. As an example, if Nakedites constituted 1% of Christianity, and non-Nakedites kept removing the single sentence in Christianity that discussed Nakedism and kept removing internal links to Nakedism from Christianity templates and See also sections, there is nothing wrong with Nakedites, acting individually, from restoring them. However, there would be something wrong with them trying to take over the entirety of Christianity or forcing their views about pictures on the article without discussing it and arriving at a consensus first. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

What if they decry the definition of WP:FRINGE and try to rewrite WP:FRINGE and other policies to let them do whatever they want?

Now that would be the revert war to end all revert wars. The end result would likely that they would lose the numbers game and their efforts would be futile. In all likelihood, AN/I's would be filed and all administrators would start watching the policies they aren't watching already. You would see some policies temporarily locked and tagged as "disputed" while long discussions ensued on the talk pages. After consensus is reached for each proposed change by the FRINGE element, further efforts to change them would lead to "revert per consensus, see talk page" and eventually 3RR violations and possible ARBCOM action if they persisted. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

How much of the articles on Christianity should be devoted to describing Nakedite beliefs?

Roughly in proportion to their numbers among all Christians. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

How many hours of editor time should Wikipedia spend to deal with this?

As many as it takes. Nobody said building an encyclopedia was easy, and this goes 70 times 7 times as much with religious articles. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

2.5 How long is yours?

This is probably the easiest question to answer. Questions relating to a single editor who has a DVD whose length is different from that sold in most stores.

Use the time specified by the vendor for the most popular edition(s) of the DVD. It may be that this editor has a special edition or an edition intended for sale in another country. If his edition was a significant one, then include it as well as the existing one, each with their own unique identifier. If it was an insignificant edition, drop it and politely explain to the editor why it's insignificant. In this case, lack of reliable sources is a presumption of insignificance unless there are no known editions with reliable sources. I would count the DVD jacket or disk artwork as a reliable, non-third-party, source for information about the DVD. If he uploads his DVD's jacket and it says "51 minutes" and there's no evidence it's a fake DVD or fake image, that's good enough for me for reliability but not significance. This is a much more common problem with books, where the hardback, trade paperback, paperback, and special editions may vary in page count. Each edition has its own ISBN. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

2.6 The US is collaborating with space aliens

First off, everyone knows that the US is collabor*YOUSEEHYPNOTIZINGLIGHTS**

First off, everyone knows space aliens don't exist, but I'll be agnostic for the purposes of this question.

Second off, I wish you had written this question without reference to any actual religious group. For round 3 of questions, stick with pretend groups in hypotheticals. If this situation is not hypothetical, please add a suitable reference.

This deals with a situation where the US and Western media treat something as fringe, and the media in a significant-sized part of the non-English-speaking world world, treats it very seriously.

In general, this is a very tricky issue, since WP:V means that, in principle, I could go to the bookstore or library and verify the reference. If the reference is not in English, or the reliability of the reference is not obvious to people who are not familiar with the source, this can be a major problem. Ideally, we would all read Arabic as well as English and we would all be familiar with Arabic journalism and what is considered "reliable" in the Arab news media. This isn't the case.

If it were possible, I would solicit second opinions from uninvolved editors who read Arabic and were familiar with the Arabic news media. If it's not possible, I'd probably insist that only English-language, trusted sources OR trusted English-language translations of trusted sources be used in articles not about their subject. By "insist" I mean strongly lobby for on the relevant discussion pages.

As far as the articles on United States goes, if the existence of this belief is significantly affecting US relations with other countries, then it might be worth mentioning in a US-related article. You can make a much better case for including it in a UFO- or UFO-conspiracy-related article. In either case though, you'll need reliable, verifiable sources.

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

2.7 No original research!

Questions surrounding the appropriateness of converting numbers to percentages for comparison, questions on how to handle an experienced editor who thinks it's okay to IAR in his particular circumstance, and questions on how to deal with an administrator who threatens to use his administrative authority when he is not uninvolved.

How would you analyze this situation?

• See above for analysis.

Is it WP:OR to convert numbers into percentages for comparison purposes?

• It can be, if it's desceptive. It's much cleaner to include the actual numbers as well as the percentages in the table, or at least in footnotes or the article text.

Does this constitute a violation of WP:SYNTH?

• No, but if not done carefully it might constitute a violation of WP:INTENTIONALLYDECEPTIVE or WP:UNINTENTIONALLYMISLEADING depending on motive.

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

What should AppleButtEr do when he encounters an editor or admin like RunOff?

• If he encounters an editor like RunOff, he should discuss, then ask for an outside opinion. If he encounters an editor like RunOff, he should remind the administrator that he is not un-involved, and ask that he recuse himself from taking direct administrative action. If he does wind up blocked, he should use the unblock template then open an RfC on the matter. If he is repeatedly blocked by the same admin, he can appeal to the administrator's email list or other forums or, when all else fails, to ARBCOM. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

2.8 Sex and evolution

You did have to put sex, religion, and politics in this set of questions, didn't you? :)

This question is in large part substantially the same as 2.6 and my logic in dealing with the overlapping areas is pretty much the same. At a minimum, the wording would need to be rewritten for clarity. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)