Wikipedia talk:POV railroad

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Essays
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Essays, a collaborative effort to organise and monitor the impact of Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. For a listing of essays see the essay directory.
 Low  This page has been rated as Low-impact on the project's impact scale.

Is this really a thing?[edit]

Yes, of course it is, but I'm concerned about the way that this essay is being referenced. I noticed it has been extensively cited just recent at ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Response to the POV Railroad. Without going on the particulars of that case, and whether railroading has occurred, an editor has expressed the opinion that this particular railroad has the express purpose of removing fringe views. In any case, the problem with this essay is that it will almost exclusively be used as a weapon - "people are railroading me". Is there anything that can be added to this essay to discourage this, or should the essay simply be deleted as unhelpful to the project? StAnselm (talk) 04:12, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Not really. The case you refer to will have to go to arbitration. They are smart enough to see through "people are railroading me" when it is not true. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 04:42, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Well, this is a fairly recent essay, and it hasn't been used much. In the only other use that I'm familiar with, the editor who appealed to this essay and claimed that he was being railroaded got indefinitely banned, so presumably the community saw through him as well. StAnselm (talk) 05:06, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Could be my fate as well. Anyway, back to the "Inquisition" or as it is now called Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 06:17, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment this also is the first time for me to see this essay. Can't help thinking it looks like something better in User space. User:StAnselm when was the previous time you mention that it was cited at ANI? In ictu oculi (talk) 16:47, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
    • Obviously you have never walked in my shoes. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:36, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
I was thinking of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive823#User:MilesMoney : edits in various articles (categories, sources). This essay was cited a couple of times in that discussion, and although the discussion did not yield a consensus, a subsequent ANI discussion led to MilesMoney being banned. StAnselm (talk) 19:52, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
It was used in light of a new phrase for POV editing, conservative cloud, it stems from this observation: "Personally I think the lot of them need to back off from these topics. Every time I go to look at this material, it's the same cloud of conservative defenders." Miles Money employed the phrase from there, I'm sure someone has or will coin a phrase to equally castigate their opponents as the culture wars continue. Sportfan5000 (talk) 23:21, 4 February 2014 (UTC) [WP:BAN 03:52, 24 March 2014 (UTC)]

The statement probably still needs work, but: "In some cases accusing an editor of being a POV railroader may in itself be POV railroading if the accusation is made in bad faith" CorporateM (Talk) 03:46, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Misuse or misrepresentation of an essay (or guideline for that matter) is not the fault of the essay. Many are the times I've seen people on both sides of a debate accusing the other side of violating WP:NPOV. It's inevitable that any essay or guideline will be wrongly applied from time to time. That's the fault of the editor, not the essay. I also think most people in discussions at ANI or AN or ArbCom are smart enough to know the difference between an approporiate reference to an essay and a misguided one.-- KeithbobTalk 16:44, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi CorporateM. POV railroading someone is not a single event. Like a railroad which creates a potential journey and an end point, piece of track by piece of track, POV railroading is a journey of sometimes seemingly innocuous pieces linked together over time whose end point and journey's end is the destruction of an editor.(Littleolive oil (talk) 05:48, 24 March 2014 (UTC))
I note that someone has struck the comments by User:Sportfan5000 who has been blocked for sockpuppetry. Thank you for this clean up, whoever is responsible.-- KeithbobTalk 18:34, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

"Civility", or "Incivility"?[edit]

Dear Keithbob, Face-smile.svg

I hope you are keeping well?

I haven't looked at your essay for several months but did so again tonight and wanted to offer the following comment for your consideration.

The titles of sections "1. False narratives", "2. Pile-ons" and "4. Policy mis-use" all correctly name some of the *negative* behaviours exhibited by individuals engaging in POV railroading.

The heading of section "3. Civility", however, conveys the idea of a *positive* behaviour, and I was wondering whether you might consider that, for consistency with the titles of the other three sections, it might perhaps be appropriate to rename it to something like "3. Lack of civility" or "3. Incivility"?

Thank you once again for the time and effort you've invested into developing this essay; it serves a very useful purpose. Good luck with your continued efforts to improve it.

With kind regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee. (talk) 22:23, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

The force of this essay seems to be getting weaker every time I look at it. That is very disappointing. Ignocrates (talk) 04:04, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, it's ironic, a POV railroad will work to change the narrative to a false, and usually weaker reality almost every time. The Civil War, for instance, will be mischaracterized as a polite misunderstanding. Sportfan5000 (talk) 08:12, 12 March 2014 (UTC) [WP:BAN 03:52, 24 March 2014 (UTC)]

Yes, Pdebee, that sounds like a good change. I also echo Ignocrates concern that the essay's original language, which described in detail a bully behavior process, has been watered down as if to imply that this kind of bullying either doesn't exist or that it is semi-acceptable.-- KeithbobTalk 18:40, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Redirects from WP:WHITEWASH[edit]

It seems that the pages WP:WHITEWASH, WP:Whitewashing and WP:Whitewash have recently been created as redirects to this essay. Webster defines "whitewash" as: to prevent people from learning the truth about (something bad, such as a dishonest, immoral, or illegal act or situation.[1] So I'm not sure how that applies here. Maybe WP:Whitewash should have its own essay. Any thoughts on this?-- KeithbobTalk 17:12, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

It seems those pages were created by User:Sportfan500; a sock puppet who is now blocked. Correspondingly the pages have been deleted.-- KeithbobTalk 18:41, 2 April 2014 (UTC)