User:Nanite/Labels essay


 * The goal of writing this essay is to coalesce the argument for avoiding subjective labels in wikivoice even when widely used by RSes.
 * I've seen similar debates made in many many talk pages, and the repetition probably means we need a clarifying essay that we can point people towards, that brings in the full argument (and not just bits and pieces). If you grasp the overall thesis and would like to improve the clarity of this essay, please feel free to improve it!
 * If you disagree with the thesis of this essay, I encourage you to construct an essay arguing for the opposing position and we will link it here.
 * Cheers, --.

Edit wars wage far and wide on wikipedia over which label to stick in front of a person's name. "Bob is an Xist" or "... Xist Bob ...". Is he a racist? White supremacist? Commie? Anarchist? Kitten or adorable wonder princess? Should we go with his self-defined label, or with the label used by reliable journalists who hate him? Should we leave out all labels entirely?

Imprecise personal labels are often used in media to rapidly construct one dimensional characters into a narrative. Rather than describing fact, these labels call to mind a stereotype or a vague idea to build an image of the subject in question.

Labels can rapidly convey a wealth of information to someone who is new to the topic, helping to contextualise the actual objective reported facts of the story. Labels can also be used to add a bit of flair and colour to an article, helping us imagine someone's personality and increasing the entertainment value. When used nefariously, labels are used to simultaneously announce and condemn (or praise) a subject in one breath.

In an encyclopedia, the usage of imprecise personal labels conflicts with NPOV policies on impartial tone and the use of subjective language, as well as the style guide WP:LABEL. However, a point of contention is that if a wide variety of non-encyclopedic reliable sources use a label, then it would be synthesis to not use the label, and it may count as an unsupported attribution to couch the label in non-factual terms. It is often said that if we as wikipedians do not simply parrot the language of our sources, then it becomes a matter of our opinion which labels to carry over. The removal of a well-sourced subjective label is frequently interpreted as an attempt to whitewash.

Recommendation: How to use labels in passing

 * Descriptions are better than labels. : Even in the best of cases it's not unusual for someone to interpret a label as name-calling. By changing to a description, it is much easier to settle the accuracy of the statement.
 * Avoid vague labels. : Some labels have 50 different meanings --- if the mildest definition fits, you're technically correct to slap that label on someone. But when read/heard, people will hear something else. The mildest definition may have a very neutral factual meaning, while the most extreme definitions may be heavily value-laden.
 * Avoid subjective labels. : ... need to expand on this.
 * Avoid belief labels unless avowed by subject and widely sourced. : If the subject says he's a Christian and practically all reliable sources says he's a Christian, go ahead. But ultimately nobody can act as a reliable source on what is inside someone's head, besides grey matter: thoughts are not verifiable. You can make a belief label objective by putting "avowed" in front: it becomes stated belief.
 * Handling belief labels rejected by the subject. : Instead of writing "Bob is an X-ist", you can say "Bob's views are X" or "Bob has Xist views". Be careful to follow WP:WEASEL. When a subject rejects a label for factual reasons, this should be noted. Beware that subjects may however reject correct and precise labels to escape guilt by association and negative connotation. The same motives may lead subjects to reject vague labels, as they may fit a mild definition but they do not want the associations and connotations of the extreme definitions.
 * Avoid irrelevant labels used in passing. : It may be absolutely true and universally agreed that Bob once got caught stole a candy bar. However that doesn't mean that every time we refer to Bob in passing we say "convicted criminal Bob".
 * Avoid synthesizing labels. : Even if a label is precise, it may count as WP:SYNTH to use it in place of its definition, when reliable sources are not using that label.

Recommendation: Labelling in lead
Labels used in the lead of an article should be notable and explained further in the body of the article. In the lead, it should not be a big debate to argue over which label to use, because all such arguments should have been already settled in discussing the relevant body text. However see WP:LEADCITE.

Signs of a bad label in the lede of an article:
 * Lack of an explanatory body paragraph that details why and how that label applies. If it's notable, why doesn't it have elaboration in the article?
 * Imagine writing an article consisting of one sentence: "Bob is a &lt;label&gt;.". Does this make up enough of a coherent statement that it could be clearly verified? Is it precise enough that most readers will interpret it with a definition that follows the facts?

"Liberal bias"
For Americans, the argument for following reliably-sourced media labelling tends to be perceived as an underhanded push for liberal bias. The argument for impartial labelling (ignoring subjective media labels) tends to be perceived as an underhanded push for whitewashing wacky right wingers. Why is this? Well, if you believe that the media is already biased liberal, for sure it is to be expected that the bias shows up most in the subjective language used in media.

Whatever you think about the reality of liberal bias, it's easy to find people who absolutely believe it exists in labelling. Is there pro-liberal / anti-conservative bias in the labelling done in media? According to the conservative Media Research Center, absolutely. In a more extreme vein, it has been suggested that the recent tendency in media to use ideological labels is a consquence of Marxian critical theory, wherein it is regarded that a person's ideology is their most important characteristic.

If you're longing for the good old days of objectivity right now, guess what -- they were an anomaly! The old school ways are just back in style.

All that said, whenever you get into an argument over this stuff, please assume good faith. And for yourself whatever your ideological stance happens to be, or which ideological stances you despise, let's leave all that at the door and just try to build a good encyclopedia.

=References=