Wikipedia talk:Conspiracy theory accusations

Identifying conspiracy theorists

The critical feature in distinguishing conspiracy theory based accusations from simple accusations of sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry, and even cabals is that there must be a claim of powerful external entity which has a vested interest in the article(s) on Wikipedia and, therefore, must have agents infiltrating the editing process. Accusations are based on this entity's existence, not any specific activity (e.g. multiple single purpose accounts). The conspiracy theorist shares features with other tendentious editors and vocal advocates, but goes the extra step of attacking the whole collaborative process as "corrupted" when they don't get their way because there is an important "Truth" that the "agents" (any editors who disagree) are burying. Seeing these features should raise warning bells, since such an editor perceives enemies on Wikipedia prior to the first edit.Novangelis (talk) 05:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is excellent. I think something about dismissing policy because it is part of the conspiracy might be apropos... Dbrodbeck (talk) 05:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dismissing policy because the cause is "too important" is not a feature distinct to conspiracy theorists. There are editors with passionate beliefs in causes who simply feel that their cause is exceptional, and consequently believe the rules should be set aside for their special case ("but this is important") without any sinister accusations; there are just those who don't see how important it is (but they will if the message can get out). The approach to some policies is at issue, but I haven't assembled a thorough list. AGF is mentioned. Consensus is dismissed as a legion of conspirators. RS is skewed: reject gold-standard sources because the author must be part of the conspiracy in favor of some website (often personal). I'm going to review some noticeboard encounters and see if I can identify more distinct features that characterize this group in particular. I saw one sockpuppet defense that was roughly, "Yes, I was caught, but only someone working for the evil empire would have had time to catch me." How are the conspiracy theorists different from the merely opinionated, the stubborn, those who see cabals that don't extend beyond the article or Wikipedia, and the crusaders?Novangelis (talk) 06:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would be interesting to collect some real examples of the wordings used by these editors. We've all met them and are currently dealing with some. The constant personal attacks are of the special character described in this essay. Please provide examples and let's include them as examples, keeping in mind that this essay isn't about a special form of personal attack. Please don't be afraid to tweak and improve this essay. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:46, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good points. I think you are all conspiring against me though..... The real examples would be nice. We have a couple of recents for sure. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not fear that kept me from inserting the text. It was paragraph flow. I wanted to put it in early (start with the "who"), but it best fits best before "Often no hope of correction" in the current version. If I drop it in front of "Basic assumptions" the section will be colored by the introduction of the problem and will need a heavy rewrite. As it stands, the paragraph is written from the "all else being equal" standpoint. If I state how things are not equal, the tone requires change, starting with calling it "Basic assumptions", which pretty much demands first position, being vaguely synonymous with "Introduction". Starting with "Identifying" changes the tone of the essay and I can't decide if it is for the better.Novangelis (talk) 15:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your first paragraph contains some very basic essentials to identifying exactly which type of editor we're talking about, and the nature of their manner of identifying and describing their imagined adversaries here. You are so right. Please include it somewhere early in the essay. I have tweaked the lead to something in that direction, but it needs more expansion somewhere in the body. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done, and expanded to include a pattern of escalation.Novangelis (talk)

Excellent! -- Brangifer (talk) 20:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to sample quotes, they should should be taken from stable archives so that referencing is stable. No more than one quote should be used from any editor (and any suspected sockpuppets), and they should be from a variety of topics where there are documented conspiracy theories. Good sampling would be better for illustration. Using a limited sample of editors may sensitize essay readers to their idiosyncrasies than the problem at large.Novangelis (talk) 18:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...and preferably users that have reached indefinite block for their behavior and are unlikely to be unblocked.Novangelis (talk) 21:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some minor issues and a suggestion

Nothing at Wikipedia, including the sacred and supreme NPOV policy, can function properly in an uncollaborative atmosphere. That's because collaboration and dispute resolution are more important than content contributions in a wiki community.

That reasoning somehow doesn't feel right - content contributions are a vital part of writing an encyclopedia, and if an editor decides to provide sources (preferrably on the talk page) but doesn't want to go beyond that, that's OK as long as they accept that not all of their suggestions, or sometimes none of them, will be included in the end. I'd change that to simply say “That's because Wikipedia is a thoroughly collaborative project, so if there's a dispute, it has to be resolved in a collaborative way.” --Six words (talk) 08:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I took the second sentence from the Wikipedia:Collaboration first essay. It's an exact quote, but copying the rest would make it clearer. We aren't bound by it and are free to tweak this essay. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have simply copied the rest which makes it plainer why those things are more important than content contributions. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Such persons are often immune to cognitive dissonance and cannot be reasoned with. Fortunately this condition isn't necessarily lifelong, since people sometimes experience life altering experiences, traumas, [...]

Two points:

First, I often think those people are actually a lot better at dealing with cognitive dissonance - while they come here to contribute and share their knowledge, if they don't succeed, they'll just tell you that wikipedia isn't taken seriously by anyone anyway and they have bigger, better things to do than wasting their time here. What they seem to be immune to, however, is third opinions, good arguments and pretty much everything the community has to offer for dispute resolution as long as it contradicts their views.
Second, when I hear/read “trauma”, I always associate it with (severe) physical injury, so saying “Fortunately people sometimes experience traumas” (paraphrased) sounds terribly wrong in my head, but maybe that's because as a foreign speaker I tend to take things literally.

Six words (talk) 08:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By "immune to cognitive dissonance", I mean that they don't see the logical inconsistencies in their own beliefs. They can hold mutually exclusive POV and not be aware of it. Other people will seek a resolution to the discomfort and either choose to believe one or the other, or they may seek unhealthy means of dealing with it, such as denial. If you can find a better way of saying it, give it a try. It may simply be unnecessary to say it at all. Maybe something else entirely would be better and less confusing.

As to "traumas", I think "crises" would be a better word there. Thanks. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have revised all the above. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, I suggest to add a “see also” section that links to ~~all the~~ some relevant policies/guidelines as well as some other essays like WP:AXE, WP:FANATIC, WP:KEEPCOOL or WP:CALM. --Six words (talk) 08:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I actually had such a list in my sandbox version and decided against it, but I do like it and we can restore and develop it. This is an essay, not an article, and it is not governed by the same MoS and policy rules as articles.

I took the liberty of refactoring your indents to make it easier to see and separate the elements in your paragraph. Then I copied your signature to each element so they can be answered easier as separate threads. I hope you don't mind. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, I think it's a lot easier that way. --Six words (talk) 20:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overly specific?

Do we really need an essay on such a specific behavior? I agree that this is an overlooked problem that should be taken much more seriously, but I wonder if a slightly more general topic might be better. WP:COI says almost nothing on the general problems of how to properly make coi accusations, the consequences of making coi accusations without grounds for doing so, and how to respond to improper coi accusations. Even if the topic of this essay is kept as is, WP:COI needs to address these general problems. --Ronz (talk) 22:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is an essay, and they can often serve as a testing ground for new ideas, or place to experiment with existing ones. Maybe some part of this will eventually be worded so good that the part will make it into policy. I hope so. Let's keep on playing in this alchemist's lab. We may be able to distill a new element that can be added to the Wikipedia Periodic Table of Polices and Guidelines.

-- Brangifer (talk) 03:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like it, and I'd love to see it get promoted. It's a real problem, especially during the political silly season. Some people can't accept that others can look dispassionately at an issue and disagree with what you say; it must be because you're one of Them! The essay succinctly identifies this attitude and all the bits of policy it trods on. Perhaps having this specific pattern in one place will help open eyes that wouldn't be convinced by the various individual policies themselves. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 23:09, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Props! This is much needed.

I am an interested, outside observer and, for what it is worth, I approve of this message. 208.125.237.242 (talk) 19:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit correlation / Conspiracy detection

I submit that Wikipedia is at the mercy of "edit rings" already because it tends to cover extremely sensitive topics. I feel that this page or a page it links to should become a portal for studies (academic or otherwise) involving statistics and data processing, with the ultimate goal of imputing rogue editing processes or programs carried on by various organizations. I'm sure that the various intelligence agencies are already hard at work on such tools, but the general public needs open source tools that perform largely the same analysis.

It should be possible to arrive at standards that allow editors to assert with confidence and evidence that "X,Y, and Z are the same with 99.9% confidence". For this we would need a statistical model of Wikipedia edits.

Wikipedia became internationally famous some time before serious "big data" hardware became very very cheap, so I think it would be prudent to revisit the landscape of tools that can help individuals collect information that could corroborate such accusations.

I believe that Wikipedia will be a victim in the information arms race if it turns a blind eye to conspiracies. 173.239.78.54 (talk) 00:44, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]