Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-06-05 Bullshit

Request Information

 * Request made by: AccurateOne 14:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Where is the issue taking place?
 * On the article Bullshit and on Talk:Bullshit.

Other less interesting one sided comments have flowed onto discussion pages of the deleters and my ip based page


 * Note

Im really really new here so I even seem to be messing up when creating this page. Being not gruntled didnt help. While I am new here I am not new to wikis, the wiki way, refactoring, consensus, and I guessed most of the rules that have been broken before I went and found them on Resolving disputes. However the finer local points of presentation syntax (wikis are about content) and just how this page works are all virgin ground. I learn fast. I spell bad and type worse unless I check it very well and so my non article (talk) content may smell.

AccurateOne, some other wikipedians If requested I will do the leg work and get the names, that the past and is gone the solution will be in the future.
 * Who's involved?

Slowed down. Added most uncontroversial (and hence least informative) content I could think of. Good Faith? Added ActiveDiscuss template to talk page
 * Bottom posted List of actions?

Still stuck on how to add an example that wont just get deleted out of hand because Bullshit has no place on wikipedia.... Examples of the form 'Warning the next thing you will read is BS. Insert arbitrary BS here. End of BS' is no longer BS, it is now a joke. Jokes typically from the outset communicate their jokiness 'knock knock'. BSing never admits it is BS in advance the point of the BS (I have seen) is to create (often)false states of knowlege by bypassing reason.

We could quote real world examples of 'potential' BS. The problem is real world BS never admits it is BS. EG "War on weapons of mass destruction", "have war, no weapons" possible example of BS. Was it a mistake, not BS, or is it true that spokespeople could/should or did in fact have knowlege that they were not as certain as they made out that were that the weapons were there. Did the spokepeople at anytime say "we know with a high degree of probability" or was the known qualification left out(lying by omission) potentially on purpose in order to convince.

I suspect all well known real world examples are too hot to handle even with any number of qualifies such as "If it was known". Thus to get examples we need less heated one where perhaps the author might just admit the purpose. These would be exmplars and the readers can then pattern match against the controversial real world examples of BS for themselves.

Oh look, I seem to be moving the talk page here, because it does not for me work there. help!

Older brooms, advice and or help still required & appreciated.

The page on Bullshit is in a poor state. Attempts to improve it are deleted without discussion. Is this despite the various pages Ive read a cultural norm here. I dont know Im knew. I read the theoretical descriptions Resolving disputes of how articles are meant to be created consensus etc, my experience so far of the practice says that Resolving disputes page is an idealised bullshit version as reality is entirely different.
 * What's going on?

It is possible that as wikipedia is interested in well known truth (ie not even new theories) that bullshit, bullshiting and bullshiters, may be a topic on which wikipedia can say nothing.

There are very few academic references. To my knowlege no one has ever done more than analysed their annecdotal experiences and observations. Researchers and academics have not tried to collect a random unbiased sample of bullshit.(I can see the grant proposal now...) Bullshiters rarely admit the intention or goal of the bullshiting even if they are consciously aware of it. So what can be said? If so little can be said should wikipedia admit it cant speak authoritatively on the matter and so delete the page entirely.

I think a good page can be made. It cant be made out of whole cloth and it cant be made without revision. It will need examples so that what ever is said is said factually about a specific piece of bullshit rather than in handwwavy vague generalisations.

Is it important at all? After all isnt it bullshit we are talking about? In my view yes it is important. In modern society as communication gets faster and the sound bites get smaller more and more decisions are made not on the basis of truth and falsity but on the basis of can the spin doctors (Bullshitters) be able to make it look good. An article which raises the general populations immunity to being convinced by bullshit by explaining what it is, is as importnat as arming them with the knowlege of truth about the other topics that wikipedia provides.


 * What would you like to change about that?

I would like people to stop just deleting things, unless they replace them with better ones. At a minimum I expect people to take some fraction of the time I spend creating stuff in explaining on the talk page why they do what they do. As near as I can tell from my experience various vigilanties ride around deleting from the hip things they define as vandalism especially on the uncool pages like Bullshit when everyone knows pages like Truth and Red Shift are what informing the public is all about. I describe that so rudely, because I am concerned you (wikipedia) may have a problem brewing and the zen wikipedians wont notice for some time yet as it only happens in the back blocks where the zen wikizens are thin on the ground. From the start I expected my contributions would only start the ball by attracting attention to the fact that stuff was missing. I have no illusions as to my literary skill. Some of the deletions I understand, (not agree with but can see how it would happen) but given the edit history and the comments in it and the content on the talk page, that no one has yet seen a storm brewing and started communicating is not showing much due dilligence. There are plenty of olive branches and nearly as many simple deletes.

Even better I would like other people to contibute and preferably modify what I write so I can t recognise it. Then when none of its mine, but its complete, I can go away. The current pages grammar is sure to need fixing. If your better at that than me go for it, please, it would take me ages to fix it.

Even better I would like other people to fix the page and I will just go away and reap the rewards of wikipedia without working, but that would be unfair of me.

I am also happy to unwind everything remove all the talk/heat and fix the bullshit page from scratch. Ive crossed and burnt no bridges that I cant just simply choose to ignore and go forwards.

Hell if the answer is FOAD I can live with that too.

The only one I intend not to accept is arguing by deletion.


 * If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?

Reaching me on my talk page or by email is fine. I even live in Melb au if you like coffee. Ive been pretty public so far so there is no need to stop.


 * Would you be willing to be a mediator yourself, and accept a mediation assignment in a different case?

I have insufficient skill and experience here to do that yet... If at anytime I do have the skill it would be on selected topics. The idea that you can referee a debate in any field of expertise is in my view a root cause of bullshit. I know stuff, a lot of stuff, one of them is there is a lot I dont know. One thing I know, is the long list of things I dont know, is incomplete.

A heaping pile of recordkeeping
Note: This is all mostly useless information... pretty much detailing how non-disputive this "dispute" really was. The case was closed to the lack of an immediate conflict. Heh. -- The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake {{sup|{Prophesize)}} 15:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Mediationalization
(A short statement posted by me on user talk:AccurateOne)

Hello good friend, just swooping in after accepting your request at the Mediation Cabal. I'm checking out the exact details of the problem at the moment, but in the meantime feel free to fill me in. Post your reply on my talk page, and we'll continue discussion there. Thanks. Kurds 06:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I replied on my talk page by the way (feel free to delete this once you see it) - Kurds 08:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The circuitry, box #40, attachment zzzr, alien spacenoid T.
(Conversation with user:AccurateOne on my talk page involving Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-06-05 Bullshit)

I think I am in the right place as your talk link on my talk page went to the Kurds article but the signature got me here. (missing user: ?)

anyway I have this page on my watch list.

Kurds> "feel free to fill me in."

I said a lot already. Probably too much.

Discussion is not real time but as my time zone is au, probably 10-12hrs out of synch with you, an exchange of ideas will take some time.

AccurateOne 08:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Fortunately, I'm a nocturnal creature, and am awake pretty much all night... even at 4:47 AM, which is my current time. Kurds 08:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so I've been looking around the bullshit talk page and whatnot, and I think I understand the situation. However, there's not really a central conflict for me to actually "mediate". Although I could put a note on the talk page to "discuss the deletion of article content before removing it", that's all I can really do at this point.

It seems, from sheer speculation, that one reason for reverting your edits is that they are incomplete, and serve as a placeholder for later information. My advise would be to save a draft of your edits, and then once you get a solid base of information, paste the draft onto the article itself. Kurds 09:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Mmmmm hmmmm mmmmm hmmmm *rubs wise man's beard* Apparently your main opposition in this dispute is a Henry Flower, who seems to be engaged in a full-on edit-war with you. Perhaps we should discuss solutions to end conflict/better the article/agree on something/etcetcetc. Yesh? Be a good ideas I's believe.

If you agree, I'll notify Henry of the discussion. Are there any other disputers that you'd like to discuss this with? Kurds 09:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Mmmmm hmmmm mmmmm hmmmm *rubs not so wise man's unkempt beard* Seems like an accurate summation. Edit War is the colloqial term for it here. Being an older programmer, I learnt the wikiway and wiki zen (from the original wiki) There we had a custom don't argue by deletion. Seems the rules here are different, apart from the higher academic aspirations. It is possible I just have culture shock and here there is less cooperation and more duking it out. ie I am having trouble being optimistic, but easily I agree .... Yesh.

Other disputers I don't know about, no one else so far has repeatedly deleted things. It worries me that EditWars seems to be a cultural phenomena, It worries me, my problem may be systemic especially on an article such as BS, I am relatively confident I can add bits on various scientific or programming topics and not get deleted, often, but frankly I am not sure if solving my problem on this occasion, will solve the problem for me, time will tell.

PS. It may even be we have one foot on the road to resolving it, Henry has responded to something I said on his talk page. If we do that several times it will be a dialogue and all things up to and including me choosing to leave wikipedia and or deleting (via rfd) the BS article are on the table. I suppose my only core contention is the BS article is bad and it is not getting better. AccurateOne 11:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Mmmm, I can see were you'd be a little discouraged about everything. But do not fret, edit wars are not accepted by most people. They just tend to happen once you have a larger population of users. Not everyone plays by the rules, especially on articles like bullshit, which tend to attract a population of Wiki editors that don't really... uh... "get" it. I'm not speaking about user:Henry Flower specifically, as he seems to be a pretty reasonable chap with an apparent reason for reverting your edits. The majority of Wiki editors discuss things out before editing, so it's not a "cultural phenomenon", merely a common occurence.

But, ANYWHO, I'll go check out the talk page. Traditionally, discussions are conducted on the case report you submitted (Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-06-05 Bullshit), but I like to be a little unconventional. : ) I think it would be more appropriate if we simply left the discussion at the talk page, and then once we have a solution, I'll simply copy the discussion onto the report to archive it. Kurds 17:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Post-apocalyptic banter case 999938948205-33493959 Alpha Omega
{Conversation on talk:Bullshit involving Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-06-05 Bullshit)

A case report was posted up by user:AccurateOne at the Mediation Cabal involving this article. I will now be helping to iron out any problems that anyone is having. If you'd like to see the report itself, check out Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-06-05 Bullshit. -- Kurds 18:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so it seems AccurateOne is becoming frustrated with the constant reverting of all of his edits. Personally, I can't blame him, I'd be a little pissed too if all of my edits were being reverted. Although I'm sure you have perfectly valid reasons for deleting his material, it's generally best to discuss it on the talk page and then come to an agreement before we change material that's causing conflict between editors. Please note that I personally take no sides on the situation, and will remain neutral throughout any discussion. Yaaaaay neautrality!!

*ahem* Anywho... Now that we have all that mess brought up to the table, let's discuss why AccurateOne's material is being removed. Eh? -- Kurds 18:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

That is a summary, a first degree approximation, but to be neutral it is only 'most' not 'all'. There are some changes at the top of the article that were not immediately reverted. AccurateOne 02:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

zzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Uh oh er what. Oh by the way Kurds it was all good sofar what is it that happens next? AccurateOne 09:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. -- The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake {{sup|{Prophesize)}} 09:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC) (This is Kurds new username, by the way.)

Im saying we are waiting I believe for something to happen. You said we were here to 'discuss' something Im here your here, I believe that the soemthign we are waiting for is someone else to say something. You could tell me in your experience how long we wait before we conclude it is not going to happen. You could also if you thought it wasnt jumping the gun tell what would happen after that time elapses. You could phrase it as explaining the procedure rather than presupposing the event... AccurateOne 09:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Er... well. Generally I just wait till it's obvious that there's no response. As far as I can tell, the "conflict" isn't really that big of a problem, and has pretty much died out. But yes, I'm waiting for for the second party of this so-called "dispute".

Once a case is mediated, it's simply closed and archived. *shrug* -- The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake {{sup|{Prophesize)}}

It has died out in the sense that I am not changing anything so nothing is being reverted. It exists in the sense that I am not bold. I could be very bold and put back what I did that got deleted before but that seems silly, if it was deleted before and nothing has been said and no ideas exchanged, then either immediately or in the not to distant future it will be again. With no information at all on what was percieved to be wrong the last time deciding in the dark what I think and can find that explains 'Bullshit' but might be different in a way to make it acceptable makes the task multiple times harder. AccurateOne 10:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

On a separate note in order to learn I examined some users histories of contributions, and the histories of some articles, so as to find out how wikipedia really works in the real world instead of just how it is supposed to work. When I examined your history to find out what a postive history of contribution looks like, you dont have one. You sprang into existance 00:25, 7 June 2006, is there a reason why or how? AccurateOne 10:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Good call. Causing an edit conflict won't help at all. From what I can speculate, people might not like your lack of citations. Let's pull one of your edits up and analyze it, to help you make better edits.

''As recounted by a soldier that came back from the war after the war to end all wars

After coming back from the war, the Australian troops brought news of a marvelous invention that was going to dramatically reduce the toll taken by sharks eating bathers at our beaches. The 'Yanks' they informed the stay homes had apparently invented a shark proof suit. At the time neck to knee was all the go so there was considerable space for logos etc. On the front, the suit sponsored a full sized American flag neck to knee, on the back was the writing "We won the war" the ANZACS it seems were certain that not even a shark would swallow that.

Note: The accurate use of the word Yank, American is far to broad and grandiose a term to use when referring to the citizens of just one country in America. Even North American would be too broad a term given the cultural diversity it contains. While it is known that Yank properly only refers to half the country, it does refer to the half that did win a war all by themselves. Referring to United Stateans as Confederates would indeed be silly, but in the context of this joke Yank does seem fitting from an external world wide perspective and rolls of the tongue much better than the more correct United Stateans or the wordy United States Citizens.

This BS has been brought to you in the spirit of the ever increasing US AU ties. It is hoped that it will increase our mutual cultural understanding of our mutually supporting roles of founding high-falutin Bullshit as a useful linguistic element in even academic discorse. It is to be remembered after all that when the BS flies it is traditional that it flies in all directions and that no targets are sacred cows.

The interesting thing about bullshit is that it inherently disputes the idea that truth and falsity are mutually exclusive opposites that live on a linear continuim with only two discreet values. While some people accept the truth comes in shades of grey a true Bullshiter plays around with the truth in a complex non linear space and examines it from various directions and perspectives, some of these when they produce suprising or unusual conclusions, ie 'the majority of the US citizens vote for none of the above at each election' are humourous. From some points of view, usually the bullhsitters, the bullshiter is not bulshitting at all, they are simply thinking about the truth from outside the box. The above is a perfect example, is it the truth seen from outside the box, false, or just bullshit.''

It seems to me the main reason for this being edited out is its lack of any sources. Although Wikipedia is a collaboration of human knowedlge, it's policy to use accurate and verifiable resources, rather than anecdotal original research.

There really isn't much of a dispute for me to mediate. Sorry I can't be of much help, but there's no heated conflicts to cool down... it's just a case of the removal of material that's not backed up with sources. Small sentences here and there are acceptable, but when you include an entire section with a hefty amount of information, you usually need to back up your claims.

As for your belief that there is a way Wikipedia is "supposed" to work, and a way that it "really" works, I can't agree. The reality of Wikipedia pretty much runs parallel to its theory.

Sorry if my user contributions are a little... limited. I've just created an account recently, to allow myself more capabilities for assisting Wikipedia. I'm afraid I don't have much information to contribute to the actual articles, that is my area of expertise. I'm more of a "behind-the-scenes" workers, who deals with helping and greeting new people, making Wikipedia more fun, resolving conflicts, etc.

So, if you think that there's not really a dispute to settle... should we consider it case closed? -- The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake {{sup|{Prophesize)}} 11:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

My written reviewed and then not saved edit of this page took that statement of yours rather badly. Your statement So, if you think "..." is in no sense fair summary of anything I said I think so far. Thus instead of reacting badly to that as I nearly did

Here instead let me now put words in your mouth

Instead you say, as a slightly premptive mediator whos ahead of the game and hence knows what will happen next. So, if you now think that there's no longer really a dispute to settle... should we consider it case closed? -

Yes there really was a dispute of course there was a dispute and I'm not happy the dispute came to be, but does it still exist? If you speculate correctly then yes the dispute is over, if you don't then its simply waiting for me to decide you did speculate correctly and act on the advice and we would be right back here or another forum again. So is it really over or not, we can as you did only speculate that I now understand Henry's reasoning by hoping it is the same as yours.

Yes you have now explained what could have been stated easily quite some time ago. Your explanation while it does I suspect go to the heart of the issue, does not explain all the reverts that happened. I understand edit wars are not clean things and guess that might explain the rest. In considering wikipedia I suspect I listened to the sound bites that skim the details, (hence they are weasel words?) "Contain the sum of all human knowledge", means "contain the sum of all verifiable knowledge preferably with multiple sources" a less well spun claim to fame.

Your explanation does not reassure me that a different explanation might not pop out of the woodwork if I take your advice, I might still be reverted without comment or discussion. Ive seen a number of examples of just that in my study of the various users histories, and thus we could be back here having another one sided conversation. I find the amount of time and energy I spend to get a little progress to be rather frustrating. The wikipedia advice 'be bold' does not seem to be on my radar anymore, last time I got bitten. I do however see the writing on the wall and understand 'who' you are now. (See I can read between the lines.) Thanks for being kinder than you needed to be. I understand your rules better and will consider if I wish to participate. It would be a better place if there was greater level of adherence to "Be respectful to others and their points of view. This means primarily: Do not simply revert changes in a dispute." but I suspect I know what the underlying systemic problems are, that pretensioned the social fabric and thus created the effects I experienced. (the actual need for most of the reverts I saw in the histories and the annoyance that must bring). I have been on wikis where respectful was true even when disagreeing severely and that was an experience I wished to repeat. Still time will tell perhaps one day I will be bold again.

If I were to be bold again the first thing to decide is what it is that is important that I can add to wikipedia that fits your guidelines. I suspect as it is literally, "the sum of all human knowledge" that really intrigues me that I may not find a place here. I see incomplete bits of wikipedia that I do know that I could add within your guidelines, but they are not important enough to *me* to add and especially not important enough to risk an edit war over them. BS was an exception the world has BS, Every day important decisions get slid by on platter made of convincing BS. An entry on BS that actually explained it well enough so that people who read it would better understand the game, and how the bullshiters really manipulated the game so that it was "heads I win tails you lose" proposition. That would have been worthwhile. Its a shame I cant see how to try and get there within wikipedias guidelines.

BTW 'WWI' is still I believe wrong but I expect an rfD or a major edit by someone will just wash that away soonish. As it stands I suggest the article will attract trouble and effectively troll the internet for errors of judgement. And please try not to make the unverifiable claim that is it is American popular culture that carried the term to elsewhere in the world. AccurateOne 15:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)