Jump to content

User talk:Valjean/Essay/How to increase Wikipedia's credibility

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< User talk:Valjean

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 95.12.119.26 (talk) at 16:45, 24 June 2023 (→‎Yes, we are biased against fringe ideas: Reply). 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]

The opening line makes me want to spam tags in: Research shows that Wikipedia gains credibility[with whom?] by...

According to the footnote, the answer is "people who aren't 99% of our readers". Is gaining credibility with a tiny minority (e.g., professional journalists) the goal? Or do we want to seem credible to most readers? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:16, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WhatamIdoing, we want all readers to expect, recognize, and respect credibility at Wikipedia. We want criticism to be limited to purely fringe sources. Journalists, news sources, and researchers use and study this stuff, but ordinary readers also recognize it.
Do you have some concrete wordings that would improve this? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:49, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not really about "wording". The problem is that what signals credibility to scientists and journalists is not what signals credibility to non-scientists and non-journalists.
For example: Let's say that a scientist looks for impressive academic journals in the citations. ("How do I know that this article about the common cold is trustworthy? Because they cited Prof. IM Portant's paper in J. Impressive.") A layperson looks for something that acknowledges the beliefs they held about the subject before they arrived at the article. ("How do I know that the article about the common cold is trustworthy? Because it says that this home remedy is popular, and my family uses that exact home remedy.") Lay readers are also looking for information that is consistent across multiple sites. So, for example, if we [correctly] say that Dextromethorphan is basically useless as a cough suppressant, but Mayo Clinic, WebMD, and Healthline all say that it is a valuable drug that everyone should consider, then we will be perceived as less credible. Credibility doesn't correlate as closely with being correct as one might wish.
Also, lay readers aren't really looking for credibility. They're looking for utility. A site (any site) could be completely non-credible and still be useful to the reader (e.g., by mentioning the name of that thing I can't remember right now, and now that I've got the name, I can search for the information I'm really after).
I think it could be valuable to do a Five whys exercise on why you think Wikipedia should be credible. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:38, 24 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]
I started User:WhatamIdoing/Subjectivity in Wikipedia articles a little while ago, because we're tolerably bad at differentiating between "facts" and "opinions". WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:18, 24 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]

Correct. Wikipedia has a clear systemic bias for RS. We have a RS policy, and we expect all editors to base all content on RS. There is nothing new or radical about that idea. The speculations of fringe editors based on their OR and ideas from unreliable sources are not welcome here. If RS get it wrong, and that does happen, we will revise our content based on the corrections found in RS, not the criticisms of them found in unreliable sources. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:48, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are vast amount of RS that give non-Western perspectives on social sciences that are in foreign languages and not easily available to Wikipedians who live in the NA and the EU and often only speak English. I have seen many times editors labeling different perspectives fringe without conducting proper research for this reason. I have seen editors labeling books presenting different perspectives unreliable even without reading such books and making their decision to prohibit them only based on prejudiced opinions and ideological grounds. This essay is a revisionist attempt to negate Wikipedia's core WP:NPOV policy and it is completely illegitimate.
Do you want to prohibit conservative perspectives? Label Fox News, New York Post unreliable. Do you want to prohibit Asian perspectives? Label Russian and Chinese sources unreliable. Who needs different perspectives anyways? 95.12.119.26 (talk) 16:10, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we are biased against fringe ideas

We need a section that deals with:

  1. Define "fringe editors"
  2. List some scientifically fringe ideas
  3. List some medically fringe ideas
  4. List some politically fringe ideas

My definition of "fringe editor" has nothing to do with fuzzy ideas like biases, POV, or the number of people who believe an idea. It has to do with their dubious relationship to our RS policy and their incompetency to vet sources for reliability. That makes the label "fringe editor" policy-based and a legitimate label to use here.

Fringe editors are editors who get their information from unreliable sources and then reveal this fact by (1) derailing/disrupting discussions and (2) seeking to undermine reliably-sourced content and labels in articles. They advocate their ideas, often without citing their sources, likely because they know that those sources are not considered reliable by the Wikipedia community. Note that their disruption is mostly on talk pages, and it is a serious timesink. Disruption on talk pages should be dealt with just as severely and promptly as disruption of articles.

I want to make it clear that we should not label fringe editors as such in talk page discussions, as that can be seen as a personal attack that unnecessarily personalizes things. OTOH, we could do so in drama board situations where accusations are allowed. In those cases, we should be careful to define what we mean.

"Fringe" ideas can be scientific, medical, and political (maybe other topics). Many examples of the first two are found in Guy Macon's great essay User:Guy Macon/Yes. We are biased.

The latter should also be mentioned. My first thoughts on this go to Trumpism and all of his lies that touch on many topics.

Politically fringe ideas:

  • Denials of Russian hacking and election interference
  • Attacks on the Special counsel investigation
  • Claiming the Steele dossier triggered the Crossfire Hurricane investigation
  • Claims dossier is fake or Russian disinformation (the FBI and Horowitz rejected those ideas)
  • Conspiracy theories directed at Biden and Clinton
  • Conspiracy theories directed at Ukraine and for Russia
  • Claims that Trump won the election
  • Claims of election fraud and a stolen election
  • Ideas based on the words Spygate, Russiagate, and Obamagate

Those are just a few. Please comment and add more.

BTW, anyone who hasn't made their views known yet should do so at Talk:Veracity_of_statements_by_Donald_Trump#Requested_move_17_June_2023. A more accurate title will improve the situation.

Controversial subjects

  1. Fringe theories and pseudoscience
  2. Economics/Money
  3. Fact vs Opinion
  4. Politics
  5. Religion
  6. Sexuality

Template {{WP:ACDST}} lists all controversial topics.

Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:28, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some interesting stuff in my talk page and archives:

According to these sections - #A caution issued elsewhere and #Fringe beliefs - fringe editors (partisan editors who get their info from unreliable sources) fail basic competency in several ways, pointing out the need for an official Wikipedia litmus test for competency in the AP2 political arena. There are some facts that are simply too clear to be denied. If an editor fails, then they get topic banned from that arena. We have abundant articles, backed by myriad RS, on this stuff, and they should read and agree with them and their sourcing. They should know better than to edit or disagree with reliably-sourced content.

  1. If they believe Trump is the rightful current president, they fail.
  2. If they believe the election was stolen from Trump, they fail.
  3. If they believe that GOP "election security" measures are anything other than poorly-disguised attempts to suppress the ability of minorities to vote, they fail.
  4. If they believe the Steele dossier was the trigger for the Russian interference investigation, rather than Papadopoulos and Trump's own actions and misdeeds, they fail.
  5. If they believe Trump is the victim of a witch hunt, rather than the target of justified investigations of him shooting himself in the foot as a blatant national security risk and useful idiot for Russian, anti-American, interests, they fail.
  6. If they believe Trump can remain completely honest in no more than 4-5 sentences of his own creation, they fail.

They are simply too ignorant of the facts and do not vet sources well enough to know the difference between mainstream reliable sources and fringe, partisan, sources. They are putting political spin above what RS say, and that's a dangerous violation of our most basic RS/verifiability policy. They are not qualified to edit in the AP2 arena or any other controversial area. Either block them or topic ban them and let them be WikiGnomes in other areas. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:07, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:37, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is so nice and great of you to decide what we must believe. Thank you! 95.12.119.26 (talk) 16:45, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific method and how we update inaccurate info

The Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory allegation of a Biden-Ukraine quid pro quo has been debunked, IOW we should never leave the impression it might be true or even personally think so. It's not just an unconfirmed allegation (like the peetape allegation) where some lingering doubt may be allowable. This is where we can see how Wikipedia-policy-thinking is similar to scientific skepticism, IOW critical thinking that follows the scientific method. We, like scientists, are obligated to follow the evidence/RS. Until we have better evidence, we continue to believe that the theory of gravity is correct. Until we have better sources and more knowledge, we believe that Biden acted appropriately and that the allegation is just part of Trump's counterfactual cover-up efforts.

Tim Minchin has a great beat poem on critical thinking that contains this quote:

"Science adjusts its views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."

Minchin is both funny and deadly serious. He packages some profound truths in that beat poem. It's worth listening to several times. He contrasts scientific/progressive thinking with unscientific/faith/religious/magical/conservative thinking. SNL is comedy and satire, like The Onion, so we expect truth to be mixed with exaggeration and other comedic tricks. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:30, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Valjean/Essay/How_to_increase_Wikipedia%27s_credibility&oldid=1161722047"