Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:How to increase Wikipedia's credibility

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 95.12.119.26 (talk) at 11:32, 24 June 2023 (→Brilliant essay: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Critique

I have invited a number of quality editors and welcome their critique here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:58, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mention COVID articles?

Since you mentioned Veracity of statements by Donald Trump, you might also consider something like Statistics of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States, considering especially how many people in the early pandemic believed the virus was entirely a hoax and did not trust government health agency reporting or predictions (see section: "Death projections"), though there was indeed credible information to be had, which is something Wikipedia helped with, IMO. Tuckerlieberman (talk) 00:00, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Opening sentence

A small style suggestion: Begin with a brief description of the problem, even if only one sentence? For example, using material that's currently in the 3rd paragraph, you could start the essay with: "Falsehoods, pseudoscience, and conspiracy theories damage Wikipedia's credibility." Then the reader will have more context for understanding your solution. Tuckerlieberman (talk) 00:09, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Excellent suggestion. Thanks. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:10, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think this was a good suggestion, but I would modify it slightly. I think the overall article should begin with more broad statements, and then narrow down to a description of the precise problem. As in most essays, we have to bring our readers (editors) in to agree with the major premises before we start laying out the logic.
So I would modify from:
Falsehoods, pseudoscience, and conspiracy theories damage Wikipedia's credibility, and research shows that Wikipedia gains credibility by being an active fact-checker and anti-fringe. When fringe editors leave Wikipedia it becomes more trustworthy. Our articles should leave no doubt as to what is factual and what is false or unproven. Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia and always strives to report facts as found in reliable sources (RS).
to:
Research shows that Wikipedia gains credibility by being an active fact-checker and anti-fringe. Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia and always strives to report facts as found in reliable sources (RS). Our articles should leave no doubt as to what is factual and what is false or unproven. Falsehoods, pseudoscience, and conspiracy theories damage Wikipedia's credibility, and when fringe editors leave Wikipedia it becomes more trustworthy. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 15:14, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sweet! I'll use that. I like your thinking. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:32, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would also add some citations to some of these statements, because i agree with them, but we want to make sure they're able to convince others as well, especially those who may initially disagree. So here's some citations I would add:
  • Research shows that Wikipedia gains credibility by being an active fact-checker and anti-fringe.[4][8]
  • Falsehoods, pseudoscience, and conspiracy theories damage Wikipedia's credibility[12]
Sources

  1. ^ Okoli, Chitu; Mehdi, Mohamad; Mesgari, Mostafa; Nielsen, Finn Årup; Lanamäki, Arto (8 July 2014). "Wikipedia in the eyes of its beholders: A systematic review of scholarly research on Wikipedia readers and readership". Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65 (12). Wiley: 2381–2403. doi:10.1002/asi.23162. ISSN 2330-1635.
  2. ^ Jullien, Nicolas (2012). "What We Know About Wikipedia: A Review of the Literature Analyzing the Project(s)". HAL Open Science. ffhal-00857208f: 86. Retrieved 22 June 2023.
  3. ^ Smith, Denise A. (18 February 2020). "Situating Wikipedia as a health information resource in various contexts: A scoping review". PLOS ONE. 15 (2). Public Library of Science (PLoS): e0228786. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0228786. ISSN 1932-6203.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
  4. ^ Several systematic and narrative reviews in the scholarly literature have described Wikipedia's credibility among scholars and experts and connected it to our robust content policies, including our medical sources guideline and other policies which appropriately restrict fringe content.[1][2][3]
  5. ^ "Wikipedia is 20, and its reputation has never been higher". The Economist. 9 January 2021. Retrieved 22 June 2023.
  6. ^ Cooke, Richard (17 February 2020). "Wikipedia Is the Last Best Place on the Internet". Wired. Retrieved 22 June 2023.
  7. ^ Steinwehr, Uta; Bushuev, Mikhail (14 January 2021). "Wikipedia's 20, but how credible is it? – DW – 01/14/2021". dw.com. Retrieved 22 June 2023.
  8. ^ Several highly trustworthy news sources extoll the reliability of Wikipedia, and connect it to our robust content policies, including our anti-pseudoscience guideline and other related policies.[5][6][7]
  9. ^ Harrison, Stephen (5 April 2023). "Wikipedia's "Supreme Court" to Review Polish-Jewish History During WWII". Slate. Retrieved 22 June 2023.
  10. ^ "Climate change: Conspiracy theories found on foreign-language Wikipedia". BBC News. 19 November 2021. Retrieved 22 June 2023.
  11. ^ Ward, Justin (12 March 2018). "Wikipedia wars: inside the fight against far-right editors, vandals and sock puppets". Southern Poverty Law Center. Retrieved 22 June 2023.
  12. ^ Several well-publicized incidents over the years have highlighted what happens when our anti-fringe theories and other content guidelines fail to live up to their stated goals.[9][10][11]

— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 15:33, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now added. I hope I did it right. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:04, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Final sentence of lead

Thanks for writing this, Valjean. I have a question about the final sentence of the lead section, "Administrators should act quicker to protect Wikipedia from these editors." Reading that, I expected to find something below about administrators and how sometimes they don't act quickly enough, in general or specific terms. But admins are actually not mentioned again. How/When should they act more quickly? Bishonen | tålk 01:23, 22 June 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Bishonen, there I violated the rules for a lead, even though this is an essay. I guess I could develop that theme. Do you have any suggestions? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:32, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure it's for admins to take a leading role with respect to fringe content, or that they rate a specific mention at all. The rest of the essay is purely about the result we all need to work for, and in general about how to achieve it (be factual, "hobble" fringe editors), and not about our particular roles. If admins should act in a particular way, how about talking about what experienced editors should specifically do, what ArbCom should do, and so on? It's not that kind of essay. Consider losing the "admins" sentence. See also Hob Gadling's point below. Bishonen | tålk 07:38, 22 June 2023 (UTC).[reply]
I find your comments compelling and have just gotten rid of that (only) mention of admins. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:49, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quicker

Administrators should act quicker to protect Wikipedia from these editors. This is not a sustainable wording. After admins accelerate this sort of protection (because of this essay or for other reasons), the essay should not tell them to act even faster than that, and faster the next day, and so on, because it still says "quicker!" It should be Administrators should act fast to protect Wikipedia from these editors. An alternative would be to regularly measure the average admin's hobbling speed and replace the sentence as soon as the desired value has been achieved, but that would be a bit silly.

Otherwise, I cannot find fault. Nice essay. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:49, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I got rid of that (only) mention of admins. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:50, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
After seeing Talk:Children's Health Defense#Is "propaganda" neutral/best word to use?: Is "propaganda" not also one of the terms we should accept when RS use them? --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:56, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Editors are neutral in relation to the RS when their edits are aligned with them. Our job is to relay the message from RS. We state the facts and attribute their opinions. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 06:22, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hob Gadling, I mention falsehoods, pseudoscience, and conspiracy theories. Other loaded terms like "propaganda" and "disinformation" could also be mentioned. The research mentioned "debunked myths and controversies". Loaded terms that are easily seen as very biased are often used by RS, so when a source uses such terms, so can we. When in doubt, just attribute it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:59, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Significant development

I have added quite a bit more. Take a look. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:30, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Facts and opinions are not the same, and facts must win.

I think this sentiment is good but the wording could be refined. Facts should win out but it's not that opinions are losing either. Just facts need to override and take precedence. Right? Andre🚐 17:25, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Also, mainstream opinions that are most aligned with the facts have more due weight. Politically speaking, at just this time in American history, left-wing opinions fill that role, largely due to Trump capturing the GOP and right-wing media and dragging it all beyond the reach of facts and truth. He has built a bubble that keeps them in the dark.
At another time in history it could be the left that abandons truth. Politics is more wedded to power, and neither the right nor left have a patent on truth. Neither is immune to leaders who manipulate them and lie to them.
Feel free to develop all those thoughts into a coherent section and install it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:52, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Central to this is that Wikipedia is written by amateurs who may dabble in many fields, but we must be good and studious reference librarians when we refer to the academic consensus and the best expertise based on their commitment to fact-checking and authoritative reputations. So we have to resist the urge to engage in armchair analysis and make sure to defer the opinions to the experts, based on their peers' and other experts vetting those experts. That is the underpinnings of modern rationality and science, namely, that since things are sufficiently complex for any one person to know everything, we will find the best expertise from the sources in every field and represent them proportionately to their prominence. I've always thought the wiki-jargon word prominence was a reference to reliability and weight and not simply quantity of references, as well. Andre🚐 22:37, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Open for editing, but just here

My intentions with these discussions are to bulletproof the essay enough for it to be removed from my userspace and go public. Let's keep improving it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:45, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now that we have a solid group of mainstream editors here, I trust their collective wisdom to allow more direct editing, so go for it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:06, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate titles

  • Wikipedia's credibility (current)
  • Wikipedia is mainstream and anti-fringe

Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:56, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do prefer the latter if only for an interim title under the rationale that it's more descriptive. Because central to the essay is not Wikipedia's credibility but more like Wikipedia's commitment to neutrality and mainstreamness. It's similar to the principle of least surprise and WP:LEADNOTFOLLOW Andre🚐 22:34, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We already have several pages with titles similar to the second, or at least ones that could just as well have exactly that title without changing much. This one differs from them by pointing out that such efforts improve Wikipedia's credibility and quoting research to that effect. So, it emphasizes a new aspect that could be hidden from readers if it is not in the title. I fear that people will think, "oh, it's just another one of those skeptic essays" and not read it. Maybe combine both: "Mainstream focus and Wikipedia's credibility" or something like that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:23, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Increasing credibility is the main point, and the method is a commitment to neutrality and mainstreamness. So Wikipedia:How to increase Wikipedia's credibility might be better. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 13:37, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I like that one. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:39, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done (but still in user space.) -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:04, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like an improvement. Andre🚐 17:06, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "How to increase Wikipedia's credibility" is the focus. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:11, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spade

There's a WP:SPADE essay, which I just linked to, but you've also got a link to the Call a spade a spade article. I left it as is but I did see that after I added it Andre🚐 18:41, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hobble and control

I worry about the "hobble" and "control" language. I think it's likely that editors citing this essay could have the terms tossed back at them. "You think other editors should be hobbled and controlled?" Essay-space is definitely a place for metaphor, but I think the section would be stronger with plain reference to our blocking policy, guidelines like WP:DE, and other essays like WP:POVPUSH. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:54, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do admit that tact has never been my strong point. Other language would probably be better. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:09, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have used the word "oppose". -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:17, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As perhaps a fellow traveler when it comes to bluntness in lack of sugarcoating things, while the original language didn't bug me, I can see FFF's point. I do like the idea that you want to "nip it in the bud" and not let obvious bad actions and activities fester (while AGF if there is nothing discernably amiss). Actually, I think today's admins are better at that then they were 5 years ago. So perhaps we can strengthen it a bit without making it explicitly about kneecapping and crippling people even though we do kind of want to cripple fringe POV-pushing editors' range and ability to push misinformation. What about "stridently oppose"? Andre🚐 04:17, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
More thinking: how about saying something like:

As our blocking policy says, "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia". Beyond just disrupting individual articles and talk pages, research shows that fringe editors damage the overall credibility of Wikipedia.

Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:29, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have added "stridently". FFF, I like your wording, so feel free to install it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:40, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nutshell

I have added "A dominance of anti-fringe editors causes pro-fringe editors to leave, and their loss is a benefit to the project and directly boosts its credibility."

This should be a goal of the opposition. Make fringe editors understand our sourcing policies and source vetting practices. If that doesn't work, then push them out. Disruptive editors are most destructive on talk pages by wasting everyone's time and damaging the project's credibility. They amount to insurrectionists who work from the inside to damage articles and create endless discussions. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:34, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant essay

Nice. Anyone who opposes me (who disagrees with RS) should be removed from the project. This will surely help us to reduce our systemic bias. Brilliant! 95.12.119.26 (talk) 11:32, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:How_to_increase_Wikipedia%27s_credibility&oldid=1161691319"