 | This is an
essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of
Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been
thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
 | This page in a nutshell: Third party editors can offer new perspectives on a dispute. |
It's well-established that "outsiders" often give fresher and more objective views of a topic than "insiders"; for example, Otto Jespersen, one of the greatest authorities on English grammar, was Danish-born with English his second language.
There are many situations involving edit warring or POV pushing involving highly partisan editors where it's blindingly obvious to an outsider that no-one with a direct involvement with the subject - whether "pro" or "anti" - can be trusted to bring even an approximately neutral viewpoint to their work.
Examples include strongly-divided local politics such as that of Saskatchewan; controversial religions and religious organisations where editors include both existing adherents and highly hostile ex-members / non-members; country/city naming disputes obviously polarised on nationalist lines; and deletion discussions similarly polarised by affiliation and often overt nepotism (for instance, when Ruritanian editors flock to vote "Keep" at deletion discussions for articles about borderline-notable Ruritanians).
In such circumstances, "only Martians should edit" would be a good rule. All involved parties should be banned from editing, and leave the work to uninvolved "Martian" editors who can view the subject as dispassionately as, say, a human writing about a Martian religion and the dispute within it as to whether the Venerators of the Cydonia Sandworm Cult was founded by Tharj the brood-sister of Thurj, or by Thurj the brood-sister of Tharj. Anyone who cannot view a religious or political dispute as essentially meaningless as this, to them personally, is not a Martian and should not be editing the topic.
The wide-ranging Digwuren arbitration decision, which allows rapid and stiff sanctions to be applied to anyone recognisably non-neutral and disruptive in a controversial topic area - in this case, Eastern Europe broadly defined - is a fine precedent.
Unfortunately, it's well-established in conflict of interest discussions that mere affiliation (e.g. being a member of a religion or organisation) is not sufficient grounds to make a conflict of interest call. It should be, given the abundant evidence of such affiliations being intractably associated with bias.
To sum up: if a topic is emotive within a particular cultural/regional group, it is far better for the neutrality and uncomplicated development of the article if members of that group avoid editing it.
| This is an
essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of
Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been
thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
| This page in a nutshell: Third party editors can offer new perspectives on a dispute. |
It's well-established that "outsiders" often give fresher and more objective views of a topic than "insiders"; for example, Otto Jespersen, one of the greatest authorities on English grammar, was Danish-born with English his second language.
There are many situations involving edit warring or POV pushing involving highly partisan editors where it's blindingly obvious to an outsider that no-one with a direct involvement with the subject - whether "pro" or "anti" - can be trusted to bring even an approximately neutral viewpoint to their work.
Examples include strongly-divided local politics such as that of Saskatchewan; controversial religions and religious organisations where editors include both existing adherents and highly hostile ex-members / non-members; country/city naming disputes obviously polarised on nationalist lines; and deletion discussions similarly polarised by affiliation and often overt nepotism (for instance, when Ruritanian editors flock to vote "Keep" at deletion discussions for articles about borderline-notable Ruritanians).
In such circumstances, "only Martians should edit" would be a good rule. All involved parties should be banned from editing, and leave the work to uninvolved "Martian" editors who can view the subject as dispassionately as, say, a human writing about a Martian religion and the dispute within it as to whether the Venerators of the Cydonia Sandworm Cult was founded by Tharj the brood-sister of Thurj, or by Thurj the brood-sister of Tharj. Anyone who cannot view a religious or political dispute as essentially meaningless as this, to them personally, is not a Martian and should not be editing the topic.
The wide-ranging Digwuren arbitration decision, which allows rapid and stiff sanctions to be applied to anyone recognisably non-neutral and disruptive in a controversial topic area - in this case, Eastern Europe broadly defined - is a fine precedent.
Unfortunately, it's well-established in conflict of interest discussions that mere affiliation (e.g. being a member of a religion or organisation) is not sufficient grounds to make a conflict of interest call. It should be, given the abundant evidence of such affiliations being intractably associated with bias.
To sum up: if a topic is emotive within a particular cultural/regional group, it is far better for the neutrality and uncomplicated development of the article if members of that group avoid editing it.