User:Avb/temp1

Fork to provide an edited example of a list found here.

Possible new version:

Part 1: shifting articles towards a "Christian" point of view
I have observed a clear tendency in a number of editors to edit Wikipedia articles so that they reflect a more "Christian" point of view. Of course, Wikipedia requires a neutral point of view, at least as much as is possible in a project such as this.

What, exactly, is being done to perpetuate this point of view? Some of the episodes have been obvious and are caught and corrected quickly. Others are more subtle. Keep in mind that encyclopedia articles are about facts, and those facts are not limited to those that a given advocate finds comfortable. These attempts to influence Wikipedia have largely tried to remove, mitigate, or disguise apparently uncomfortable facts and allegations about whatever it is that is perceived to be "Christian." Here are some examples of what I have observed so far:


 * Based on citations from reputable sources, a Wikipedia article reports that a Christian college has had issues with approval, accreditation, or has engaged in practices or has standards that are considered suspect, at least, when compared to conventional, approved, or regionally accredited schools. This information is deleted and if, through the diligence of other editors, it is restored, the information is muted by including a lot of fluff to the article or there is an attempt to mitigate the circumstance, often with unproven assertions.


 * A notable Christian has been involved in a controversy or scandal. That information is removed.  If it is replaced by a diligent editor, the same tactics are used to mute the controversy or scandal.


 * Comments about a Christian institution or individual are provided. A reference is subsequently demanded by an editor who perceives the comments as negative.  However, this editor fails to provide (or require) references for those things perceived to be positive about that person or institution.


 * Comments about a Christian institution or individual are provided, together with references from reputable sources. An editor who perceives the comments as negative removes the commentary and demands a reference.


 * A person or institution representing an "unchristian" point of view has an article edited to include irrelevant, exaggerated, or unreferenced information casting that person or institution in a negative light.


 * A person or institution representing an "unchristian" point of view has an article edited in such a way that it minimizes, marginalizes, belittles, or makes irrelevant that person or institution.

These are just a few examples of what I've observed in Wikipedia with respect to these kinds of things. Whether or not these activities are indications of dishonesty, ignorance, cognitive dissonance, or whatever, is not really the issue. What is needed is to build and maintain a base of information that is as neutral in point-of-view and as unbiased as possible. Those of us who can do that need to be on the look-out for those who cannot approach these subjects with a nPOV. To this end, I'm building a "Watch List" of editors engaging in these activities. I will add to the list as more are uncovered or exposed:


 * Jason Gastrich


 * Tisthammerw


 * Benapgar