User talk:Valjean/Editing controversial articles

I wish we had some special rules for editing controversial articles. I have dreamed about it for some time and have occasionally written about it. Articles on topics that are recognized as very controversial, such as alternative medicine, politics, religion, and nationalism, should:


 * 1) be more tightly controlled;
 * 2) only experienced editors should be allowed to edit them;
 * 3) their edits should be overseen by an admin (preferably with knowledge of the subject matter) who functions as a referee;
 * 4) editors are allowed to edit only after declaring their POV, any possible COI issues, and stating their willingness not to oppose the inclusion of opposing POV. (This does not preclude the possibility of other editors providing input.);
 * 5) then they all "sit down at the same table" (the talk page) and work out their changes to the article;
 * 6) when the changes have achieved consensus, then the admin gives permission for inclusion, or does it themselves;
 * 7) the referee will enforce a very high standard for what is allowed on the talk page, such as staying on-topic, and no personal attacks, etc.;
 * 8) the referee can block or ban disruptive editors from access to the article and its talk page, and if necessary from Wikipedia;
 * 9) such disruptive editors should not be allowed open access to other articles on related subject matter, but that decision will be up to the referee of the relevant article;
 * 10) such articles would obviously be protected and would have the possibility of moving directly up the quality scale from GA to FA;
 * 11) once they have achieved FA they should be placed under even more protection. This way we would begin to have articles that are considered more or less "finished" and truly reliable sources, in the normal sense;
 * 12) only correction of significant errors or the making of important changes, possibly in keeping with newer information, discoveries, or sources, should be allowed after that.

Right now articles are constantly in a state of flux. They are being misused for advancement of commercial interests, advocacy of fringe agendas, under attack, vandalized, never stable, and definitely not considered as reliable sources off-wiki, and even by Wikipedia itself. That's a scandal.

I'd like to get a discussion going about the points above. What's missing? What needs modifying? Is this realistic? Will it help the editing environment here? Will it produce better articles that are reliable? Please add your comments below about these ideas. What think ye? -- Fyslee / talk 06:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Comments about editing controversial articles
Please write your suggestions (based on the above) for how to develop and streamline this process so it could work to provide better articles, a better editing climate, and above all to produce stable articles that are truly reliable sources. -- Fyslee / talk 19:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think the problem is that articles are controversial. I think the problem is just that there are many editors that cannot or will not follow the  core principles.  If a large group of such editors work on the same articles or set of articles, the editing environment usually becomes so bad that other editors stop participating in those articles.  It takes such a large amount of work to stop tendentious and disruptive editors that few try. --Ronz (talk) 17:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I know what you mean and agree. The thing here is that such things don't happen very much on non-controversial issues. Therefore we need more watchfulness on those articles, because that's where the disruptive editors flock to push their fringe POV. -- Fyslee / talk 17:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * But is it better to try to solve the problems by identifying controversial articles rather than dealing with the individual editors? In the past, such problems are almost always solved at the editor level. --Ronz (talk) 01:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem is that some articles will routinely come under attack, because of the nature of the topic. Thats why controversial topics need extra protection (many of obvious targets are already protected, often for this reason).


 * I have often thought extra protection for controversial articles would be a good idea. I have two main arguments against. First off, Wikipedia has prided itself on a certain level of freedom, for all editors. I think this is a fundamentally good principal, though it can be un-workable sometimes. Added protection for some articles would limit some users freedom to edit those articles... My second issue is scaring users off. If the editing process for an article seems too complicated and time-consuming, will some editors be less likely to help? Lex Kitten (talk) 11:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, article protection could scare new editors off. However, a hostile editing environment will scare off all editors. --Ronz (talk) 17:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I am open to allowing new editors access to the talk page, which means they aren't cut off from influence at all. In the beginning they would be in a similar position as a strongly COI editor who is limited to only suggesting things on the talk page, without direct editing of the article, which with controversial articles isn't a bad thing. In fact, since the talk page is where they will reveal if they are collaborative, abusive, tendentious, or open to consensus editing, such participation is good and will provide the needed basis for establishing their acceptability as editors of the article itself. Keep in mind that this has nothing to do with their POV. All POV are welcome. It is strictly about their attitudes towards working with other editors, especially with editors who hold opposing POV, and their understanding of NPOV and the purpose of Wikipedia, which is not to right great wrongs or use it for advocacy or propaganda. -- Fyslee / talk 06:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Alternative medicine

 * Acupuncture
 * Applied kinesiology
 * Aspartame controversy
 * Chiropractic
 * Homeopathy
 * Hulda Clark
 * Juice Plus
 * Kevin Trudeau
 * List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts
 * Morgellons
 * Mucoid plaque
 * National Council Against Health Fraud
 * Quackwatch
 * Stephen Barrett
 * Vaccine controversy

Political/National

 * See Requests_for_arbitration/Macedonia --Ronz (talk) 18:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's an ArbCom on a whole series of controversial articles. I tried to help with some of the articles, and still do, but it's pretty much impossible to make a difference because disruptive editing is the rule rather than the exception.  It's a massive case of WP:SOAP and WP:BATTLE. --Ronz (talk) 19:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Religious

 * L. Ron Hubbard
 * Scientology
 * Waldorf