Talk:Cancel culture: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 233: Line 233:
:::::::::Sure, one can find lots of sources using Scholar [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C23&q=%22Cancel+culture%22&btnG=]. Saying that, I think the source by Sarah is fine. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 22:52, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
:::::::::Sure, one can find lots of sources using Scholar [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C23&q=%22Cancel+culture%22&btnG=]. Saying that, I think the source by Sarah is fine. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 22:52, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
::::::::::Even in light of how much opinion this article already contains? [[User:Bacondrum#s|<b style="color: blue;">Bacon</b>]][[User talk:Bacondrum#s|<b style="color: Orange;">drum</b>]] 22:56, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
::::::::::Even in light of how much opinion this article already contains? [[User:Bacondrum#s|<b style="color: blue;">Bacon</b>]][[User talk:Bacondrum#s|<b style="color: Orange;">drum</b>]] 22:56, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
:::::::::::"Cancel culture" is not science, but just an expression that can mean a lot of different things. Therefore, I do not think someone like [[Bari Weiss]] is less qualified to comment about it than authors of [https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0267257X.2020.1806907 this] so called scientific article, for example. This is not quantum mechanics. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 23:05, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:05, 10 March 2021

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2019 and 20 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Odaa7909 (article contribs). This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 September 2020 and 25 October 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sal.hammad21 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Ilovelucy22092.

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 January 2021 and 14 March 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): The Social Experimenter (article contribs). Peer reviewers: AWeis16.

More Examples

Currently, this article lists only two "cancelled" people. Can we start a list of people and discuss proposed edits?

1) Abraham_Lincoln SF school renaming. Charles Juvon (talk) 04:24, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A long list of people tends to attract editors trying to gut the article. And "cancellation" is usually applied to living people. Any additions should only be based on really good sources, like ones listed in green at WP:RSP and that are not opinion/editorial pieces. We really don't want any sort of indiscriminate list. Crossroads -talk- 04:40, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What just happened to my first five people? Is this a Wedge_issue? Charles Juvon (talk) 04:44, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure there's anyone I'd suggest in particular, but I agree this article could definitely use some more examples of allegedly 'cancelled' people or organisations. Currently, both people mentioned are very obscure (one of them doesn't even have a Wikipedia page). I thought the term usually applied to famous people? It's hard to see how someone can be 'cancelled' when nobody's heard of them in the first place... Robofish (talk) 01:03, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree that the examples given are completely random and better examples should be given, but definitely not more. One or two examples is ideal, three or four at most. Bacondrum (talk) 04:38, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is enough of a dogs breakfast and POV battleground without making arbitrary lists. Article already contains far too many indiscriminate and irrelevant examples, opinions and cruft. Many claims are cited to borderline outlets and authors with little or no subject matter expertise. I can't see how adding more cruft would do anything but worsen the quality of this messy, poorly cited and poorly written article. Bacondrum (talk) 04:35, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd suggest the only examples we should give are the most prominent ie: Rosanne Barr, Dave Chapelle and maybe Louis CK or other similar high profile examples...notable cancellations of well known public figures that received widespread coverage. Nothing but the most prominent examples, the current ones are random and obscure and should be replaced with a short list of the most well known and widely reported examples. Now that the media hysteria has died down a little I think we can discern between all the hysteria and hyperbole and work towards a much better article. Bacondrum 06:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the article focus and coverage WP:WEIGHT should be more on topic than individual cases. This would be the nature and means, so would draw more from bits like BBC about it being weaponised and the cost, or Vox on why we fight over doing it, and NY Post on toxic trend and Forbes about it growing worse and NY Times or CBSnews on its history....
As to examples, I think WP:WEIGHT would only lead to a few such as Ellen Degeneres or JK Rowling. Individual cases just seem to get only passin note, such as the 2019 list from CNN and thethings 2020 list. And I would exclude politicians as that might tend to be more about partisan fighting rather than “cancel culture”. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:38, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree with your points, I think if we are to have examples they should be the very notable examples, the current ones are odd choices, random and obscure. I also agree no politicians. I'll create a straw poll for notable examples. Bacondrum 22:42, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notability issues

This article suffers from a lot of issues, but I want to start with the most glaring one, notability. In the examples section we have a random example of Olivia Pierson, someone so obscure they do not even have a Wikipedia article. I think this example needs to be removed in its entirety as per WP:UNDUE.

Same again, in the open letter section, who is Dalvin Brown? Thier views are obviously not due as per WP:UNDUE. I propose removing any reference to this person and their opinion, while the letter may be due for inclusion (I'm not sure that it is, but that's another discussion), this obscure journalist and their opinion is obviously not, IMO. Bacondrum 06:44, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brown's point is in USA Today, a reliable source, so it should be included, short as it is; we're obviously going to discuss that open letter regardless. It's not about him. I don't really care about the Pierson example, but we should have better examples like David Shor. [1] Crossroads -talk- 19:57, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think having an opinion published in USA Today makes that view noteworthy or due. I also think we should replace the entire examples section with notable examples, like Dave Chapelle and Rosanne Barr - rather than random obscure examples. I reckon there's been enough notable examples and there is now wider reportage and better sources discussing this subject, with this in mind I believe we can really get this article into much better shape now. Bacondrum 20:14, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Straw poll regarding examples section

Hi all, as it stands the examples section contains two random and not particularly notable examples of cancellation, some charity guy Nick Buckley and a totally obscure blogger from New Zealand called Olivia Pierson. I think these should be replaced with notable and widely reported examples of cancelled public figures. As per WP:EXAMPLEFARM "at most a few examples about the subject matter under discussion, should suffice." So who? What do other editors think, who are the most notable examples? Which notable cancellations should we include as examples?

Cheers. Bacondrum 23:03, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • A, C and maybe D - Their own articles discuss their "cancellation" (seems like a good benchmark for inclusion), and these "cancellations" were widely reported, they stand out as notable examples to me - high profile celebrities, discussed widely in the media regarding "cancel culture" specifically. Dave Chappelle and Rosanne were particularly notable cases that received widespread media coverage. Bacondrum 23:13, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A, E and maybe F= Gina Carano, Bret Weinstein, Erika Christakis, Greg Patton USC professor. DolyaIskrina (talk) 17:23, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

I have removed the two examples because the sources did not support that they were examples of "cancel culture". I'm not sure that an examples section is needed as it could attract the kind of cherry picking this article saw when originally created (apparently to denounce "cancel culture" on Wikipedia, basically a rehashed "cry censorship" article). —PaleoNeonate – 04:34, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I wasn't game to try and remove them, but they were random and undue to say the least. I'd support removing the section all together, but again I'm not game to be the one who does it. Bacondrum 06:33, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First sentence

The current sentence suggests "cancel culture" is real, rather than an expression used by some who face criticism to denounce it (to self-victimize when facing valid criticism). There are sources supporting this, some were used in a previous version of this article before it was merged and recreated. —PaleoNeonate – 04:41, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A bit difficult to completely follow WP:NOTFORUM here but adding a few details to explain the above: Someone's sales drop because of a boycott (evidence of a boycott, not of a culture of cancellation). Someone promotes harmful health practices or ideas and receives criticism or is not invited to speak again at that venue. Evidence of a deplatforming event? Maybe. Is this political correctness? Probably irrelevant if it's to prevent harm. Hardly evidence of a culture of cancellation. Also, flaming always existed and it may be easier than before to do it for anyone using electronic means, that is also why online shaming was a previously relevant merge target. "Cancel culture" expression advocates call for freedom of speech and cry censorship. Similarly to "academic freedom" when pushed to escape proper peer review, etc. —PaleoNeonate – 05:15, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't agree more, this article has long been an original research and POV nightmare, full of undue and completely random examples, unverifiable claims and random opinion, flimsy sources by random people who are not subject matter experts etc. Bacondrum 06:29, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Problem material does show up here, but it gets reverted in due time, and vague complaining won't help. Crossroads -talk- 07:06, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I'll get specific below. I hope you can see I've learnt from my problems in the past and we can have a civil discussion about the issues with this article. Bacondrum 00:23, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article has many sources discussing cancel culture as a phenomenon, as well as a few criticizing the concept. But that isn't grounds for changing the lead sentence per WP:DUE. We have many sources from qualified academics like psychologists, etc. At the risk of FORUMing some more, as for the idea that cancellation and similar behavior only happens to people who deserve it, well, that isn't true: [2][3][4] Crossroads -talk- 07:06, 2 March 2021 (UTC) Added example. Crossroads -talk- 18:36, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DUE does not support the current state of the article in the way you're suggesting. Simply noting that the contributors to the article have collected opinions from many people supporting one framing does not make that framing more notable or correct than other framings. The article should acknowledge the phrase as it is commonly discussed: acknowledging that a large portion of society has no concern for the perceived phenomenon and questions that it even meaningfully exists. Dfsghjkgfhdg (talk) 00:26, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did not mean that every target of criticism deserves it, but that noone is immune to it and its consequences (that is nothing new, with exceptions in some regimes where some people are above criticism, by law and enforcement), criticism is also part of free expression (and of course consumers can select where to buy when choice exists), of debates, of politics, of the scientific process, etc. By extension, "cancel culture" as used in complaints is also expression and can be presented as such. I just noticed the lead changes and think it's an improvement in the right direction, —PaleoNeonate – 20:38, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Related article

Just pointing out at another related article, Deplatforming. —PaleoNeonate – 04:41, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I reckon a small subsection on this neologism in the deplatforming article would make a lot more sense than dedicating an article to this subject, but heaven help the editor who tries to treat this neologism as the (already past its used by date) conservative talking point it actually is. Bacondrum 06:38, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Barack Obama, notoriously conservative and well loved by the right-wing. Anyway, really, while they are related and sometimes overlapping concepts, they are in fact distinct. There are numerous sources on it as well as criticism of the concept by moderates and even some on the left; that it also gets abused by some on the right-wing is irrelevant (and Wikipedia doesn't promote a left-wing POV anyway). Crossroads -talk- 07:13, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Could not agree more. This article has some very fundamental issues in its framing of the topic from the get-go. The phrase does not describe new behavior; only a new spin by certain contingents of the population. Dfsghjkgfhdg (talk) 00:21, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
damn right Dfsghjkgfhdg. Bacondrum 02:37, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Serious issues with sourcing

So I hope we can have a calm and civil discussion about sourcing in this article. I've been told that vague complaining is useless, so I'm going to get very specific - I'm sure I've got some of this wrong and am happy to be corrected and discuss. There's so many issues with this article - I personally think cancel culture is just a right-wing talking point, a flavour of the month neologism, but that's my opinion. The most glaring issue here is the sourcing and the way it is being interpreted.

Op-eds, analysis and opinion pieces

We have a lot of undue opinion and analysis. So, the following are problematic opinion and analysis citations (numbered so you can get an idea of just how poorly cited this article appears to be):

*3 - Online survey (not reliable at all)https://web.archive.org/web/20200722192513/https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000173-7326-d36e-abff-7ffe72dc0000 Turns out this is a quality poll conducted by an organisation, Morning Consult with a reputation for accuracy.

That's 17 Op-eds, analysis and opinion pieces, when really they should be used more sparingly.

Predatory publishers

We have one cite to a predatory publisher

evidence: [5]

Tertiary sources (Dictionaries)

We cite two dictionaries, which are [tertiary sources], so they can be used as reliable sources in limited situations, but these are not actually dictionary entries, rather they are web supplementary pages. These do not appear to be reliable sources, they seem to be more akin to blog entries:

Blogs

Reviews

Letters

I think this letter is given far more weight than it deserves

Not sure about these sources

  • Couldn't find much about this publisher, but looks legit.

https://hcommons.org/deposits/item/hc:33351/

  • This seems like pretty crappy outlet, I don't know anything about it.

https://www.goodmorningamerica.com/culture/story/dixie-chicks-talk-cancel-culture-17-years-blacklisted-69617700

Reliable sources

Academic

Now to get to the sources that are actually rock solid reliable sources:

News

Survey

- Online survey - https://web.archive.org/web/20200722192513/https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000173-7326-d36e-abff-7ffe72dc0000]]

And one more thing

This: "Cancel culture (or call-out culture) is a modern form of ostracism Cancel culture (or call-out culture) is a modern form of ostracism" Says who? Bacondrum 00:28, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just went through every source in the lede and none mention ostracism. Is there a source that describes Cancel culture as "a modern form of ostracism" or something similar anywhere in the article, I started going through and I've found nothing thus far, have I missed it? I didn't think we could make unverifiable claims like that, especially in the opening sentence, but I'm happy to be corrected. Bacondrum 04:29, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We're supposed to summarize sources in our own words, so there's no need to find a source that uses the term "ostracism", because clearly that's what's being discussed. But if you need one, Bari Weiss uses it (see below). SarahSV (talk) 06:17, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The first sentence in general isn't so good. "Ostracism" strikes me as either too specific or off the mark. The formulation "modern form of ostracism" calls back to the "old form" of ostracism, which is actually kicking someone out of town. That's not actually happening, of course. I guess we could play with that metaphor if we're specifically talking about, say, a Twitter account, but using our own metaphors doesn't seem particularly helpful when trying to summarize a contentious subject. Otherwise, what does it mean to "ostracize" a television show or song? If people complain but nothing is done, is it still a modern form of ostracism? The very next sentence says "cancel" means "stop giving support". That doesn't sound like ostracism. If we need to rely on Bari Weiss for sourcing our first sentence, that's not a great sign.
Which brings me to the rest of the first sentence: "in which someone is thrust out of social or professional circles – whether it be online, on social media, or in person." So far we're calling it ostracism and then defining ostracism rather than cancel culture. There's nothing here about why people are being forced out, for example. It also isn't clear that "cancel culture" is to "holding people accountable by going after their platform/job" what "political correctness" is to "not using offensive language". I.e. it's nearly always a pejorative. This material is already in the lead, but displaced by the "ostracism" introduction. I've had a go at moving it around/rewriting it. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:42, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted those changes, as the new lead seemed almost to justify it. SarahSV (talk) 20:47, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can you elaborate (or respond to what I wrote)? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:58, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you google ostracize and cancel, you'll find lots of sources. I'm in the process of looking at them. I'm not sure I understood your point. SarahSV (talk) 21:21, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Rhododendrites wholeheartedly, I don't think Cancel culture is a form of ostracism, the recent hoo-ha about Dr Suess for example, how does one ostracise a book? It was "cancelled", recalled, taken out of print, that's not ostracism, yet it's being widely described as the latest victim of cancel culture in the media [[6]] I think ostracism is a loaded word in this context and not NPOV or verifiable and the metaphor conjures images of something far more severe than being boycotted, like Themistocles being ostracised from athens. Rhododendrites version is more even handed and accurate "cancel culture" is a pejorative term for boycotts, deplatforming etc. Ostracism makes it sound like they've been expelled from the city walls, to wander the badlands in a desperate struggle for survival, unable to ever return for fear of death :D. Bacondrum 21:45, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What I was most hoping for elaboration on is the rationale for the revert that it "seemed to almost justify it." Justify what? The phenomenon of "withdrawing support" using boycotts, public shaming, and calls for consequences for public figures whose actions or language people find offensive? The expression used primarily to criticize those activities as part of a "woke" agenda that threatens free speech? Or are we operating under the assumption that the subject here is something like, borrowing a term and trope which serves a similar purpose, "political correctness run amok", and that we should be describing it as such? The latter would make sense if we're prioritizing sources like opinion pieces by Bari Weiss in Deseret News, but not if we're primarily looking at the best sources (either in the article or not yet in the article). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:29, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I think this is the core problem with the large number of opinions and analysis citations we use. The article reads as opinionated rather than NPOV. We have so many academic papers on this now (which we didn't have earlier on in the articles development), I think we can and should upgrade a lot of the opinionated sources and claims and instead cite and reflect academic sources (especially seeing how controversial and difficult to define this topic can be). Bacondrum 23:05, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article describes the history of it. SarahSV (talk) 23:24, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and to support your reversion, this was majorly POV. It indeed justifies the practice by claiming that it is mere "accountability" (opponents and observers of extreme examples might be more inclined to call it bullying or harassment) and that what the person is getting canceled for was in fact offensive, when only a few people are calling it so.
Anyone who's thinking that cancellation only happens to actual bigots should read this: [7] This source can and should be used in the article; "call in" and "calling out" are different terms for the same phenomenon of cancellation. Crossroads -talk- 05:26, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

This is the same exact same WP:TE approach that got you in trouble before; politeness alone was never the issue. See the first and second ANI threads on this matter; both note that you were tendentiously trying to cut the material on this topic down to basically nothing. The second one led to you being blocked from Online shaming for 3 months, which is where this material used to reside. You also promised there, I won't be editing the article or commenting on it any further. The same issue is evident in the analysis above, including labeling of sources as op-eds that are not, disparaging dictionaries as sources, disparaging the perfectly valid Politico survey, and use of WP:UNDUE as a cudgel to remove WP:Reliable sources (UNDUE only applies if the view in the source is far outweighed by other sources because it is about the weight of reliable sources; it alone cannot exclude reliably sourced views entirely). That you are not familiar with the authors of some of these reliable sources is not relevant. If there a few clearly garbage sources, then fine, those can go. But the fact is that the vast majority of what is listed above are WP:Reliable sources, period. It's also evident by now that most editors do not agree with your years-long approach to this topic, so you may want to read WP:SATISFY. Regarding I personally think cancel culture is just a right-wing talking point, a flavour of the month neologism, abuse of the concept by right-wing pundits doesn't invalidate what other sources, the 153 signers of the Harper's Letter, and people like Barack Obama say, and it can hardly be flavor-of-the-month when it's been around for years. Crossroads -talk- 03:48, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So you're not willing to discuss, just to attack me? Please remove the personal attacks and discuss content. I really hoped you and me could discuss rather than just fight. Bacondrum 04:15, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Picking up on one point Crossroads said, can you explain why you disputed 3 in op-eds as "Online survey (not reliable at all)"? I had a look at the source and it looks to me like a typical professional Opinion poll with attempted to adjust for sample bias etc. It may be conducted online, I don't know, but your description makes it sound like it's some sort of Open-access poll i.e. it's just a tally of results on a poll on their website which this doesn't seem to be. Looking further, I see from our article Morning Consult, it does seem their political political has been noted to be extremely accurate in the past. I don't know whether the particular poll involved is equally well respected, but the issue is surely nothing to do with whether it's online but whether their methodology is sufficiently robust. As our article attests, opinion polls however they are conducted are always imperfect. In particular, my understanding is polling of this sort, whether telephone, online, whatever is always questionable since there's basically no way to test the accuracy of results unlike election polling where you regularly get to check how accurate you were. (You get similar problems with polls on referendums they are often far less reliable than polls on candidates or parties.) Even if the poll is acceptable, this doesn't mean it has to be included. In other words, there could be reasoned arguments over whether it should be included. But I can understand the frustration with your analysis if your reasons for dismissing it seem flawed or misleading. Nil Einne (talk) 11:06, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nil Einne, thanks for your response regarding the online survey. That's exactly what I wanted to ascertain, the quality and type of poll we were using, polls are always a red flag for me as so many are conducted in a dubious manner (online polls etc.). I can see now that this is a high quality poll and is perfectly fine. I believe all the sourcing in this article should be reviewed in light of how many opinions, op-eds, analysis, predatory publishers, blogs etc are used. My aim is to have a civil conversation about the sources, separate the wheat from the chaff (I'm not willing to discuss myself or any other editors as per policy) - I think the sourcing at this article should be reviewed, that is all, nothing sinister. Thanks again. Bacondrum 22:16, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that tertiary sources above are actually important and should be used (because they summarize consensus of secondary sources), and many other "news" or "opinion" sources are also good and can be used for this subject. My very best wishes (talk) 01:10, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi My very best wishes I think we rely excessively on op-eds, opinion and analysis as is. I'm not opposed to citing some opinion and analysis, but we currently cite around half the article to these kinds of sources. This is a contentious subject, I believe we can and should be using better quality sourcing here, plus we can probably thin some of these without removing the claims as there are multipul citations in some cases. Bacondrum 22:16, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The two dictionary entries are not actually dictionary entries, they are more like blog posts: [8] and [9] plus we cite two actual blogs, I believe these [10], [11] should be removed per WP:BLOGS. Bacondrum 22:26, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One last thing, "other "news" or "opinion" sources are also good and can be used for this subject." which ones specifically? We can give them a look over and move the good ones into the reliable section. Bacondrum 22:31, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Predatory publisher - So what do editors think of this source:

https://www.igi-global.com/chapter/calling-in-not-calling-out/163988 According to this paper it is a predatory publisher: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11019-016-9740-3 Any thoughts PaleoNeonate, Nil Einne and My very best wishes Bacondrum 03:15, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given large number of publications in this area, focusing on academic sources (not predatory of course) is a good idea. My very best wishes (talk) 14:52, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So, My very best wishes do you think the article I mention above is published by a predatory publisher? I really want to know what other editors think of these sources. This paper seems to be saying that the publisher, igi-global, is a predatory publisher https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11019-016-9740-3 what do you think? Bacondrum 21:54, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like they might do some stuff with compiling books as a "vampire" press to increase the number of places someone can say they are published, but in general their journal offerings look reasonable. It's not a normal "vanity" press in that they don't charge the submitter for publishing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:02, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Protected

There's far too much disruptive editing going on here the last day or two. I've protected the page so that only confirmed editors can edit. I notice 2 editors don't agree on some things, but there's discussion going on here (talk page), so I won't interrupt that. Hopefully halting the IP editing for a day or so will help everyone get things ironed out. — Ched (talk) 11:35, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bari Weiss

For anyone working on this, Bari Weiss discusses cancel culture in a recent op-ed for Deseret News:

The liberal worldview that we took for granted in the West from the end of the Cold War until only a few years ago is under siege. It is under siege on the right by the rapid spread of internet cults and conspiracy theories. One need look no further than Rep. Majorie Taylor Greene, an unabashed QAnon believer just elected to Congress.

On the left, liberalism is under siege by a new, illiberal orthodoxy that has taken root all around, including in the very institutions meant to uphold the liberal order. And cancellation is this ideology’s most effective weapon. [12]

SarahSV (talk) 18:21, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is exactly what the article needs less of, highly opinionated and partisan opinion. It would make a terrible addition and only serve to make the article less NPOV, IMO. Citing large amounts of op-eds, opinion and analysis is the wrong way to treat a contentious subject like this. Bacondrum 23:11, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think a scholarly source is if not opinion and analysis? SarahSV (talk) 23:33, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This talk page is already getting a bit unwieldy. Perhaps we don't need a tangent on the elements of scholarship vs. opinion pieces in order to agree that scholarship is preferable to opinion pieces for statements of fact, and should generally be given more weight. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:56, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I won't get into it too much, but it is fairly easy to answer that question. Scholarship applies far higher standards for veracity, standards that opinion and op-eds do not, peer review, editorial oversite etc. News articles apply higher standards than op-eds opinion and analysis, these are lowest quality reliable sources available, that's why claims in them must be attributed and why they should be used sparingly. Our guidelines acknowledge this WP:SCHOLARSHIP "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources" It's similar to the standards for citations at university...at least it is here in Australia. Bacondrum 00:04, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You should quote the whole thing: "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. However, some scholarly material may be outdated, in competition with alternative theories, or controversial within the relevant field. Try to cite current scholarly consensus when available, recognizing that this is often absent. Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications. Deciding which sources are appropriate depends on context." SarahSV (talk) 00:49, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you could do that too, or just follow the link I posted, you get the picture anyways. Aquillion explains the difference between peer reviewed academia and opinion better than I can below. Bacondrum 00:52, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we're talking peer-reviewed papers or the like, scholarly sources (in theory) have rigorous fact-checking applied by uninvolved, independent reviewers the peer-review process, ensuring accuracy for statements and assumptions they make. f someone wanted to make sweeping statements about modern culture in one, the reviewers would require that that be at least tentatively backed up by their sources and the results of their resource. An opinion piece has fewer such constraints, and sometimes none at all (even the NYT has outright said they do not fact-check for accuracy) - the author can freely invent apocryphal tales, provide no references for them, and even (as in the piece you referenced) make sweeping statements grounded solely in their personal feelings, with no basis at all beyond that. That doesn't always make them useless (especially when written by an expert in the field or someone else whose opinion is manifestly noteworthy), but talking heads like Weiss are very rarely WP:DUE in that fashion. Axe-grindy, fact-light culture-war "my ideological enemies will be the downfall of Western Civilization" pieces like this are less about presenting a grounded argument, position, or perspective and more about waving verbal battle-flags for the faithful and unleashing fusillades of zingers. --Aquillion (talk) 00:17, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, as always you explain these things far better than I can. Bacondrum 00:49, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Acquillion, you have an extremely idealistic view of scholarship: "scholarly sources (in theory) have rigorous fact-checking applied by uninvolved, independent reviewers". "In theory" is right. In practice, not, especially not in an area like this. SarahSV (talk) 00:51, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Are you disputing the reliability of peer reviewed academic journals? Bacondrum 02:10, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Peer-review is not a panacea, and indeed has many weaknesses, which is why we prefer WP:Secondary sources; it's not as simple as 'has to be all peer-reviewed sources'. Asserted "sweeping statements about modern culture" absolutely do appear in some ostensibly peer-reviewed journals, especially on politically charged topics. What we really need on this topic is to avoid any sort of special pleading about sources that goes beyond Wikipedia policy. Crossroads -talk- 05:06, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Peer-reviewed papers can also be secondary sources (it's often worth being cautious of solitary studies, naturally.) The best sources vary by context, but are generally going to include peer-reviewed papers from high-quality journals, which have been cited many times, and which cover or survey other, earlier papers. As you remove those qualifiers you move away from ideal, but it's a long fall from there to an opinion piece by a non-expert in Deseret Magazine making evidence-free WP:EXCEPTIONAL accusations that institutions meant to uphold the liberal order are all corrupted by some sinister new, illiberal orthodoxy. Essentially, I'm not really seeing what this opinion piece has to recommend it over the sources already in the article. --Aquillion (talk) 06:55, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's true that even a top-quality peer-reviewed source isn't a flawless direct line to the unvarnished truth (and obviously the journal matters a great deal; there are some that aren't even WP:RSes), but peer-reviewed sources from high-quality journals are generally among the best sources we have; and I'm skeptical of the argument that peer review is of less value when it comes to controversial aspects of political or social sciences. To me, controversial topics are the ones where it is most important that we try to stick as closely as we can to what academic or professional rigor exists, and to be as strict as we can with the more axe-grindy opinion-pieces due to the poor signal-to-noise ratio. This is an emotively-charged topic, one people feel very strongly about and have expressed extremely strong opinions about, so it's easy for us to find high-quality sources covering those opinions, or experts expressing those opinions in high-quality venues (indeed, the broad thrust of the opinion you mention here is already extensively covered throughout the article using better sources - admittedly somewhat less breathless ones, but I'm not sure the fact that an opinion piece makes sweeping, exceptional statements with no evidence does much to recommend it.) --Aquillion (talk) 06:55, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the biggest issue with scholarly sources for something like cancel culture is the phenomenon is new enough where there is no actual scientific consensus. Additionally with social science academic research looking for a scholarly consensus is even more difficult due to the Replication crisis and the glut of bad research that makes it into quality journals[13]. Looking at social science research for a solid consensus and fact base mere years after a social movement or cultural change begin is difficult. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:18, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're massively overstating problems with academia...and as for opinion, well it's opinion. I'm afraid these "you can't trust academics" arguments are similar to arguments about "fake news" - they're nonsense claims. Peer reviewed academia is by far the best sourcing we have and Wikipedia policy reflects this. The source above is hyperbolic opinion, the lowest quality of sourcing permitted to be used here. Bacondrum 21:52, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, one can find lots of sources using Scholar [14]. Saying that, I think the source by Sarah is fine. My very best wishes (talk) 22:52, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Even in light of how much opinion this article already contains? Bacondrum 22:56, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Cancel culture" is not science, but just an expression that can mean a lot of different things. Therefore, I do not think someone like Bari Weiss is less qualified to comment about it than authors of this so called scientific article, for example. This is not quantum mechanics. My very best wishes (talk) 23:05, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cancel_culture&oldid=1011446707"