JustAPoliticsNerd

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Zenomonoz (talk) 06:26, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

jUNE 24

I susgest you rreas wp:bludgeon and wp:dropthestick, if you want to AFD the page do so, if you want to create another article do so, but do not keep on arguing. Slatersteven (talk) 11:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

NOte this is now a warning, read wp:tenditious and follow the correct procedure. 09:01, 26 June 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slatersteven (talk • contribs)

Note: this section apparently about discussions at Talk:Drag panic. Mathglot (talk) 01:40, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

As a newbie, I don't know why you are allowed to AfD articles, but even if you are allowed, it's nearly always a really bad idea. Get more experience first. Read WP:GNG and WP:PRESERVE, with most weight on PRESERVE. We try to help articles become compliant so we can keep them. If they pass GNG, no matter what other problems, we do not AfD them; instead, we fix them. There are exceptions to every rule, but that's our main approach. It is not a virtue to AfD articles. You won't get brownie points in heaven for doing it. It's better to save them. That helps build the encyclopedia, rather than tear it down. We have unlimited capacity here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:15, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Wrong page?

I removed this comment of yours at Wikipedia talk:Wiki Ed/California State University Fullerton/Gender and Technoculture 320-03 (Spring 2024) because it appeared to be a mistaken destination, that is, your comment has no relation to that list of student assignments at a California university. Feel free to add your comment to whatever page you meant to add it to. Mathglot (talk) 01:38, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

The description of Wikipedia talk:Wiki Ed/California State University Fullerton/Gender and Technoculture 320-03 (Spring 2024):

"For this assignment, students will be making contributions to Wikipedia specifically designed to correct the well-documented gender, heterosexual, white, and Western bias in this extremely influential resource."

This is what I am talking about, and I believe that was abundantly self-evident. JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 04:20, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Not at all appropriate for you to edit there as you aren't affiliated with WIki Ed, and pointless as that project finished months ago. And a terrible idea to post that given the alert above. Doug Weller talk 09:02, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Not only not appropriate, this part of the comment (now removed) is quite offensive:

"I would argue, to the contrary, that this entire project is dedicated to the introduction of bias through the use of a left-wing worldview that considers its assertions so self-evident that anything standing in their way is what is biased, instead."

It's a personal attack and assumption of bad faith against editors here. We are not allowed to use an editor's political bias to discount their work. We all have biases.

It's a really bad attitude to have. It possibly reveals a battlefield mentality. Don't edit here with the goal of countering the perceived bias of reliable sources. We document their biases, without neutering them. If right-wing sources are used, we also document their biases. Unfortunately, since Trump came along, most moderate right-wing sources have moved so far to the right that they have lost connection with facts and reality, becoming propaganda outlets that are not reliable sources. That's too bad. The Overton window of political discourse has radically changed.-- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:47, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I am not arguing bad faith, but rather that such a bias is often so deeply ingrained in a person's worldview that it is not necessarily evident when it is seen within one's own person. JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 17:54, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Very, VERY true! Yet, we AGF that an editor's editing is not caused by their political POV, even when the editing harmonizes with it. The more likely assumption (for a left-wing editor) is that they depend more on left-wing sources because there is a paucity of reliable right-wing sources that are moderate enough to maintain connection to facts.

OTOH, when an editor includes (in articles) strongly political content that is unsourced AND is not in harmony with RS (adding to a lead does not always require sourcing), that might be a situation where one could approach the editor, on their own talk page, not the article talk page, and ask, not accuse, them about it. Give them a chance to explain and go back and include sources or reword/remove the content. As you note, we all have deeply ingrained POV, and it's very human to not always be conscious of when it affects our editing. We're all human and benefit more from guidance than criticism. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:35, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I do agree that I was overly aggressive in my language, as I sometimes have a tendency to be. I do apologize for this, as such criticism generally does not lead to a productive outcome. That being said, I do maintain my concern that going into such a project with the assumption of "gender, heterosexual, white, and Western bias" in Wikipedia is going into a project with an assumption that does not have good backing in such a way that seems likely to lead to more bias. JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 18:40, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

"Well-documented gender, heterosexual, white, and Western bias in this extremely influential resource."

If there is any backing for this, I will concede, yet even on the very Wikipedia article about "ideological bias on Wikipedia", every single paper listed that has ever discussed the issue and found bias has results such as ""Wikipedia articles are more slanted towards Democratic views than are Britannica articles, as well as more biased""

This is a statement that is verifiably false. Regardless of who they are affiliated with, I will point that out. JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 17:52, 29 June 2024 (UTC)