![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
At the moment we do not have a dedicated article on political editing on Wikipedia, despite this being a recurring theme. I suggest starting one with this text, which contains all of the relevant examples from Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia along with some new content. Suitable names would be "Political editing on Wikipedia" or "Political manipulation on Wikipedia" (cf. Ideological bias on Wikipedia, Vandalism on Wikipedia, Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia). François Robere ( talk) 10:20, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
@ Randy Kryn: Thanks for appropriately italicizing Britannica and Brockhaus. What can you tell me about the removal of the following from the section on "Criteria for evaluating reliability":
This section begin by listing 10 criteria for evaluating reliability of something like Wikipedia. The first half of the deleted paragraph cited a reference commenting on the first four of the 10 criteria. The rest cited a reference discussing "scientific research ... oriented to increase the reliability and performance of electronic communities such as Wikipedia". That sentence could be rewritten to more clearly connect it to a particular subset of these 10 criteria, and the sentence retained could, I think, more clearly identify what is meant by intrinsic and extrinsic metrics.
However, the deletion seems to me to be inappropriate and makes it harder to understand the paragraph that was not delete. ???
Thanks, DavidMCEddy ( talk) 14:53, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
References
I was about to publish the following text, but then I realised that a preliminary discussion is necessary. The attempt to influence the content of our articles is obvious, and the article even mentions fellow users by name, so this is a rather sensitive issue and perhaps an UNDUE edit. I leave it to you:
In 2023, Jan Grabowski and Shira Klein published an article in the Journal of Holocaust Research in which they claim to have discovered a "systematic, intentional distortion of Holocaust history" on the English-language Wikipedia. [1] Analysing 25 Wikipedia articles and almost 300 back pages (including talk pages, noticeboards and arbitration cases) Grabowski and Klein believe they have shown how a small group of editors managed to impose a fringe narrative on Polish-Jewish relations, informed by Polish nationalist propaganda and far removed from evidence-driven historical research. In addition to the article on the Warsaw concentration camp, the authors claim that the activities of the editors' group had an effect on several articles, such as History of the Jews in Poland, Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust and Jew with a coin. Nationalist editing on these and other articles allegedly included content ranging "from minor errors to subtle manipulations and outright lies", examples of which the authors offer. [1]
Gitz ( talk) ( contribs) 23:19, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
References
I think it's pointless to have such an old list that clearly hasn't been resolved. Doug Weller talk 13:41, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Some recent scholarship, maybe good for something. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 13:46, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia's reliability was frequently criticized in the 2000s but has been improved; it has been generally praised in the late 2010s and early 2020s.
Can someone please add the bold word in? Wikipedia's reliability is not a person that can improve things. 2600:6C44:117F:95BE:11B9:8CBE:8C78:E450 ( talk) 14:35, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
While users can contribute to Wikipedia, these suggestions, edits and discussions are all curated by a group of primarily anonymous individuals who are ranked as having a more valued viewpoint than any of the individual users, being given the ability to decide what is true or false along with what is shown to the general userbase. This would naturally mean that Wikipedia is susceptible to biases, most notably political and social biases along with communication biases through how information is relayed.
The article should acknowledge that Wikipedia by definition of its structure of having moderation is susceptible to a level of widespread and unchecked bias. 2A00:23C7:807:C601:AC20:FDFE:6D0B:4A3D ( talk) 23:03, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
There is a long-standing rule that Wikipedia articles may not be cited by other Wikipedia articles, nor should Wikipedia ever be cited from academic papers. At the same time, there are papers analyzing the reliability of Wikipedia, the operation of Wikipedia rules (e.g. NPOV) which are intended to help maintain content quality, and the speed with which vandalism is typically reverted.
The reliability of Wikipedia is commonly reported as approximating that of other sources, and it seems like they are advocating that the use of Wikipedia as a cited source is approximately as valid as a citation to traditional encyclopedias.
Is that the actual intent, or am I reading more into this than is actually there? Fabrickator ( talk) 18:02, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
Would something about Talk:Christine Lagarde#BLP issue qualify for addition, maybe to the "false biographical information" section? The fact that Jimbo Wales is involved seems to make this incident notable. Renerpho ( talk) 06:38, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
I've tagged the third sentence of the lead as it is unclear to me how the sources connect the sentence to the topic of the article:
What does "77% of all articles are written by 1% of its editors" have to do with the reliability of Wikipedia? By the way, this statement is prominent in the lead but does not exist at all in the body. Clayoquot ( talk | contribs) 01:45, 3 November 2023 (UTC) Clayoquot ( talk | contribs) 01:45, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
References
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
At the moment we do not have a dedicated article on political editing on Wikipedia, despite this being a recurring theme. I suggest starting one with this text, which contains all of the relevant examples from Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia along with some new content. Suitable names would be "Political editing on Wikipedia" or "Political manipulation on Wikipedia" (cf. Ideological bias on Wikipedia, Vandalism on Wikipedia, Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia). François Robere ( talk) 10:20, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
@ Randy Kryn: Thanks for appropriately italicizing Britannica and Brockhaus. What can you tell me about the removal of the following from the section on "Criteria for evaluating reliability":
This section begin by listing 10 criteria for evaluating reliability of something like Wikipedia. The first half of the deleted paragraph cited a reference commenting on the first four of the 10 criteria. The rest cited a reference discussing "scientific research ... oriented to increase the reliability and performance of electronic communities such as Wikipedia". That sentence could be rewritten to more clearly connect it to a particular subset of these 10 criteria, and the sentence retained could, I think, more clearly identify what is meant by intrinsic and extrinsic metrics.
However, the deletion seems to me to be inappropriate and makes it harder to understand the paragraph that was not delete. ???
Thanks, DavidMCEddy ( talk) 14:53, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
References
I was about to publish the following text, but then I realised that a preliminary discussion is necessary. The attempt to influence the content of our articles is obvious, and the article even mentions fellow users by name, so this is a rather sensitive issue and perhaps an UNDUE edit. I leave it to you:
In 2023, Jan Grabowski and Shira Klein published an article in the Journal of Holocaust Research in which they claim to have discovered a "systematic, intentional distortion of Holocaust history" on the English-language Wikipedia. [1] Analysing 25 Wikipedia articles and almost 300 back pages (including talk pages, noticeboards and arbitration cases) Grabowski and Klein believe they have shown how a small group of editors managed to impose a fringe narrative on Polish-Jewish relations, informed by Polish nationalist propaganda and far removed from evidence-driven historical research. In addition to the article on the Warsaw concentration camp, the authors claim that the activities of the editors' group had an effect on several articles, such as History of the Jews in Poland, Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust and Jew with a coin. Nationalist editing on these and other articles allegedly included content ranging "from minor errors to subtle manipulations and outright lies", examples of which the authors offer. [1]
Gitz ( talk) ( contribs) 23:19, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
References
I think it's pointless to have such an old list that clearly hasn't been resolved. Doug Weller talk 13:41, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Some recent scholarship, maybe good for something. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 13:46, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia's reliability was frequently criticized in the 2000s but has been improved; it has been generally praised in the late 2010s and early 2020s.
Can someone please add the bold word in? Wikipedia's reliability is not a person that can improve things. 2600:6C44:117F:95BE:11B9:8CBE:8C78:E450 ( talk) 14:35, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
While users can contribute to Wikipedia, these suggestions, edits and discussions are all curated by a group of primarily anonymous individuals who are ranked as having a more valued viewpoint than any of the individual users, being given the ability to decide what is true or false along with what is shown to the general userbase. This would naturally mean that Wikipedia is susceptible to biases, most notably political and social biases along with communication biases through how information is relayed.
The article should acknowledge that Wikipedia by definition of its structure of having moderation is susceptible to a level of widespread and unchecked bias. 2A00:23C7:807:C601:AC20:FDFE:6D0B:4A3D ( talk) 23:03, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
There is a long-standing rule that Wikipedia articles may not be cited by other Wikipedia articles, nor should Wikipedia ever be cited from academic papers. At the same time, there are papers analyzing the reliability of Wikipedia, the operation of Wikipedia rules (e.g. NPOV) which are intended to help maintain content quality, and the speed with which vandalism is typically reverted.
The reliability of Wikipedia is commonly reported as approximating that of other sources, and it seems like they are advocating that the use of Wikipedia as a cited source is approximately as valid as a citation to traditional encyclopedias.
Is that the actual intent, or am I reading more into this than is actually there? Fabrickator ( talk) 18:02, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
Would something about Talk:Christine Lagarde#BLP issue qualify for addition, maybe to the "false biographical information" section? The fact that Jimbo Wales is involved seems to make this incident notable. Renerpho ( talk) 06:38, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
I've tagged the third sentence of the lead as it is unclear to me how the sources connect the sentence to the topic of the article:
What does "77% of all articles are written by 1% of its editors" have to do with the reliability of Wikipedia? By the way, this statement is prominent in the lead but does not exist at all in the body. Clayoquot ( talk | contribs) 01:45, 3 November 2023 (UTC) Clayoquot ( talk | contribs) 01:45, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
References