User:Andrew Lancaster/My ideas on controversial genetics articles

For better or worse I became involved in editing some genetics articles which have ethnic controversies.

The approach I have developed (and which continues to change) seems worth recording because I get challenged on it now and then, and it is not a simple thing to explain quickly to a passing editor as a side issue of another discussion.

I got involved simply because I was interested in E1b1b as a genealogist with a scientific bent and I got dragged into needing to find difficult compromises on that article, and then later invited and asked and even pushed to work on articles with similar problems. Perhaps the most difficult one was R1a which until 2009 had been the subject of enormous swinging edit wars for many years. This experience also helped form my opinions on how Wikipedia should work in such cases, and in turn this gave me more insight into the wisdom of its policies (in their non-Wikilawyering forms!).

'''Especially important here is WP:NEUTRAL. And I now commonly get accused of taking this policy too seriously or being too naive about it.'''

I can generalize about the types of articles which are most controversial. It is not all types of genetics articles, but mainly two types:- 1. Y haplogroup articles 2. Articles about the genetic make-up of a particular region or ethnic group

Try to see defenders of ethnic groups in a positive way

 * People who are able to tell themselves that they are defending their ethnic affiliation of choice from racists can be seen in a purely negative way as people liable to be irrational and disruptive. While keeping in mind the potential for misunderstanding, try to avoid seeing things this way.
 * On the other hand you can also see them as people with good intentions, and with fears about problems that are real. Genetics really is used by racist theorists on the internet, and such people really do try to infiltrate WP.

Try to see nationalists with pseudo-scientific theories in a positive way

 * Nationalists with pseudo-scientific theories on WP can obviously be seen as hidden racists trying to sneak their agenda into articles. (Note, I am only talking about cases who are not definitely doing this. Of course if they ever actually openly inserting racism that is a different matter, and you can call an admin if needed.)
 * Believe it or not, nationalists with pseudo-scientific agendas are not all Nazis. They are often young men who've gotten themselves very interested in a subject, possibly beyond their own abilities, or more often they are just still learning about both the subject matter and how to express themselves. The thing is that these are enthusiastic people, who are therefore quick to be offended when they are often ostracized and ignored.

(One of the great dilemmas I think WP must eventually confront more is that WP would be impossible if it were not for enthusiastic people, who want to make a difference, who sometimes loose their tempers because they are so involved, but that these very same people also often find it frustrating to have their work deleted and changed, which is something they have to accept. No amount of wikielves will ever replace these difficult-to-balance types of people.)

What to do then
In both cases above the big problem is generally misunderstanding and FEAR. The knock on effect which then causes the real damage is that people with fear feel justified in acting in ways outside of community norms, whether that be sock-puppetry, tag teams, personal abuse, wikilawyering, or whatever.

I suggest:-


 * Try to assume good faith, and I mean really. This is the opposite of being an editor who tells everyone else to assume that you have good faith! Show them good faith, do not demand it.
 * Try to go through the real articles with people and see if you can alleviate fears with edits that do not break WP policy. It is shocking to me how easily this sometimes resolves long-running disputes. It often seems as if some editors never think of doing this obvious thing.
 * Stick to WP policy, including WP:NEUTRAL.

...so far, so boring, but that last point was serious...


 * Here is the controversial bit: never accept demands that WP:NEUTRAL should be violated, that WP should effectively be censored, as a kind of "common sense" defense against potential abuse by nasty elements of society.
 * More generally, be very cautious of all demands for "common sense" diversions from WP:NEUTRAL.

My experience is that these last two points are very important, and misunderstood. It is these that get people calling me naive. But every time I see people trying to the opposite, the fear grows again on all sides, and then the rationalizations get set in place, and the edit wars return. Censorship also simply does not stop pseudo science.