Wikipedia talk:Activist/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Three Four ways to spot activists

The essay now asserts that there are three ways to spot activists, and the first one is removing information. However it omits one of the most obvious ones: adding poorly sourced information. Adding a section on that aspect would improve this essay considerably. If there's no objection I'll add one.   Will Beback  talk  02:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Make it so. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I've created a short section on "Addition of poorly sourced material". I'm sure it can be expanded and improved.   Will Beback  talk  10:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Or reverted wholesale,[1] as the case may be. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 10:56, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Scope and title

With the revelations of the Koch-funded Tea Party movement last year in the U.S. and similar allegations made about the funding behind the so-called "Climategate" non-scandal that swept through the blogosphere without the slightest bit of evidence, and now, with the recent claims made about military interest in Wikipedia and alleged sock farms for manipulating social networks, it becomes more and more clear that the focus of this essay is somewhat of a red herring. The problem, as one examines it closer, is neither individual activists nor activism in general. The problem is, specifically phrased, in two parts, 1) how does Wikipedia defend the encyclopedia from large organizations who are capable of acting as and pretending to be individuals to distort topics and push POV, and 2) how can individual editors protect themselves from being targeted by large groups of these individuals? Viriditas (talk) 03:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

That's a good point. We can't even put together a coherent response to paid editing which promotes small businesses, and we certainly aren't equipped to respond effectively to more sophisticated or better funded efforts. I don't know if there are any solutions, short of major changes in how Wikipedia works.   Will Beback  talk  05:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

If editors representing large organizations engage in the behaviors described in this essay, then I recommend following the course of action described in this essay, since Wikipedia, as Will points out, is ill-equipped to handle such situations. Remember, however, that the ArbCom did deal effectively with this type of issue involving the Church of Scientology. The political articles, based on my observations, are affected by groups of activists on both sides. I have yet to see any coordinated, sustained efforts by the US military to impose POV in military articles, and I think I would know because I'm heavily involved in that topic area. Cla68 (talk) 05:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Cla68, I'm not concerned about the U.S. military. My concern is that any military, or any large organization for that matter, will simply contract out their services to a skilled, new media PR firm, that follows the basic model of "Reputation Defender"; I would rather not get into BEANS territory, so let us leave it there. Knowing this, would you consider expanding the scope beyond mere activism by individuals? Viriditas (talk) 05:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

If a PR firm is editing Wikipedia, is that activism? As I've said before, I am personally not against paid editing, as long as the paid editors are following the rules. If paid editors are polite, considerate, willing to compromise with other editors, refrain from revert warring, follow consensus, and don't try to villify idealogical enemies in BLPs, then I don't think there's a big problem.

As one fairly well-known paid editor has commented off-wiki, it is in his clients' best interest if he follows Wikipedia's rules to the letter, including cooperating with other editors even if it means that a contrary viewpoint to his client's interest is introduced into an article. The reason? Because the article stands a better chance of being left alone if its content reflects a cooperative, collaborative effort between interested editors on all sides. The paid editor simply tries to ensure that his clients' side is represented fairly. In my experience, activists have no interest in this approach. They do not want any ambiguity in the topic areas they try to control. They only want the authority of their position represented. Cla68 (talk) 06:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

From what you say, it sounds like you're talking about a one-person shop. A group of paid activists is an entirely different matter.   Will Beback  talk  06:06, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the issue you're referring to is paid activists creating a false consensus. If they're otherwise following the rules, then I don't know what to do about it. Cla68 (talk) 06:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

PR firms are paid to spin. That's the bottom line. And "spin" is at odds with the goals of Wikipedia. Paid editing is an interesting idea, but is another topic. Does anyone here see a difference between activism and PR? Viriditas (talk) 06:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

A group of coordinated activists could create false consensus, severely skew POV, and affect the outcome of AFDs. More seriously, they could try to get opposing editors blocked or topic banned, and even change WP policies. We can't expect them always to be as clumsy as the COS folks, who were all using the same IPs. To Viriditas, there are differences between the small-time paid editing we've often seen and full scale group activism. The PR guys work for money and don't care what happens after they've been paid. They're happy to keep a low profile and otherwise work within the system as much as possible. They have typically been individuals (plus socks) or small offices. OTOH, activists are in it for the duration. They may belong to large organizations which can easily recruit many people to edit. They can create short term tactics and long term strategies for success. I recall reading a comment long ago from Jimmy Wales about why it's important to allow anonymous users: POV pushers are willing to go to the trouble of registering, while the average Joes without a strong POV may not want to go through hoops in order to fix an obvious POV problem. While anonymous editors may cause a lot of vandalism, they also act as a check against dedicated activists. There are perhaps three distinct issues: amateur solo activists, paid PR folks, and paid groups of activists. Of the three, the last are the most worrisome.   Will Beback  talk  16:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it matters whether or not the activists are paid, or whether or not they represent a large organization. Whether they are paid or volunteer, representing an organization or acting on their own, it's the same issue from our end. This just side-tracks the article into focusing on motivation, which is not particularly useful. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 17:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

It does matter, IMO. Motivation is what makes an activist an activist. Their potential impact is obviously correlated to how many activists are editing together. The important differences between amateur activists and paid activists may be the amount of time they devote to editing (though retirees, etc. may also have plenty of time) and the degree of coordination between editors (though amateurs connected to a movement may also be coordinated).   Will Beback  talk  17:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Not really. Propaganda is propaganda, regardless whether it's done by a professional or a true believer. I have seen both at work here and the end result in the article is indistinguishable. The only thing that differs is that one can report a PR profi to WP:COI/N, whereas for a true believer you need to be more creative with the choice of venue and actually identify the problem they are creating in the article. SlimVirgin tried to create a catch-all advocacy notice board, but it wasn't well conceived because it was basically an WP:ABF carte blanche: any NPOV-type disagreement was reportable there with the assumption that the party you disagree with is doing it because they are evil. Tijfo098 (talk) 21:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

In terms of content, you are correct: propaganda is propaganda. But there are differences in behavior between paid editors and organized activists (paid or unpaid).   Will Beback  talk  21:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I guess you can include in the activism category editors who are pushing their own personal point of view because of a COI. I've personally encountered such a situation only once, and it fizzled out after a sock investigation I initiated. The editor was linked to a socking editor who used his real name, and he kept returning to life to write about himself. But that was unusual situation and nothing in this essay addresses that person's behavior. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

This isn't the only applicable essay. Wikipedia:Advocacy may cover some of what you're talking about, not to mention the guidelines on WP:COI and WP:AUTO. Originally, this essay was focused on groups of activists, also partly ocvered by WP:TAG. That focus has blurred a bit, but there is a behavioral difference between solo POV pushers and groups of POV pushers working together.   Will Beback  talk  21:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Getting back to the start of the thread, this article about the Koch brother's efforts to affect Wikipedia articles is highly relevant: Koch Industries Employs PR Firm To Airbush Wikipedia, Gets Banned For Unethical ‘Sock Puppets’.   Will Beback  talk  00:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it is safe to say that every large organization is doing this to protect their interests and in all fairness, Koch is no different. That includes governments, of course. Look at the concentration of media ownership. As I've said many times in other discussions, as long as editors adhere to a code of conduct, we'll be fine. But this code of conduct, as we know it, is spread out across policy after policy, guideline after guideline, essay after essay, in a way that would make any interested editor give up. Why are the policies and guidelines so difficult to understand for so many editors, and why are they written so ambiguously, so as to allow for endless meta debates and discussions, time wasted that could be better spent developing site features and comprehensive topic coverage? This isn't rocket science. After watching this for a while now, and the stubborn insistence on making this place more complex and incomprehensible for new and old editors alike, I think the only solution at this point is for people outside Wikipedia to come in and change things. This place is really no longer functional, even on a basic level. Viriditas (talk) 07:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see what that comment has to do with this essay, or with the problems it seeks to address. Are you suggesting doing away with this and other essays because they muddy the waters and make Wikipedia's policies too ambiguous? I appreciate your frustration but I'm not sure how your proposed remedy of having outsiders fix it is really practical. Where do we find these outsiders who are interested enough in Wikipedia to fix it but uninterested enough that they haven't participated already, who are skillful enough to find effective solutions but are neutral enough that they won't skew the project?   Will Beback  talk  08:35, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

This essay was written because the policies and guidelines have failed at the most fundamental level. If they worked, then it would not matter if activists or paid editors contributed to Wikipedia. You see, everything is wrong. Policies and guidelines need to teach users skills to write better articles and to collaborate and work with other editors. Every problem that we have concerns a breach of our code of conduct and/or a lack of skill. When a user is pointed to a policy or guideline, they need to come away from it with an improved skill set, and a new technique for writing better articles and working with other editors. Instead, we have an endless stream of policy wonkery and wonks who wank over it, and we lose an opportunity. Being an activist is not the problem. Being a PR flack for Koch Industries isn't the problem. Being a PSYOP agent isn't the problem. The problem is that nobody really understands the code of conduct and the policies and guidelines which explain it, because they were not written to impart skills to new users. Viriditas (talk) 09:04, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

We have a clear policy that says "one person=one account". There is no question that socking is not allowed. Yet activists, advocates, and the like violate the policy they know exists in order to promote their causes. The socking policing, just to name one, is not violated by activists out of ignorance. It is violated because activists think they can gain an advantage by doing so. The problem is that some people place their interests ahead of the project's, not that the policies prohibiting that approach are too vague.   Will Beback  talk  09:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Indulge me. Which policy explicitly prohibits activism? Viriditas (talk) 09:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not

• Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. This applies to articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages. Therefore, content hosted in Wikipedia is not for: Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, religious, sports-related, or otherwise. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views. See Wikipedia:Advocacy.

How can we make that clearer?   Will Beback  talk  09:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

SOAP is about as toothless as an old, retired boxer in a nursing home. Why is advocacy a guideline? Why no mention of the word "activism"? Let's face facts, on any given day we've got 50 SOAP-related issues under discussion, and they usually end up on the noticeboards. You would not have this problem if editors had the necessary skills to write articles. I maintain that the real solution is not being addressed. Viriditas (talk) 09:51, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

There are two tiers of policies. Certain behavioral policies are easily enforced: 3RR, NLT, Outing, Sock. By comparison, even the most important remaining policies are difficult to enforce: NPOV, NOR, V, CIVIL, NOT. While that may be regrettable, it's easy to see why. I don't know what novel solution outsiders could propose that would make all policies equally enforceable. It isn't clear to me if that is really a good idea.

The ArbCom regularly cites SOAP. Among the toothless tier, it's one of the toothier. Everyone agrees that it's wrong, the only questions come about identifying it and reacting to it. I guess that's part of the reason for this essay. Can you suggest any improvements?   Will Beback  talk  10:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

First, new users need to understand what an encyclopedia is and why we're here. Second, we need to put ourselves in their shoes and see out of their eyes to implement real world solutions. This requires role playing. Take the easiest scenario to start: 19 year-old college student active on X political issue editing Y article. This activism might be described as a personal interest combined with intense passion for the issues that results in pushing one POV over others. I'm generalizing of course. But the key word here is passion. That intensity for a single issue and focused POV can be redirected into a passion for the encyclopedia, if the user comes to understand NPOV by example, by gaining the skills needed to become a good editor. This all comes down to skills and understanding the purpose of the site. You would probably be right in saying that a significant minority see Wikipedia as an opportunity to push their pet issues and nothing else. But here's the thing. When they sign up, we should have them read a very condensed summary of our code of conduct, and acknowledge that they've read and understood it. Have you played around with the Log in / create account page? That's the point of entry you want to address, from sign-on to first article edit/creation. Even the edit view is sorely lacking helpful hints and reminders for new users, which they really need. The site needs to be designed for them, with the goal of giving them the skills to write better articles and work with other users. This is simply not being done at any level. Viriditas (talk) 10:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

A lot of what you say makes sense, but it's beyond what this essay could possibly address. What you're proposing concerns how new users are welcomed and instructed on how to write for the project. I agree that it can be improved. What would be the best venue for creating significant change of the type you propose?   Will Beback  talk  10:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Like I said, you need people from outside Wikipedia proposing these ideas, with the community simply voting yes or no. It is way too insular here, and people love to argue over minutiae for no reason whatsoever, making it close to impossible to enact simple changes to policies and guidelines. I'm sorry, but about the last thing on Earth that I want to do is read a 50,000 word discussion about whether an article title should use an okina or not. This kind of absurd obsession is actually turning a lot of people off of the site. Viriditas (talk) 10:52, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Getting back to your original point, I've felt for some time that this essay is a red herring, that it contained a lot of nonsense, and that it was an extended justification for fringe points of view. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Viriditas, you're right that Wikipedia's structure doesn't handle POV-pushing very well. Editors are required to edit "for both sides" but, Wikipedia isn't currently able to enforce this adequately in many situations, especially controversial articles. Not to give you too hard a time, but you opened this thread by editorializing on a couple of political issues, and I've seen you do it on article talk pages also. It would be helpful if you led by example by showing other editors that editing for both sides is the expected behavior here.

As far as systematically resolving the problems with groups of activists, which this essay addresses, some kind of outside review might be helpful. Wikipedia needs some good advice on how to deal with activist groups. I've encountered groups of activists in several topic areas, and it can be very time-consuming getting the problems they cause resolved. Cla68 (talk) 23:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. But, here's what I can't get my mind around: if NPOV is the "fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects" how can it be that Wikipedia doesn't handle POV-pushing well? Does that make sense to you? Because it doesn't make sense to me. Viriditas (talk) 03:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The activity of the editors working on behalf of the Koch brothers falls within the scope of this essay. I've said before that this essay would be helped if we worked from specific examples. I don't see anything wrong with pointing out a recent case.

Again I'll ask, where are we to find these outsiders? Should the Wikimedia Foundation commission a study?   Will Beback  talk  00:33, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Starving grad students? ;) Viriditas (talk) 03:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

OK. So do you want to draw up a proposal?   Will Beback  talk  04:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Anyone saying this essay is not relevant, just have a look at this. Tijfo098 (talk) 08:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Test case

Would this be an example of activism? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:25, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

How so?   Will Beback  talk  04:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

It might be. Note the subsection I added on conflicts of interests. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Libraries

• Their organization may have its own library, giving activists access to obscure publications which are difficult for other editors to verify.

This text is intended to address an issue which I've experienced multiple times when dealing with articles where editors who could arguably be called activists were active: their easy access to and familiarity with sources. In some case that is because the groups maintain actual libraries of material related to their movements or causes. In other cases, the individual editors have accumulated personal libraries of source materials. While that seems like a good thing, sources are not used equitably by activists. These libraries and collections typically omit sources with different points of view or the sources are only used by activists to promote their favored views. For non-activist editors, the arsenal of one-sided or mis-summarized sources can be a formidable barrier to bringing articles to NPOV. Non-activists may have to make significant investments of time and money to match the activist's easy access to sources.   Will Beback  talk  08:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree this can be an issue. But it can also be side-stepped. E.g., I did not have to find & read all the sources I removed in this edit, because I was able to find a monograph on the topic which says otherwise. (see talk page there for quotes). Tijfo098 (talk) 09:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Could you add a sentence or two about how to side-step this issue?   Will Beback  talk  09:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The problem arises when the asserted "library" is used to give higher weight to sources favouring the view of the activists than is warranted. Frequently the "library" is cited as though it were the fount of all specialist knowledge on a topic (which is a venal WP sin), and sometimes material is misused from the "library" which is a cardinal WP sin. Because the library is not easily verifiable as to content, the cardinal sin aspect is exceedingly troublesome. In between is the use to assert that "material in my library is relevant to the topic, and using Google to find sources is irrelevant to the topic" which is the "my library is best" intermediate sin, and one which is frequently found. And the one which this essay might address, not just the library existence. Collect (talk) 10:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Why not say Their organization may have its own library containing books giving only one side of the issue. This gives activists access to obscure publications to support (but never counter) their point of view, and which are difficult for other editors to verify. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

That sounds perfectly reasonable. Or one could say that activists are often highly familiar with relevant sources, but tend to selectively employ only those which favor their personal point of view. That seems to be the bottom line. Blanket suspicion of organizations with libraries reads strangely (I belong to an organization with a library that gives me access to obscure publications which may be difficult for others to verify - namely, a university). That's why I removed it, but it could certainly be rephrased if people feel that this is a phenomenon worth mentioning. MastCell ^Talk 18:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Mastcell is correct that it's not the presences of a library per se, but rather the access to and familiarity with sources, some obscure, and the one-sided use of them, which is the problem with some activists. Universities, as a whole, are not usually activists but I know of one exception. I also know of a group with a private library devoted to their cause. In a third case the activist may have had access to organizational resources, or may just have had an extensive personal collection. And yes, the bottom line is that they use these resources to promote their cause, not to improve NPOV. If we can give advice to editors faced with an activist who can marshal these sources then that would help the essay. One obvious step is engaging in a lot of research. I suppose another would be checking to make sure that obscure sources actually qualify as reliable, per WP:V. What else?   Will Beback  talk  20:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The WMF could help prevent this sort of thing from going on by buying a site license for Lexis-Nexis, Infotrac, or other online, academic databases and allowing registered users unlimited access. Of course, if the WMF did that, they may not have enough money left to fund their junkets to places like India and Argentina. Anyway, although activists may have access to a library of obscure, reliable sources, I don't think it is necessarily a bad thing. What can be problematic is how they react if any other editor challenges their editing, i.e. do they compromise, collaborate, and cooperate? Do they attack the BLPs of people they disagree with? And, do they insult and belittle editors they disagree with on article talk pages? If they engage in collaboration and compromise with other editors, then their access to obscure but reliable sources can be a good thing, even if one-sided. Cla68 (talk) 22:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

If they engage in collaboration and compromise with other editors then they probably aren't activists, at least so far as this essay is concerned.   Will Beback  talk  22:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I love the idea Cla68 suggests, and it would certainly increase Wikipedia membership. However, it would be tantamount to Nexis giving away its contents for free. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:11, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Credo accounts‎   Will Beback  talk  21:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

ScottyBerg

A large amount of the changes made to this essay were done by User:ScottyBerg, who was banned as a sock of User:Mantanmoreland. Mantanmoreland apparently had a big beef with me, as several of his socks followed me around Wikipedia. Some of his edits appear to have changed the message of this essay as originally written by me and SlimVirgin, so I'd like to explore if we should try to take the essay back closer to how it was originally written. Thoughts? Cla68 (talk) 00:05, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Is trying to identify activism healthy or constructive?

I posted a comment on this closely related page, which I think is also relevant here:

Wikipedia_talk:Advocacy#Is_trying_to_identify_advocacy_healthy_or_constructive.3F

I'd be curious what others think. Thanks. Cazort (talk) 17:18, 19 October 2012 (UTC)