User:Valjean/Essay/How to increase Wikipedia's credibility



Research shows that Wikipedia gains credibility by being an active fact-checker and anti-fringe. Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia and always strives to report facts as found in reliable sources (RS). Our articles should leave no doubt as to what is factual and what is false or unproven. Falsehoods, pseudoscience, and conspiracy theories damage Wikipedia's credibility, and when fringe editors leave Wikipedia it becomes more trustworthy.

The recipe for increased credibility is simple: be anti-fringe; be factual and call things by their right names; and firmly oppose fringe editors.

This knowledge should result in a mentality shift toward actively opposing fringe editors who push nonsense. They insidiously undermine our RS policy and damage Wikipedia's credibility, so they don't belong here. When possible, it's better to use topic bans to redirect their energies toward more constructive ways of editing. If they won't do that, other sanctions should be applied boldly, without hesitation or delay.

Research of credibility factors
The following research by Steinsson, published in the American Political Science Review, lays out some facts about Wikipedia's credibility:

Here's a good analysis of Steinsson's work by ShahBano Ijaz:

Recipe for credibility
That research by Steinsson lays out some facts that can be summarized in a simple recipe for quickly increasing Wikipedia's credibility: be anti-fringe, factual, call things by their right names, and confidently oppose fringe editors.

Be anti-fringe
Wikipedia does not cater to what Jimmy Wales calls "lunatic charlatans", nor does it allow advocacy of fringe points of view, so the fact that fringe believers don't like some of our articles shows that we must be doing something right.

Because Wikipedia has a bias towards use of reliable and accurate sources, fringe POV pushers should have a hard time here. While it should not be difficult to include facts about proven reality, it should be difficult to make fringe points of view appear to be true. If fringe POV pushers want to edit here, they should have a hard row to hoe, and they shouldn't be allowed to make life difficult for defenders of proven reality. Advocacy of nonsensical opinions and beliefs is forbidden here, while advocacy of proven reality isn't forbidden. The POV pushing may look the same, but it's allowable to have a bias for reality, but not allowable to frame nonsense with a favorable bias.

Our fringe guideline requires that we avoid a false balance when it states:


 * "When discussing topics that reliable sources say are pseudoscientific or fringe theories, editors should be careful not to present the pseudoscientific fringe views alongside the scientific or academic consensus as though they are opposing but still equal views."

Editors must avoid a false balance because not all points of view are equal. In any controversy, when one side is true, the other side will usually be wrong:


 * "The pursuit of balance can create imbalance because sometimes something is true." — Daniel Okrent, first public editor of The New York Times
 * "Apply and interpret WP:NPOV with due care and caution, please. Devoting equal time and space to all 'sides' of a controversy only makes sense if all sides are equally credible. Where a preponderance of evidence – or an outright consensus among experts – exists, we fail as editors if our coverage does not accurately reflect that understanding." — TenOfAllTrades

When dealing with evidence for claims, and especially claims for fringe subjects, scientists and skeptics follow the basic principles of science and scientific skepticism, and editors should use the same principles in their editing. These involve critical thinking and are a fundamental part of the scientific method. The scientific reliance on evidence and reproducibility is paralleled by, and perfectly aligned with, the editorial needs and demands found in our reliable sources and verifiability policies. When editors use these policies properly, they are applying the scientific method. The following notable quotes touch on these matters:

Both in the real world and here at Wikipedia, the fringe point of view must produce very strong evidence (good sources) if it can ever be accepted as legitimate and true. Those who are so far out of left field as to not understand reality, or to consider nonsense to be true, should have a hard time here, and they do because they lack good sources. To make up for the lack they often use original research and poor sources, and then dare to demand that they be treated in a special manner not recognized by our policies and guidelines. Such attempts have been soundly ridiculed and rejected here, and such editors often end up blocked and/or banned.

Be factual and call things by their right names


Wikipedia gains credibility by being correct and factual, and by rejecting false information. We must have a reputation for fact-checking and leave no confusion as to what is true or false. We must always side with facts and reliable sources of information. Readers should not be forced to figure it out. What RS consider to be true or false should be obvious to them.

Did you think that Wikipedia never takes sides? When there is a disagreement between reliable sources, that is true. We explain the points of view and give them coverage according to their due weight. But when dealing with a disagreement between reliable and unreliable sources, we side with RS. Unreliable sources have no weight here. They are always "undue", and the only way we document their views is when RS mention them. Then we use the RS and give the content the framing found in the RS. Falsehoods are framed as what they are. They are not simply stated, as is. No, they are labeled as falsehoods. When we can call out the false or misleading statements by Donald Trump, we can certainly do it with other topics. He is not the only purveyor of falsehoods we must identify at Wikipedia.

Facts and opinions are not the same, and facts must win. Lies, pseudoscience, and conspiracy theories should be called out by name in the text. We must use the labels used by RS. We must not be afraid to say falsehood, lie, liar, pseudoscience, and conspiracy theory when good sources justify doing so. We expect the truth, and any deviation should be labeled as such. If reliable sources use those words, it is not a violation of the NPOV policy to do the same and use those words in the text. When in doubt, just attribute it.


 * "Neutrality is not the average between bollocks and reality. In science, any compromise between a correct statement and an incorrect statement, is an incorrect statement." User:JzG, November 2019, on Talk:Craniosacral therapy.

On Wikipedia, "neutral point of view" does not mean "no point of view" or that we do not use biased words from the sources if they are true. It is editors, not sources or words, who must be neutral. We must neutrally and faithfully document biased words and biased sources without neutralizing or censoring their words or meaning. When the content and title are aligned with RS, no matter whether they are left, right, up, or down, the content and title are "neutral". When editors edit in a way that deviates from the RS, the editors are not editing neutrally. We must not make facts sound like opinions or opinions sound like facts. We follow the scientific method. If reliable sources discover that they have made mistakes, we will update our content accordingly. Many of Wikipedia's rules follow the scientific method and the rules of logic.

A contentious term or value-laden label like "conspiracy theorist" can and should be used to describe someone for whom RS apply this label consistently without meaningful rebuttal. We should call a spade a spade and note that plain understanding of RS takes precedence over avoiding giving offense to the subject's sensibilities. BLP is not a protection from any negative information. A public figure must be described as they are understood by reliable sources.

Some opinions are more important than others
Wikipedia guidelines require us to express points of view in WP:DUE weight. That means that opinions which are from noted experts, or which are closely aligned with neutral and factual analysis at a high level of authoritativeness and prominence, should take precedence over lesser, more fringe or novel perspectives, with the most fringe perspectives afforded the least weight, or none at all.

Fringe editors should be opposed
Fringe editors should be met with topic bans and blocks until they drop their fringe agendas, leave, or are banned. Wikipedia must not accommodate or allow fringe editors to dilute our content by using bad sources and wishy-washy wording. We are brave enough to call a spade a spade. Firmly taking that position will freeze out disruptive editors and allow mainstream editors to edit without so much distraction from fringe editors who advocate nonsense and seek to undermine our reliably-sourced content. Their loss is a net positive for the project, so the sooner we get rid of them, the better.

Wikipedia is allied with the facts and is clearly on their side. Wikipedia doesn't know what is true if reliable sources don't tell us. All our content is based on reliable sources, so they tell us what is true and factual. Our requirement to use reliable sources makes sense, and, of course, we side with our own RS policy.

Therefore, we reject editors who do not side with RS. Research shows fringe editors damage Wikipedia's credibility. Their ability to disrupt should be hampered. If they don't have the necessary competency to vet sources, they should stick to uncontroversial topics, maybe only minor edits, or leave. Their influence must be curtailed, often with topic bans, but sometimes with blocks or bans. On the other hand, when possible, it's better to redirect their energies toward more constructive ways of editing. WikiGnomes are always welcome, and even fringe editors can do such good work.