User:Ddstretch/AGF Challenge 2 Exercise Answers

These were done as part of my RfA (Requests for adminship/Ddstretch).

2.3 Shockingly
On looking at the train of events, there seems to be 6 key events or features:


 * 1) The addition of information to a page, which is claimed violates WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:RS.
 * 2) The edit-warring in the face of arguments that I assume were convincing in making the point that the violations applied.
 * 3) The message written by ZZ (a editor who has made 26 items of featured content) which states "Wow that is shockingly incorrect. Do you do this on purpose?"
 * 4) Expressed outrage at ZZ's message, particularly the use of the word "shockingly".
 * 5) Calls to allow the unverified information to be retained and the stop arguing with ZZ.
 * 6) Apparent attempts to make ZZ leave the project, even though he has 26 items of featured content, for his comment.

What should be done about this by wikipedia, myself, and what would be reasonable to do. I leave the other questions for now.

To begin with, I am surprised that no attempt had been made to prevent the edit-warring in terms of page protection. Given the details provided in the main description of the question, it seems that the WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:RS criticisms were valid, though we don't have the actual text to be sure of this. If I were dealing with the matter, I would want to see more detail at this point. So, at the very least, a point could be made that the editor adding the sigh-clone information was unresponsive to arguments, edit-warring as a result, and was therefore being disruptive. (such evidence might include officially sourced derivations of "cyclone", and uses of it which pre-date the use of "clone" in the popular modern sense of the word.) This in itself might justify a discussion with the editor about his actions which, if they were recent and ongoing, and could not be resolved in this discussion, might lead onto more action if the article's page was unprotected and edit-warring resumed. We come now onto the quotation, and the initial reaction to it. We are not told whether this was the entire message ZZ posted, and I think it may inform people to have more of what was written if there was more. The reasons for this will become clear in a little while. The adjective "shockingly" as used by ZZ and criticized by others describes an emotional and/or psychological state ZZ has in reaction to the material that the editor was adding. As such it is not directly an attack on that editor, and iis use in the sentence might have been simply to make the sentence a slightly more charged version of "I was extremely surprised by the erroneous content." This may well have been unwise and possibly might risk inflaming the situation, but it is not a personal attack. Once again, "shockingly" essentially describes an emotional or psychological state of ZZ, and not directly a attack aimed at the editor himself or herself. The sentence which seems to have gone unremarked ("Do you do this on purpose?") seems potentially more problematic. However, here we have a problem because it is not clear if this is all ZZ wrote, and the context could help us decide whether the statement was a mere factual enquiry, or a rhetorical question. If it were the latter, then it would be much more strongly an implicit comment about the intentions of the editor, and more close to being a personal attack that the "shockingly" question was. If it was a mere factual enquiry, then I think it would be unwise, since it switches the debate away from the publically observable behaviour of the editor into the realm of intentions, etc, which are notoriously difficult to deal with, and have potentiial to be inflammatory and ultimately disruptive. I would try to discuss this with ZZ to try to persuade him or her about the choice of words.: a better sentence to have used might have been "I am highly surprised by your additions, since they seem to me to be so obviously incorrect. From your actions in repeatedly adding it to the article, you seem as if you are determined to have it stay, and I wonder why you have ignored the criticisms of the material's inaccuracy to continue to add it, even though you can neither verify nor source the derivation you have added of the word?" The reaction to ZZ should not have been allowed to happen: the matter, once it appeared to be blowing up, should have gone to arbitration, even though it seems to people to be such a small matter, because this would have helped prevent greater disruption by such a small issue. What I would do if I had a major role in determining the end result: DDStretch   (talk)  16:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Remind everyone of the need to source material, especially contentious material, with verified information which uses citations of reliable sources.
 * Disapprove of the edit-warring carried out by the editor, and unprotect the article with a warning that action might be taken if that editor added the material again without also verifying it by means of citations to reliable sources. Repeat that this warning would stand for anyone else repeating the actions.
 * Caution ZZ to be more careful in the language they choose to use in future.
 * Remind everyone that the aim of producing a good quality encyclopaedia must include a rigorous examination of the claims and information included in it, and that in a collaborative atmosphere, some disagreements were bound to happen. To steal and modify a sentence used in skeptical (sceptical) circles: extraordinary facts require exceptionally careful verification.
 * Remind everyone that incivility does not include hard critical and rigorous examination and evaluation of facts and claims to see whether they should be included in the encyclopaedia.
 * State that editors should remain civil, without disparaging comments about or personal attacks upon editors (which does not include the facts or evidence they might suggest is included in the encyclopaedia.)