Become Wikipedia Editors

[benburch]

There is a crying need for more Liberal/Progressive Wikipedia editors. Right now, groups like Free Republic can essentially have their own way with their entries in Wikipedia. They can control their message entirely in this supposedly neutral online resource because they can outnumber us when a discussion to reach consensus on a disputed entry occurs.

Please head over to http://www.wikipedia.org/ and sign up.

Then read the tutorials, learn the rules, and begin participating.

And not just in political things! Anything you know about and are passionate about ans can cite sources for is where you ought to be as a Wikipedia editor.

But whenever the subject is political, make certain that you flawlessly obey the Wikipedia rules.

<<EDIT ; Fixed link >>

[LoZoccolo]

1. You should provide your readers here with some context.

Let them know exactly why you're pushing for this. What prompted it?

(I have a lot of respect for Wikipedia.)

[benburch]

2. Lots of things prompted this.

I've been reading the conservative articles on Wiki all week, and there is VERY little neutrality to be found in any political discussion (left or right, I might add) on Wikipedia.

The FIRST thing that prompted this was the fact that any attempt to mention how Free Republic and its members were complicit in attacking the dying Andy Stephenson was purged from the entry on Free Republic by intervention of non-neutral editors who were themselves Freepers.

[Berserker]

4. benburch

I couldn't get your link to work so I will post this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

[Jim Lane]

11. Why Wikipedia matters

Wikipedia is a huge and underutilized opportunity to disseminate information downplayed or ignored by the MSM.

Alexa ranks all internet sites according to how often they're visited by people using the Alexa toolbar. That's not a perfectly random sample, but it's worth something. Alexa currently ranks Wikipedia #47 among all sites on the internet. http://www.alexa.com/data/details/?url=wikipedia.org

Check out this Alexa comparison of page views: http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?&range=2y&size=medium&compare_sites=foxnews.com&y=p&url=wikipedia.org#top Wikipedia passed FoxNews.com late last year, and is now getting four or five times as many page views.

The main constraint on writing for Wikipedia is the Neutral Point of View policy. You can't express opinions -- but you can present the facts that support an opinion (e.g., huge federal budget deficits), and you can report duly attributed opinions (e.g., business school professors blaming the deficits on tax cuts "primarily for those at the upper reaches of the income distribution").

I completely agree with Ben that there are many RW participants in Wikipedia who bend or simply ignore the policy of neutrality. In addition, conservatives can achieve imbalance there simply by writing up the points that they think help them. It's a volunteer project, with no overall editor to make sure everything is covered. If an article has a lot of valid information provided by Freepers, and much less on the other side, the Wikipedia policy is that the way to balance is for someone else to come along and fill in the gaps. We need many more people doing that.

Any DUer who has a question about Wikipedia, the software, the policies, whatever, is welcome to post to my talk page there -- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JamesMLane&action=edit§ion=new -- or PM me here if you don't want everyone to see your message. I'll be glad to help you any way I can.

[Taxloss]

12. It is not your damn soapbox either.

You're encouraging people to join with completely the wrong frame of mind.

"The main constraint on writing for Wikipedia is the Neutral Point of View policy."

No, that is the main STRENGTH of Wikipedia. That's the entire damn POINT of Wikipedia.

You are encouraging people to subvert a truly populist and democratic resource, which was founded on liberal beliefs, for political ends. You're right that Wikipedia is important - that's precisely why this sort of effort is misguided and contrary to its goals.

[Jim Lane]

20. Agreed, and I don't use Wikipedia as a soapbox

I referred to Neutral Point of View as a "constraint" precisely because I wanted not to invite Wikipedia participation from DUers who don't want to have to try to write that way. I wanted to screen them out up front. Their preference is perfectly legitimate, but they don't belong on Wikipedia.

Here's a paragraph I wrote for Demopedia: "In order to mask the catastrophic long-term effects of Bush's tax cuts, he proposed them as nominally temporary, and they were enacted in that form. He was never sincere in that position, however. He has since expressed the hope that they will be made permanent." http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/index.php/George_W._Bush That's soapbox writing, which is what Demopedia is for.

I firmly believe everything in that paragraph, but I didn't even try to add it to Wikipedia. So please don't imply that I use Wikipedia as a soapbox or that I'm encouraging others to do so.

As for Ben, as I write this his two most recent edits to Wikipedia are:
(1) Correcting a right-wing attack on the article about DU. The Freeper or Freepersymp changed "DU members" to "nutbags". Ben changed it back.
(2) Correcting a left-wing attack on the article about FR. In a passage about demonstrations using signs "hand-drawn by individual members", some anonymous user changed it to "hand-drawn and misspelled by individual members". Admittedly, that's a pretty good quip, and not completely inaccurate, but it's inappropriate for Wikipedia -- and Ben changed that back, too.

[Taxloss]

22. I did not criticise Ben's edits at all.

He has clearly corrected instances of vandalism and overall his personal approach demonstrates a commitment to the NPOV.

And for the record, I think the Andy Stephenson issue probably does deserve a place on Wikipedia, but it should go into a separate Andy Stephenson entry, not on the Free Republic entry. Andy should also be added to the list of prominent DUers if he isn't there already.

What I am criticising is the us-versus-them tone of this post, which I think is encouraging people to join in the wrong spirit and treat the endeavour like some kind of contest, a partisan slanging match. I really feel that this thread is contrary to the aims of Wikipedia and, if noticed beyond DU, will significantly increase the chances that the FR page will be locked and the entire issue will never be aired. I know Ben didn't advocate vandalism and I never said he did.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

34. I don't think so

I think the idea of the original poster was to encourage libs to participate as much as right wingers do. There's no mystery that right wingers are pushing an agenda. For example, being Cuban, I briefly browsed through the entry for "Cuba" and found that there was information in there that was biased. I suspect the CANF had been in there.

There's nothing wrong with asking people with the opposing point of view to state their views, if they have expertise in it, to counterbalance the points of view of right wingers, and provide a better balanced view of any entry.

[bananas]

3. Bad link - there's no "h" in "wiki"

[benburch]

5. Bad fingers...

Sometimes when I am typing my fingers have their own concept of spelling.

Sorry!

[markus]

6. All of the Katrina related articles are getting Freeded

I'm there. I just edited one without signing up, deleting the obvious bullshit.

But I'm ready to play by the rules, if there are any.

[Democrats_win]

7. This is not good news. Wikipedia was so good w/ up-to-date info.

Why do they have to do things like that?

[benburch]

8. Freepers are "Super Men" - Our mundane rules do not apply to them.

Like good neo-stalinists, they throw down the memory hole anything negative about themselves.

[Taxloss]

9. I think this is a very bad idea.

Ben, I've followed the saga of your troubles on Wikipedia, but I think the correct response would be to alert the administration of the site to this organised right-wing attempt to politicise its content. If such an organised attempt exists. The Wiki concept is fundamentally liberal and I feel a movement along those lines would be condemned by its users.

I feel that encouraging DUers to join up in this way is a distortion of the Wiki premise. It's not a game. The way to respect the Wiki rules is not to recruit support for your side of the argument, it is to ensure that the other "side" abides by them, which is seems they are not in some way. Your post has a very "us-them" attitude that I think is not constructive. I think it's more important to encourage people who are dispassionate and open minded to edit, not to fire up people to enter the community in a combative and partisan frame of mind.

But that's just what I think. For the record, I am a Wikipedia editor, and I mainly correct spelling mistakes or add small quantities of detail to non-political entrie I have a specialist interest in.

[nvliberal]

10. All stuff like this does is provide a headache

to those who run Wikipedia, which already has a reputation for unreliability.

This is nothing more than advocating vandalism on a website.

The editors will probably lock the Free Republic entry because of it being misused by those who are on some kind of vendetta.

[benburch]

13. If the truth is a vendetta...

I posted my entry. Discussed it. Modified it. A consensus was reached. Then it was voted off. All according to the rules. Were I on a vendetta, I would just have re-posted it endlessly the way the Freeps do to the Democratic Underground entry, which is vandalized almost daily.

Hell, I've even reverted vandalism off the Free Republic page so you cannot tell me that I am not trying to be neutral.

What I am calling for it editors to show up and take part in consensus discussion, and to obey the rules to the damned letter. How can that possibly be against the spirit of the thing?

[Taxloss]

15. Recruiting editors to support a particular agenda is not neutral behaviour

It simply isn't. And all it will do in the long run is prompt similar recruitment calls on right-wing sites until Wikipedia is reduced to the level of factual and non-partisan information of, say, a Yahoo chatroom.

[benburch]

16. Has it escaped your notice that they are already there?

In any case, you obviously did not read the words I posted above.

[Taxloss]

18. The response to that is not recruiting more posters.

Complain to the Wiki authorities if there is an organised effort of this sort. However, I would imagine the Andy Stephenson issue is simply far too legally sensitive for Wikipedia to handle.

Wikipedia strongly discourages entries or editing by people closely involved with their subject matter. You are demonstrably closely involved with the Andy issue. If others who have a similar involvemnt are involved, they should be stopped, in accordance with the Wiki spirit. The wrong approach is to recruit people to do exactly what they are doing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_propaganda_machine

[benburch]

21. Clearly that is never going to happen with respect to the Freeps.

If you can get the Wikipedia authorities to deal with that issue, I'll buy you a steak dinner, but I think my $40 is safe.

[Taxloss]

23. And so the solution is to adopt their tactics?

I think the Andy Stephenson issue probably should have an airing on Wikipedia, but that is plainly not going to happen on the FR entry - if Andy could be given his own entry, then that would be the place to mention it.

[benburch]

24. No, the solution is to be there as witnesses, Amish style.

To be fair, and honest, and to steadfastly obey the rules and steadfastly expect the rules to be obeyed. To participate in the process. To be as adamant that vandals leave their page alone as to leave he DU page alone.

In other words, totally NOT adopting their tactics.

Andy now already has his own entry, and a team is working on filling it out.

[Taxloss]

25. I will happily support its retention if it is challenged.

I will watch it. It's a story worth telling.

[Jim Lane]

26. No, not their tactics, read the Wikipedia tutorial...

Implementation of the policy of Neutral Point of View (NPOV) is explained in the NPOV tutorial: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial

Note this passage: "Often an author presents one POV because it's the only one that he or she knows well. The remedy is to add to the article—not to subtract from it."

For example, the current article on the "Healthy Forests Initiative" -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthy_Forests_Initiative -- is very short. The "Pro" and "Anti" sections each consist of a one-sentence summary of those positions. At some point, a RW editor might come along and insert a lot more information about the support for the plan and about the facts cited by its proponents. That wouldn't be an improper edit that could be reverted. In fact, if suitably NPOV, it would improve the article. What would be needed would be for someone to add balancing information about the reasons to oppose this sellout to the logging industry (without phrasing it that way, of course).

I agree with your comment in your other post that no one should approach Wikipedia as "a partisan slanging match". On the other hand, there are some respects in which it is indeed "like some kind of contest" (your other phrase). People who are willing to take some care about their edits, respecting the NPOV policy and providing citations for controversial assertions, will have more influence on Wikipedia than people who don't. It does produce something of a contest -- one that, properly managed, benefits the project as a whole.

[Taxloss]

27. I see what you mean about a sort of "Darwinism of ideas".

To be honest, this whole thread illustrates why I avoid the political Wikipedia entries like the plague. The only reason that I post in political discussion here is because I know that I broadly agree with most posters, but disagree on some specifics with some posters.

I've just read the new Andy Stephenson entry and I think it's pretty full and fair. I really feel a solution to the matter has been found.

[Taxloss]

19. Ooops, dupe

[Jim Lane]

14. You've misread Ben's post

He wasn't calling for vandalism. He said that everyone should "flawlessly obey the Wikipedia rules".

As I mentioned in my other post in this thread, people can do a lot of good just by adding material that otherwise wouldn't be covered. The "George W. Bush" article went for months and months with no mention of the minor matter of his record budget deficits, until I wrote a paragraph about it.

Also, the project doesn't do a good job, institutionally, of ousting troublemakers (of whatever political persuasion). It's a fairly anarchic community. A typical determined Freeper can do a lot of damage before the arduous process of banning can be carried out. The main protection against a RW skew isn't that the admins will ban someone; it's that ordinary users will just fix the problems as they arise.

Of course, that system relies on there being enough volunteers to make the corrections. That's part of the "crying need" that Ben identified.

[benburch]

17. Finally...

Somebody who actually read what I wrote. Thank you.

If one is flawlessly obeying the wikipedia rules, one cannot be a vandal by definition.

[Catchawave]

28. I love wiki...but, but, but....

I still can't figure out Demopedia! Sad, but true :(

[Jim Lane]

32. "Can't figure out Demopedia"... follow-up

Demopedia uses the MediaWiki software, so almost all of what you find on Wikipedia's help pages would apply to Demopedia. Here's a simplified version: Go to the Demopedia article that interests you, click on "Edit this page", make your addition or other change, and click on "Save page". If you mess up, someone else will correct it. If you accidentally delete the entire text of the article, anyone else can restore it with a few mouse clicks. So plunge right in and be bold!

Demopedia is the place for people who don't want to have to cramp their style by adhering to Wikipedia's policy of neutrality.

[KingFlorez]

29. I have an account over there

If I see any freeper lies anywhere I'll edit them.

[benburch]

30. Well, do more than that...

Discuss them. Obey the rules. Enter an opposing point of view. Cite sources. (They rarely ever cite sources.)

Don't just trash content, as that is a form of vandalism.

Become part of the process.

[KingFlorez]

31. I've cleaned up some vandalism

But that's about it, I've never really had the chance to actually discuss or add content yet.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

33. I didn't realize anyone could edit Wiki

I think it's a great idea that anyone with expertise in a topic, should contribute to entries.

[benburch]

35. self delete

...