User:Justanother/Grain

Against the Grain How to edit Wikipedia from an unpopular minority position

Introduction
Wikipedia's extremely high search engine rankings and increasing ubiquity are problematic for those of us that hold views that do not conform to the Wikipedia norm and for which the articles here reflect bias. And there is certainly a Wikipedia norm or "normish" tendencies, even if it cannot be easily defined. I will certainly not make any attempt to define it here. And more important than any nebulous "norm" is an equally nebulous "bias". Bias is the real culprit, bias is the slant that so obvious to those of us with a different bias than the majority here. Wikipedia demographics and bias are discussed at WikiProject Countering systemic bias, a project with the goal of addressing bias but one that, if the talk page traffic is any indicator, and it is, is not very active. For this article, we will just leave more exhaustive description of Wikipedia norms and biases as simply, "You know it when you see it". You. . . not me, not anyone else. You and those that hold a similar view to you.

So how do you know if you are editing against the grain. I could say, "trust me, you know", and that would cover it but here are a few indications. These all assume that you have created an account, are logged-in, and have no history of vandalism or other inappropriate behavior here. These all assume that you are "editing in good faith" to improve the article. How do you really know that you are editting against the grain? Because you see the exact same and worse edits and offenses committed by the "other side" and nary a peep. You start to feel persecuted. You start to feel frustrated. You start to feel angry.
 * 1) You see an obvious (to you) misrepresentation or over-exaggeration and correct it and are quickly reverted. You correct it again, explaining the error and are reverted again, perhaps by another editor.
 * 2) You see that the article only presents one side of a particular issue and you add sourced material that presents the other side and you are quickly reverted. Rinse and repeat.
 * 3) You see that a part of the article is based on a highly-biased and discredited source and you remove that material and you are quickly reverted. You get the idea.
 * 4) People start accusing you of "removing sourced material" and "POV-pushing".

STOP

If you have reached that point then you are in the danger zone. You will likely as not start to express your frustration and your anger in your edits and in you interactions with others and that, my friend, is the fast road out of here by community ban. Stop and have a cuppa. Stop and take a walk. but mostly, stop and read my essay!

Step 1. Think
Your purpose here

Step 2. Learn
Policy

Step 3. Edit
Edit less contentious articles or one that you do not have an emotional stake in. Hone your craft.

Step 5. Defend
Defend your edits with 3O and RfC.

Step 6. Survive
Defend yourself

Step 7. Expand
Advanced tips

Step 8. Advance
Become an admin or. ..