Wikipedia talk:Advocacy ducks/Archive 1: Difference between revisions
→Made some big changes: cmt about things needed in the essay |
Redddbaron (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 404: | Line 404: | ||
{{od}}Actually, I did like a good part of what you did, just not all of it. Editors who have been exposed to advocacy editing or who engage in such activities know full well what's involved and how to the game the system so they remain undetected. I imagine we have a few admins who aren't immune from such behavior. It wasn't that long ago when an admin started acting whack-o with me, but fortunately he was desysopped over another incident around the same time. Surely you don't believe the majority of incidents at ANI and ARBCOM are not related in some way to some form of advocacy, do you? I have been exposed to it at various articles, and I've seen other editors get railroaded and end-up with indef blocks. WP's history is full of such events, and what's really sad is that it's all over the internet. Anyway, I've taken some of the changes you made that were beneficial to the essay and have edited them back in, but I still have a ways to go. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">[[User:Atsme|Atsme]]</font><font color="gold">☯</font>[[User talk:Atsme|<font color="green"><sup>Consult</sup></font>]] 06:22, 27 April 2015 (UTC) |
{{od}}Actually, I did like a good part of what you did, just not all of it. Editors who have been exposed to advocacy editing or who engage in such activities know full well what's involved and how to the game the system so they remain undetected. I imagine we have a few admins who aren't immune from such behavior. It wasn't that long ago when an admin started acting whack-o with me, but fortunately he was desysopped over another incident around the same time. Surely you don't believe the majority of incidents at ANI and ARBCOM are not related in some way to some form of advocacy, do you? I have been exposed to it at various articles, and I've seen other editors get railroaded and end-up with indef blocks. WP's history is full of such events, and what's really sad is that it's all over the internet. Anyway, I've taken some of the changes you made that were beneficial to the essay and have edited them back in, but I still have a ways to go. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">[[User:Atsme|Atsme]]</font><font color="gold">☯</font>[[User talk:Atsme|<font color="green"><sup>Consult</sup></font>]] 06:22, 27 April 2015 (UTC) |
||
::Agreed. In fact it is happening right now on the organic food page. a double team to prevent me from fixing it as I will be the one banned should I attempt to edit the paragraph again. I have already been warned that my attempt to fix problems on the page is considered by them as edit warring. So I either let the page stay poor quality or I try and fix it and get banned. No win situation. The same group has repeatedly done the same thing to multiple editors. And the big looser is WIKI not me. The page has lost it's good article standing, it has been tagged for bias editing. Nothing ends up happening because a flock of advocacy ducks own the page and are determined to make sure that the organic food page has an anti organic bias. I walked away months ago and when I came back they are still there.[[User:Redddbaron|Redddbaron]] ([[User talk:Redddbaron|talk]]) 22:33, 27 April 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 22:33, 27 April 2015
Let the games begin...
Ok, while editors are picking at the original essay and 1st rewrite, I have written a 3rd. If we could spend less time bickering and more time editing we would be much further ahead. Atsme☯Consult 04:01, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- A very peaceful plan, leave the bickering on older pages and continue working on others. Even if it takes a few more pages it seems like a good idea. :) AlbinoFerret 05:24, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Old COI and Advocacy discussion - we've moved on
| |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Resume COI and Advocacy discussion
suggested improvementHere is a suggestion to help avoid adding to the large and growing number of [clarification needed] tags on WP (Speaking as a member of Wikiproject citation cleanup). "WP:ADVOCACY may support many different points of view. The best way to address any advocacy issue is to make good use of the sourcing guidelines WP:RS, and WP:MEDRS. When you find passages in an article where there are no WP:RS supporting a particular passage, use the Wikipedia:Citation needed template and begin a discussion on the TP." Would you consider adding the following "where there are no WP:RS supporting a particular passage, first try and find one, if you cant find one use the Wikipedia:Citation needed template and begin a discussion on the TP." AlbinoFerret 16:27, 18 April 2015 (UTC) Also this essay may be of help to new users WP:POV RAILROAD AlbinoFerret 16:33, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
What are the opinions of adding something like "Make sure to read and understand all policies and guidelines that are mentioned or linked to. Misapplication of policies and guidelines to further a specific point of view is a possible duck tactic." ?AlbinoFerret 13:52, 19 April 2015 (UTC) In the ten steps section the line "Did you argue for the sake of argument or was your argument substantive? A review of relevant PAGs will help you establish your position." might do well with a link to WP:POINT in the argue for argument sake wording. AlbinoFerret 16:44, 19 April 2015 (UTC) comments
there is some feedback. Jytdog (talk) 15:17, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
More commentsI have been asked to provide specific comments on this essay; please find these comments below. Please note that I am commenting on this version. Although this essay has differences from the previous versions, at its core it is the same because it encourages its readers to assume bad faith of other editors. As long as it has this underlying bad-faith point-of-view, no matter how many times the essay says to assume good faith, it will not be acceptable as a mainspace essay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ca2james (talk • contribs) 00:30, 20 April 2015 Major issuesThese are issues that, if they are not resolved, will prevent this essay from going to mainspace.
You need to read WP:Disruptive editing, Wikipedia:Tag_team#Tag team characteristics, WP:SP, and WP:Meat Puppetry which are main space guidelines and essays. I drew from them to write parts of my essay which you now claim to be representative of the pharma shill gambit as evidenced in your comparison above. It also appears you are confused between an essay and a guideline. You might want to read up on those differences as well. I invited editors here for GF collaboration but I do not appreciate your sarcasm and innuendos, not to mention yours and Jytdog's attempts to make my essay into something it is not. If you have no intention of collaborating here in GF, and your only concern is silencing what you consider to be pharma shills, whatever the heck that is, then you need to write your own essay and I'll be happy to help you with the copy-editing. Atsme☯Consult 12:46, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
I highly recommend that you read the close of the MfD if you haven't already. I also recommend reading this essay again. With regards to your threat to me that "you'll wind up blocked", I will ignore it for the most part with a sidebar caution to you that unwarranted block warnings and WP:NPA such as Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views and Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. are highly frowned upon. I also suggest that you pay closer attention to your own comments, some of which I've listed below with accompanying diffs. Also keep in mind that this is still essay is still in my user space where you and Jytdog are both welcome to join in and collaborate in GF but threats and disruption are not part of the deal. I have had no issues working with other GF editors who have been collaborating with me on this essay. However, you and Jytdog have been overly critical and have brought a personal aspect into the essay for no determinable reason aside from the fact is simply does not reflect your POV, and that alone speaks volumes.
Happy editing!
Minor issuesThese issues probably wouldn't stop the essay from going to mainspace... but that doesn't mean that they aren't problematic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ca2james (talk • contribs) 00:30, 20 April 2015 Ten-step self-analysis
Typical identifying signs
Keep your own behaviour in check
Road to resolution
Ca2james (talk) 00:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC) Make no mistakeThe section "Make no mistakes" states "If by chance you find yourself subjected to a pattern of aggressive editing behavior"..."remember to AGF and start a polite discussion on the article's talk page (TP)" This is great advice consistent with that given in the Help:Edit summary essay. However, I have been warned by User:Zad68 that it is inappropriate to discuss editor's behaviour on article Talk pages, citing WP:TPG. (Please see my Talk page section "Please don't use article Talk pages to discuss editor behavior" to see the interchange.) I have been unable to see on WP:TPG where the discussion of another editor's behaviour is discouraged. This probably needs clarification for this important essay.DrChrissy (talk) 18:53, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Responses to commentsSuggestions by AlbinoFerretAF: Also this essay may be of help to new users WP:POV RAILROAD ✅ AF: ...adding something like "Make sure to read and understand all policies and guidelines that are mentioned or linked to.✅
AF: Misapplication of policies and guidelines to further a specific point of view is a possible duck tactic." ? ✅
AF: In the ten steps section the line "Did you argue for the sake of argument.... ✅
Suggestions by JytdogJdog said: DNA is still the same as 2 prior versions - I went a step further in an effort to address some of your concerns. You said still abuses DUCK concept and has some assumptions of bad faith and also still casts consensus as conspiracy. My responses follow and include the changes that were made regarding the suggestions:
Regarding consensus...
Well, that's unfortunate but its your choice. I won't stoop to your level of name calling or bother responding to your spurious claims so I'll end this discussion by bidding you good night with kind regards. Atsme☯Consult 22:49, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Close enough AF. ![]()
The problem I have with modifying the essay to the degree a few have suggested is that it not only dilutes the purpose of the essay, it appears to be motivated by some sort of denial that such problems exist. Sorry, but that's like burying one's head in the sand, the latter of which requires a fairly long neck. The only thing I'm long on is verbosity. Atsme☯Consult 19:47, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Not the least bit upset. Why should I be? As for nomenclature issue you referred to as incoherent, perhaps the "s" on the end of quack tripped you up? Sorry, it was a typo so I removed it. Names such as duck, dog, quack, lunatic charlatan, meat puppet, sock puppet and the like identify behaviors related to people, or they may be pet names. Does it matter if the names are applicable to editors, subjects of a BLP, or other article? Try to consider such naming conventions a kooky form of applied science. They refer to people relative to their behaviors or pet names but they all still apply to people. Does that help clarify it for you? Surely you get the gist of Aesop's fables even though animals are used, right? Crazy like a fox, slow as a turtle, etc. Context is a strange animal. <---metaphor. ![]() |
collaboration
ok, i took a shot at directly editing the essay, in these diffs. I tried to make the "signs" be clear, to help readers of the essay be able to point to specific behavior that identifies advocates. (yes I took out "duck") Jytdog (talk) 11:15, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- It looks like you took out a lot of the identifiers on the ducks. AlbinoFerret 15:16, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- what, that i took out, do you see as identifying an advocate per se? thanks Jytdog (talk) 15:20, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- An example *Misapplication of WP:PAG to further a specific POV is a possible advocacy duck tactic. Make sure you are not the one perceived as employing such a tactic." This behaviour is very indicative of an advocate. AlbinoFerret 15:55, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- I have reintroduced the example and rewritten it. AlbinoFerret 23:32, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- An example *Misapplication of WP:PAG to further a specific POV is a possible advocacy duck tactic. Make sure you are not the one perceived as employing such a tactic." This behaviour is very indicative of an advocate. AlbinoFerret 15:55, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- what, that i took out, do you see as identifying an advocate per se? thanks Jytdog (talk) 15:20, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Took all the criticisms and suggestions into consideration
Ok - with the collaborative help I've received, I think this essay has finally hit its mark. Please add any new suggestions below.
- Approve - but I will add that if collaborators have any suggestions to shorten or improve this essay a little more, please comment or effect the improvement. Atsme☯Consult 16:29, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- The essay is better. The "ten step self analysis" section focuses on how to react when edits are reverted. Reverted edits are part of the problem but there's more to advocacy editing than that. Including bullet points on dealing with disruptive talk page behaviour would be more helpful. I think it might also be better to put signs of advocacy editing before the self-analysis section because right now the essay goes from pattern of aggressive behaviour to reverted edits to signs of advocacy behaviour. It makes sense to me to identify signs of advocacy behaviour first, then discuss how to respond (which includes the road to resolve).
- There are a few tweaks I'd like to make if that's ok with you but I need to step away from the computer right now. Thanks. Ca2james (talk) 17:49, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- Ok. Atsme☯Consult 18:58, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for opening up direct editing, I think I will add a few minor things, and perhaps replace at least one removed one. If you think they are not needed Atsme, I am sure you will comment here after doing so. AlbinoFerret 00:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- Ok. Atsme☯Consult 18:58, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose. First and foremost, a very active member of the COIN board (as in: a "flurry of edits") has made edits that he should not including his latest edit. Being on the WP:COIN board and asking for referral of cases or lobbying, is in direct conflict with the matter. Plus, please note he has not declared that COI in his edits on the COI page.
- The essay has zero refs.
- The focus on SPA´s is not only entirely empirical, but it targets private individual ducks, rather than "corporate fed" ducks. In my experience, corporate ducks are medium to high volume multiple page editors, thereby ducking an old fashioned and now lame scanning instrument called WP:SPA for advocacy.
- These sentences are noncompliant with WP:NPOV,Wikipedia:BALANCE, Wikipedia:UNDUE, and do not assume good faith towards "New editors: [which] may come to Wikipedia with an ax to grind, and often[how often?] don't understand Wikipedia's content and behavioral policies and guidelines. While being a new editor does not make advocacy acceptable, it is important to not bite the newbies and try to teach new editors the importance of NPOV. Some will be willing to learn, and some will not."
"--Wuerzele (talk) 05:40, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- Comment - Wuerzele, thank you for your input. I read your reasons for opposing the essay, and wanted to let you know what I did to address your areas of concern.
- a very active member of the COIN board (as in: a "flurry of edits") has made edits... I am aware of those edits, and in fact solicited his input along with that of other editors who originally opposed my first essay. I believe the best collaboration presents all sides of an issue. I also believe that most of the edits made so far by all collaborators have been an improvement. Some were redundant, others just needed a little tweaking. I hope you will reconsider.
- The essay has zero refs...to my knowledge, essays don't require refs because they are the views of the author and collaborators per Wikipedia:Wikipedia_essays.
- The focus on SPA´s is not only entirely empirical, but it targets private individual ducks, I just finished tweaking that segment a bit. After applying SPA in a broader context, I thought it best to not throw the baby out with the bath water. (I was once accused of being a SPA at an ANI that was wrongfully initiated against me last year). IOW, we have quite a few editors who volunteer their time to topics they enjoy and/or have an interest in. We don't want them to be by-catch.
- These sentences are noncompliant with WP:NPOV,Wikipedia:BALANCE, Wikipedia:UNDUE, and do not assume good faith towards "New editors: I agree, and hopefully resolved that issue with my recent edits. Let me know what you think.
Atsme☯Consult 18:42, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Mobbing
There is another behaviour (term) that ducks perform which might be incorporated into the essay, mobbing. Mobbing in animals is a behaviour which occurs when individuals of one species (POV pushers) mob an individual of another species (the suffering editor) by collectively, perhaps cooperatively, attacking or harassing it. I'm sure many of us can provide examples.DrChrissy (talk) 10:53, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- I have already incorporated into the essay.DrChrissy (talk) 11:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you, DrChrissy. I made a few changes for consistency in format and focus. I kept the most prevalent issues without creating too much repetition and shortened it a little. Atsme☯Consult 17:05, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- I think it's a shame you felt the essay should be shortened of repetition by removing my edits from the quote/box. I thought they were hanging well together and thought removal of repetition should actually be in the body of the text. I was going to move that way and formulate a table with "Duck behaviour" and "Avocacy duck behaviour" as the two column headings. By the way, the "Chasing the June bug" phrase may be a North Americanism....it means nothing to me here in the UK. I think this needs re-wording.DrChrissy (talk) 18:44, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- I think the bottomline here is that I want this essay to be accepted into main space so I'm doing what I think best to make that happen as I'm sure you are, too. I've already had two of my essays deleted so I hope you will trust my judgement. I'm sorry that you feel the essay was "shorted" by my edits because that wasn't my intention. I don't see it that way, and I certainly didn't feel that way when you modified what I had written, rather I opted for compromise. Your concept is still in tact as is the main gist of what you presented and how you presented it with only a few changes. As for the phrase, like ducks on a June bug, look at the brighter side - you now know a new phrase. It may not be ubiquitous world-wide but neither are a lot of the phrases that originated in the UK. I've learned quite a few them since I started editing WP starting with cheers, gobsmacked, snookered, a bit knackered and the like.
Atsme☯Consult 20:06, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- The aim is to get this essay into the mainspace - we are both totally agreed on that. In the past, I have found that the best essays have a touch of humour and are also educational. That is why I worked on the duck metaphors, e.g. if you see a duck muddying the water, it probably IS a duck muddying the water. I do trust your judgement and no arguments from this end about your edits....but I will still have to research June bugs! A new one from the UK... "It's just not cricket" ...which means, people are abusing the rules...and they know they are!;-) Just looked this up on WP and It's Not Cricket leads to Unsportsmanlike conduct! Could be used perhaps...but ducks (at least British ducks) don't play cricket ;-)DrChrissy (talk) 20:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- Love it!! Better yet, I can actually understand it. No, ducks don't play cricket - they just make a racket.
Thank you, DrChrissy! Atsme☯Consult 20:25, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- Boom! Boom! - you are on form tonight!DrChrissy (talk) 20:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- I have just realised, in cricket, if you are out with a score of zero we say you are "out with a duck". If you are out on the first ball you receive, you are "out with a golden duck"!...this really is quacking good stuff ;-)DrChrissy (talk) 20:33, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- When playing dodge ball, we yell DUCK!!
Atsme☯Consult 02:32, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- When playing dodge ball, we yell DUCK!!
- I have just realised, in cricket, if you are out with a score of zero we say you are "out with a duck". If you are out on the first ball you receive, you are "out with a golden duck"!...this really is quacking good stuff ;-)DrChrissy (talk) 20:33, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- Boom! Boom! - you are on form tonight!DrChrissy (talk) 20:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- Love it!! Better yet, I can actually understand it. No, ducks don't play cricket - they just make a racket.
- The aim is to get this essay into the mainspace - we are both totally agreed on that. In the past, I have found that the best essays have a touch of humour and are also educational. That is why I worked on the duck metaphors, e.g. if you see a duck muddying the water, it probably IS a duck muddying the water. I do trust your judgement and no arguments from this end about your edits....but I will still have to research June bugs! A new one from the UK... "It's just not cricket" ...which means, people are abusing the rules...and they know they are!;-) Just looked this up on WP and It's Not Cricket leads to Unsportsmanlike conduct! Could be used perhaps...but ducks (at least British ducks) don't play cricket ;-)DrChrissy (talk) 20:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- I think the bottomline here is that I want this essay to be accepted into main space so I'm doing what I think best to make that happen as I'm sure you are, too. I've already had two of my essays deleted so I hope you will trust my judgement. I'm sorry that you feel the essay was "shorted" by my edits because that wasn't my intention. I don't see it that way, and I certainly didn't feel that way when you modified what I had written, rather I opted for compromise. Your concept is still in tact as is the main gist of what you presented and how you presented it with only a few changes. As for the phrase, like ducks on a June bug, look at the brighter side - you now know a new phrase. It may not be ubiquitous world-wide but neither are a lot of the phrases that originated in the UK. I've learned quite a few them since I started editing WP starting with cheers, gobsmacked, snookered, a bit knackered and the like.
- I think it's a shame you felt the essay should be shortened of repetition by removing my edits from the quote/box. I thought they were hanging well together and thought removal of repetition should actually be in the body of the text. I was going to move that way and formulate a table with "Duck behaviour" and "Avocacy duck behaviour" as the two column headings. By the way, the "Chasing the June bug" phrase may be a North Americanism....it means nothing to me here in the UK. I think this needs re-wording.DrChrissy (talk) 18:44, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
new picture
with caption "Do not try to pull the head off a duck without using the appropriate resolution process" is going to upset people who care about animal welfare, i think. i mentioned before that the violent metaphors (e.g hunting) are not good in general. Jytdog (talk) 18:15, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- You may well have a point. I didn't think of that, and I'm not sure who included the picture but I'm sure they will understand. Political correctness can really take the wind out of one's sails. Atsme☯Consult 20:47, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- It was me who added the picture. I do care about animal welfare, which is partly why I included the picture to highlight the cruel practices we have in regard to animals. But, dealing with this subject on a daily basis I have possibly become rather hardened to such images and now it has been pointed out, I can totally understand the point that it might not belong here in this article. Oh - and it is a goose...I was using artistic license.DrChrissy (talk) 23:05, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- More like dramatic license, DrChrissy.
Atsme☯Consult 23:42, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- Yup - I think you got me there!DrChrissy (talk) 23:55, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- More like dramatic license, DrChrissy.
- It was me who added the picture. I do care about animal welfare, which is partly why I included the picture to highlight the cruel practices we have in regard to animals. But, dealing with this subject on a daily basis I have possibly become rather hardened to such images and now it has been pointed out, I can totally understand the point that it might not belong here in this article. Oh - and it is a goose...I was using artistic license.DrChrissy (talk) 23:05, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
general comments
i gotta say that the essay has come a long way; much of the stuff that got this deleted is gone. i made some edits just now, you can of course take them or leave them.
the two bad things that are left are the DUCK thing (which is by now a dead horse for me to say) and the other is this strange claim that advocates often work in teams. i do not encounter that frequently at all. otherwise, pretty good! Jytdog (talk) 18:38, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, Jytdog. Regarding the team work, see WP:Tag team#Multiple-editor ownership which is a form of advocacy. That and several other behaviors, like canvassing, meat puppets, etc. tie-in to WP:Advocacy which describes the behavior as the use of Wikipedia to promote personal beliefs or agendas at the expense of Wikipedia's goals and core content policies, including verifiability and neutral point of view. Despite the popularity of Wikipedia, it is not a soapbox to use for editors' activism, recruitment, promotion, advertising, announcements, or other forms of advocacy. Atsme☯Consult 21:02, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- i am not saying it doesn't happen (it does); the issue i am raising is the relative weight given to it. as i wrote above in my experience it is uncommon. to be frank, i think the emphasis given to it, arises from the experience of a FRINGE point of view on a health topic being rejected by a consensus of editors associated with WikiProject Medicine or otherwise following MEDRS, neither of which is advocacy. This is why i said it is one of the bad thing remaining; it is one of the few places where the roots are still showing. Jytdog (talk) 14:07, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Interesting page of expressions
I thought this page [2] had a few rather interesting phrases that might be appropriate such as "water off a duck's back"! @Atsme I have placed a link to this in the essay so keep/delete as you wish.DrChrissy (talk) 10:01, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- PS - DrChrissy, I moved your above comment from the user page to the TP. Those links would be better served here.
Atsme☯Consult 21:08, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
unbalanced and beating round the bush
At this time, I find the essay unhelpful for someone who wonders what advocay ducks are, and in my opinion quite unbalanced. a glance at the section titles says a lot:
- Make no mistake (a negative adhortation right off the bat, motivational k.o.)
- Self-analysis ( ok , but again seems to shift burden/accuse the reader
- Signs of advocacy (Finally cut to the chase...
- Keep your own behavior in check ( again, make no mistake and self analysis like)
- Road to resolution
Its poor pedagogy to start explaining what something is by talking about what it not is first. switching section sequences would be teh first step and after that it becomes obvious how imbalanced the thing is.--Wuerzele (talk) 00:14, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- Agreed. The essay seems to be suggesting that there is something called an 'advocacy duck', but fails to properly explain what it is, why we should describe it as a 'duck', and why the essay is necessary at all. We already have an essay on on-Wikipedia advocacy which seems to cover the topic perfectly well without bringing ducks (and coots) into the discussion, and without meandering wildly off-topic into alleged behaviour of anatidae. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:06, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- Yes I see both your points. Advocacy duck as a term isn't well-defined, some of the language could be more positive, and the sections would make more sense if they were shifted around. I don't like the duck theme either (including the anatidae section) but I've beaten that theme to death I think. I added the stuff in the self-analysis section about being sure that the reader isn't the problem because otherwise this essay could be used by advocates to argue against editors wanting to preserve npov.
- I've been going through and tightening things up but I'm tending to make a couple of changes and then waiting to see how they're taken, so I'll try to incorporate this feedback if no one else does first. Advocacy and tendentious editing are good essays but I don't see how another one is necessarily bad - as long as the advice it gives is valid and doesn't go against policy. Ca2james (talk) 03:24, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- These pages are built by consensus. I believe this page is necessary. We AGF and AGF and AGF, but sometimes we eventually get the feeling that AGF is not working. This is why dispute noticeboards exist and this article helps editors to identify that help is available. I like the duck analogy. We have an expression in the UK which is similar "If it looks like a turd and smells like a turd...it probably is a turd". I think ducks are a little more appropriate to the WP audience than calling people "turds".
- As for the incorporation of duck (animal) behaviour into the essay, I inserted these for two reasons. First, for education (sorry, but it's an opportunity to enlighten people about animal behaviour which I could not resist). Second, and much more importantly, it helps people remember the patterns of behaviour which this essay discusses. Research into learning shows that if an example is made which stimulates a reader's imagination, the information is much more likely to be committed to long-term memory. Talking about the behaviour of humans in terms of the behaviour of ducks provides such stimulating examples. (There is a third reason but I hardly dare mention it ... they are entertaining and perhaps even humerous.)
- For what it's worth, I believe the duck theme should be strengthened throughout the essay, rather than weakened.
- DrChrissy (talk) 10:28, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- If you want to write about the behaviour of ducks, please do so - in an article about the topic. Complete with sources. In a manner which doesn't make sweeping generalisations about a diverse taxon that exhibits a wide range of behaviour. The 'duck' analogy clearly does nothing to this essay beyond confusing the reader, and making it less readable. And no, 'if it looks like a duck...' (or turd) isn't a lesson we should be applying when discussing advocacy. We should instead be emphasising the exact opposite to the 'judge by immediate appearances' snap judgement this implies. The essay is concocted around a poorly-chosen title, and the structural faults it exhibits are largely in my opinion the consequence of this poor choice. Drop the misleading duck analogy, and start again with an essay that stays on topic - assuming that it can actually add anything to the essay we already have, which in my opinion is yet to be demonstrated. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:59, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- I think the essay is bent over backwards to avoid suggesting snap decisions. I also think the duck theme shows that essays dont have to be dry and boring. We are more likely to have people continue reading it if it is not dry and boring.AlbinoFerret 15:04, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- If it 'bends over backwards to avoid suggesting snap decisions' it is because it has to, since the title implies the exact opposite. And no, readability comes from conciseness and staying on topic, not from diversions into confusing analogies. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:36, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- Not sure where the analogies are confusing - perhaps you would care to give examples?DrChrissy (talk) 15:53, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- Nope - if you can't figure out for yourself why rambling analogies about things you assume the reader doesn't know and presumably isn't reading the essay because they want to learn about are confusing, I really can't be bothered to try to explain. This is only an essay, and I sincerely doubt that it is one that anyone much will consider useful - we already have policies, guidelines and a better essay on the subject of advocacy, and we don't need a rewrite of Aesop's Fables going over the same stuff again. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:02, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- Fair enough - there are clearly no analogies that are so confusing you can be bothered to discuss. End of discussion.DrChrissy (talk) 16:06, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- Nope - if you can't figure out for yourself why rambling analogies about things you assume the reader doesn't know and presumably isn't reading the essay because they want to learn about are confusing, I really can't be bothered to try to explain. This is only an essay, and I sincerely doubt that it is one that anyone much will consider useful - we already have policies, guidelines and a better essay on the subject of advocacy, and we don't need a rewrite of Aesop's Fables going over the same stuff again. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:02, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- Not sure where the analogies are confusing - perhaps you would care to give examples?DrChrissy (talk) 15:53, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- If it 'bends over backwards to avoid suggesting snap decisions' it is because it has to, since the title implies the exact opposite. And no, readability comes from conciseness and staying on topic, not from diversions into confusing analogies. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:36, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- I think the essay is bent over backwards to avoid suggesting snap decisions. I also think the duck theme shows that essays dont have to be dry and boring. We are more likely to have people continue reading it if it is not dry and boring.AlbinoFerret 15:04, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- If you want to write about the behaviour of ducks, please do so - in an article about the topic. Complete with sources. In a manner which doesn't make sweeping generalisations about a diverse taxon that exhibits a wide range of behaviour. The 'duck' analogy clearly does nothing to this essay beyond confusing the reader, and making it less readable. And no, 'if it looks like a duck...' (or turd) isn't a lesson we should be applying when discussing advocacy. We should instead be emphasising the exact opposite to the 'judge by immediate appearances' snap judgement this implies. The essay is concocted around a poorly-chosen title, and the structural faults it exhibits are largely in my opinion the consequence of this poor choice. Drop the misleading duck analogy, and start again with an essay that stays on topic - assuming that it can actually add anything to the essay we already have, which in my opinion is yet to be demonstrated. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:59, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
DrChrissy, no end of discussion, cause it has barely started. Ca2james, thanks for your reply. I am sorry I seem to have offended both camps; predictably the replies drifted off to the metaphor, the ducks. I for one said nothing, nada, nyshta about the ducks, am not against the ducks, not against humor, but the same that you may enjoy creating , which is great in and of itself, isnt very useful so far, sorry, no offense intended. my point in a nutshell again: unbalanced (puts too much weight on self-doubt, the reader) and beating round the bush, or as Albino put it "the essay is bent over backwards to avoid suggesting snap decisions", not coming out with the definition.--Wuerzele (talk) 23:28, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- If you think something is missing, add it Wuerzele. AlbinoFerret 23:37, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- I"m not offended; I see your point (and AndyTheGrump's too). You may have noticed that I've been making some bold structural changes and removing some redundancy to make it better balanced. I think it looks better and flows better, with a tighter focus on what to look for, what isn't advocacy editing, and what to do when you find it (including examining your own edits - which section I'm probably going to reduce). I think including a section on what isn't advocacy editing and how it's different is a useful addition to the essay suite. We'll see what happens. Ca2james (talk) 23:46, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Great collaboration!
Great collaboration results in great work. I walked away intermittently from this essay and focused on prepping a couple of articles for GA and FA. I came back to the essay today, read it, and...WOW! Great job!! A special thank you to DrChrissy, AlbinoFerret, Ca2james, and even Jytdog despite his request to remind him "never to try to be nice again". [3] When my kids were little they used to say mean things like, "I don't love you" or "Leave me alone" and start pouting. I'd just grab them up, give 'em a big ole hug and lots of smooches, and tickle 'em till they laughed. Life is too short to be any other way. Celebrate it! Atsme☯Consult 19:31, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Made some big changes
I've just finished making some big changes to the essay, including moving sections around, renaming sections, deleting quotes, moving quotes, and deleting other information that was repeated. My rationale was based on the idea that it made more sense to have the following sections: "what is advocacy editing?" "what isn't advocacy editing?" "am I the advocate?" "what now?" (named differently, of course). To create those sections, I moved sentences from other sections to put all the same information in one place and then went in and trimmed each section down. I did remove several of the talkquotes, including the one about anatidae, because the behaviours described in that section didn't jibe with the behaviours described in the "what is advocacy editing" section. I also removed the long arbcom quote (which is still linked) because it was ...long and didn't add to the advocacy ducks theme. Also, I removed the Civility template as this is an essay on advocacy, not civility.
Anyways, have a look and see what you think. I understand that the changes may not be popular and I know there's still some tweaking to do, but nothing ventured, nothing gained. Pinging collaborators and those who have commented recently: Atsme, DrChrissy, QuackGuru,AlbinoFerret, Jytdog, David Tornheim AndyTheGrump, Wuerzele. Ca2james (talk) 00:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
- While I appreciate any effort to improve the Project, this essay is not another Advocacy essay. Why an additional Advocacy essay is needed is lost on me, but regardless, this isn't the place to create it. This essay is a response to the problem expressed by Sarah (SV) here. Here is some background. If editors want to claim there is no basis for believing that monied special interests have sunk their teeth into this website, and that they can and should be called out based on behaviour alone ("acts like a duck"), they simply can't be taken seriously. If we allow all of the drama and whining to castrate the essay completely (Stockholm Syndrome?), we are doing a huge disservice to all those families who suffered from the actions of WifiOne, at the very least. petrarchan47คุก 02:18, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
- Another way to describe the difference between what this essay is meant to cover and an Advocacy essay, is that this is a specific type of advocacy, different from the work of an overly-enthusiastic rock climber or an advocate of the Democratic Party. This essay meant is to describe advocacy editing which used to advance the goals of a business/special interest. petrarchan47คุก 02:29, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
- Ca2james, you should have made suggestions and discussed the proposed changes before you made them. I had no issue with moving the sections around, and trimming redundancies but you also removed some of the reasons this essay came to be. As Petrarchan47 stated, it grew from a discussion with a particular goal in mind and we were on track in achieving that goal. Civility does matter as it relates to certain advocacy behaviors. I don't quite understand why you're not seeing that aspect of it. It also appears there may be a misunderstanding with regards to what essays are intended to do. Atsme☯Consult 04:10, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, I figured you wouldn't like these changes but I went ahead anyways.
- This is an essay whose main topic is identifying and dealing with advocacy, right? Advocacy editing is more than incivility: a civil pov-pusher isn't uncivil by definition but still engages in advocacy editing. It doesnty make sense to include the civility template when the essay is not focused on ways to be civil. Besides, the template documentation says
It is probably best to transclude Template:Wikipedia essays instead, as that is better maintained.
Tendentious editing is in the {{Wikipedia essays|building}} section of that template so why not include that to keep that template instead?
- This is an essay whose main topic is identifying and dealing with advocacy, right? Advocacy editing is more than incivility: a civil pov-pusher isn't uncivil by definition but still engages in advocacy editing. It doesnty make sense to include the civility template when the essay is not focused on ways to be civil. Besides, the template documentation says
- As for the rest of the changes, the title was changed from COI to advocacy in this third version. There was nothing in the essay about focusing on or identifying COI editors before I made these changes.
- Moreover, there's no way to focus on COI editing because there's no way to determine whether an editor has a COI. And even if an editor has one that we know of, unless they say something about it we can't say anything about it because we're not allowed to out them. A COI editor is uncovered by looking for advocacy editing. That's how Wifione was discovered - her COI was the reason behind the advocacy editing.
- Now, I do suspect that a paid advocate and an editor passionate about a topic engage in slightly different editing behaviour even though both are engaged in advocacy editing. However, there's no data on that so we can't say that COI editors do this while passionate editors do that. Well, except for the pharma shill gambit, but that's based on a logical fallacy and may be ignored. So we're kind of stuck with generalities right now, at least until more is known. Ca2james (talk) 05:27, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Actually, I did like a good part of what you did, just not all of it. Editors who have been exposed to advocacy editing or who engage in such activities know full well what's involved and how to the game the system so they remain undetected. I imagine we have a few admins who aren't immune from such behavior. It wasn't that long ago when an admin started acting whack-o with me, but fortunately he was desysopped over another incident around the same time. Surely you don't believe the majority of incidents at ANI and ARBCOM are not related in some way to some form of advocacy, do you? I have been exposed to it at various articles, and I've seen other editors get railroaded and end-up with indef blocks. WP's history is full of such events, and what's really sad is that it's all over the internet. Anyway, I've taken some of the changes you made that were beneficial to the essay and have edited them back in, but I still have a ways to go. Atsme☯Consult 06:22, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
- Agreed. In fact it is happening right now on the organic food page. a double team to prevent me from fixing it as I will be the one banned should I attempt to edit the paragraph again. I have already been warned that my attempt to fix problems on the page is considered by them as edit warring. So I either let the page stay poor quality or I try and fix it and get banned. No win situation. The same group has repeatedly done the same thing to multiple editors. And the big looser is WIKI not me. The page has lost it's good article standing, it has been tagged for bias editing. Nothing ends up happening because a flock of advocacy ducks own the page and are determined to make sure that the organic food page has an anti organic bias. I walked away months ago and when I came back they are still there.Redddbaron (talk) 22:33, 27 April 2015 (UTC)