Wikipedia:Peer review/CrimethInc./archive1

===CrimethInc.===

This peer review discussion has been closed. CrimethInc. is a somewhat obscure and secretive anarchist organisation about which little has been written in reliable sources. The article has recently been promoted to GA, and, barring newly published information, expanding it with relevant, reliably sourced content would be very difficult. So I am thinking the article is ripe for an FA nom, and wanted experienced editors to take a look over it to see what can be improved. In gratitude, Skomorokh  11:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC) Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Peer review/CrimethInc./archive1.

Ruhrfisch comments: An interesting article, obviously the result of a lot of hard work, but not up to FA standards yet. Here are some ideas to help improve it:
 * I would identify the handprint logo in the infobox as being an official CrimethInc. logo - I just thought it was some generic picture until I clicked on it and read the license, etc.
 * Ditto for Image:Crimethinc logo Jan2008.png - this needs a caption
 * I think the article starts in media res with Philosophy and needs more context / background for the unitiated reader - see WP:PCR and provide context for the reader. I would consider reorganizing the article to make it clearer / more accessible. I know this is about an anarchist group, but that does not mean the article on them has to be this chaotic ;-)
 * Ouch! Criticism is well-aimed; as a temporary measure, I've switched the Activities and Philosophy sections.
 * It was kind of meant as a joke as well as criticism - sorry to have caused pain. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 16:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Could there be some sort of history - if it is known, who were the original organizers (and where and when)? What traditions / movements / groups did they come out of? From reading the rest of the article it is clear they were around by 2001 to publish a book. I realize that this is a loosely organized group and there may not be much history, but there has to be something more than is currently given.
 * Zilch. Nothing. Nada. All I have been able to find in an exhaustive search of online RS's is that it started as Inside Front, began operating as a collective in '96 and started really taking off in '01/'02 with the first book and convergence.
 * Even saying that would be helpful. Also 1996 is early enough that not as much was put online then, so there may be print sources. I have no idea what or where those would be though. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 16:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Days of War is partially on Wikisource: check this out for how futile it is to try and get a history of the project! Skomorokh


 * Here's an example of poor organization in the article: in philosophy we read Situationist Ken Knabb has criticized CrimethInc. for presenting simplistic and in some cases false accounts of history in Days of War, Nights of Love,... but what exactly Days of War, Nights of Love is is not explained until four sections later in Books.
 * Point taken. It now reads "in their manifesto Days..."


 * I would also explain briefly at the beginning what cells and agents and other jargon means - see WP:JARGON.
 * The jargonistic phraseology needs to be excised, I concur.
 * Better explained works too, although some excision would not hurt. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 16:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * So perhaps some sort of overview section or paragraph could follow the lead with some history / context, and some organization, perhaps even a mention of specific titles that come up before the books. Or the lead needs to better summarize the whole article - I notice the lead mentions Inside Front by name, but does not wikilink it, nor does it identify it as a magazine. I had to search the rest of the article to see what it was and if it is important enough to be mentioned in the lead, then there should be more about it in the text than including it with no explanation in the Zines / Papers section.
 * I think this is a very good idea. What do you mean by "a mention of specific titles that come up before the books."? Essays/pamphlets published pre-2001?
 * Sorry to be unclear - I just meant that if they published book/paper/zine A, and A is referred to in the article before the section on publications, then when first talking about A be more explicit in introducing it. It was meant to be a general followup to the specific example of Days of War, Nights of Love, above. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 16:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Eminently sensible; I have clarified Expect Resistance and Days of War, let me know if I've missed any. Skomorokh


 * References need work to get up to FA standards.
 * A fair number of references are to CrimethInc. published sources - these are not always going to meet WP:RS, especially for FAC.
 * Could you expand on this?
 * Sure, I'll try. 1) The nutshell for WP:RS says Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. so wherever possible it is best to use sources that are third-party, i.e. not from CrimethInc. (I mistype that every time!) itself. Realizing the nature of the group, there will be times you have to use self-published sources. 2) Since the article must use some self-published sources, I would also look at Self-publishedsources (online and paper) and the section right below that one, Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves which lists seven guidelines, the last of which is the article is not based primarily on such sources. (emphasis mine) 3) Finally, here is something else that may come up at FAC. I am not sure if CrimethInc. is seen as an "extremist" organization or not, but the WP:RS page also says Organizations and individuals that are widely acknowledged as extremist, whether of a political, religious or anti-religious, racist, or other nature, should be used only as sources about themselves and their activities in articles about themselves, and even then with caution. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 16:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I see, thanks for elaborating. Given the acclaim that CrimethInc. publications have received ("greatest propagandists of contemporary American anarchism", "set the standard for publishing", etc.) and the fact that they have operated a sustainable zine, glossy journal, and three heavyweight books and broke even, self-published sourcing/vanity publishing is not a huge concern here, in the vein of "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field." Looking at the 7 criteria, 6 is obviously an issue, but not when you consider CrimethInc. a single entity. I don't think the article is unduly self-serving, or, given the 30+ independent references, based primarily on primary sources. I do think FAC would go to town on this issue though, but this article hasn't a snowball's chance there anyway.  Skomorokh


 * Wherever possible, you should directly attribute quotes and views cited. Example: In the Philosophy section FAQ asserts that it has "no platform or ideology except that which could be generalized from the similarities between the beliefs and goals of the individuals who choose to be involved—and that is constantly in flux."[5] does not say whose FAQ says this, but should, so perhaps somethink like The CrimethInc.com website FAQ asserts that... would be better.
 * I've changed it to "CrimethInc. FAQ"; I don't want to have to explain the role of the website here, it is just a forum for the publication for the document.
 * That is fine too. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 16:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Another example in the next paragraph: CrimethInc. has been described as "inheritors of the political avant-garde",[11] and the collective has acknowledged the influence of the Situationist International.[12] should identify who made the quote (Martin Puchner) and also be clearer on who the collective is (the reader shouldn't have to click on the ref link to find out).
 * I have attributed the Puchner quote; is it not unambiguous and acceptable to refer to CrimethInc. as "the collective" in the article? It is repetitive to keep naming the article, like writing a biography without using personal pronouns.
 * I just did not realize "the collective" referred to CrimethInc. here. I agree the article does not have to refer to it by full name throughout. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 16:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Third example: Observers have noted elements of Situationist thought,[15][16] Dadaism,[16] anarcho-primitivism, and post-left anarchy in CrimethInc. writings. Who are these "observers" - birds on a wire outside the CrimethInc. offices? The FBI? Academics? And shouldn't "anarcho-primitivism, and post-left anarchy" have references too? The whole video section is unreferenced as well.
 * It's uncontroversial to say that there are elements of primitivism in CrimethInc., and they are probably the pre-eminent expositors of post-left anarchy. However, this statement has been more trouble than it is worth, so I have removed it. To add an inline attribution to "Treesong" would seem to undermine the integrity of the piece.
 * I write about creeks and once had someone ask me for a reference that a sawmill operated in a creek's drainage basin (when I had a photo of the sawmill). What seems obvious to one editor might not seem that way to others. I saw a list of four items, with the first two referenced and the last two not referenced and wondered why not. As to the last point, I am sorry but I am not sure what "Treesong" is - I searched the article for that word just now and did not find it. If you mean do I want you to add inline refs within an extended quotation, the answer is no (but cite the quote itself at the end). Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 16:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, I empathize with you there, I suppose my topic is even more obscure than yours! The Treesong was a reference I took out with the sentence. The issue now is that while the reader knows CrimethInc. is anarchist, they have no impression beyond the Situationist reference as to what type of anarchism is involved - a formidable omission once you consider broadness of the field. Skomorokh


 * Sentences like Cells have also supported various large-scale campaigns with publicity work, including the "Unabomber for President" and the "Don't Just (Not) Vote" election campaigns as well as the protests against the Free Trade Area of the Americas of 2003 in Miami, Florida. need references. You get the idea.
 * Does this really need references? Per WP:V "...any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation". I don't understand why anyone would or would want to challenge this. I have added a reference for the DJ(N)V cite though. CrimethInc. Guerilla Film Series, Volume One includes a full-length documentary on their activities in Miami.
 * I kind of wanted to read the Unabomber for Pres. and was too lazy to Google it ;-) See sawmills story above. These are all just suggestions, and it can be left unsourced, but be aware that some at FAC might expect refs anyway (and all actionable request at FAC are supposed to be addressed - not always done, but at least responded to and explained why not done if that is the case). If you are not already looking at FAC, it makes useful reading as to what to expect.
 * You forced my hand - Unabomber for President! Unabomber and Don't Just Vote have refs now. I've left the Miami section unreffed for now, as the article discusses it in the Video section and it can be reffed easily enough if contested. I prefer not to over-reference good and featured articles as it gives articles a laundry list feeling and disrupts the prose. Skomorokh


 * Avoid repetition - the books section starts by naming and briefly describing their books, then has a list of them again.
 * The list is here to stay, it is a very useful resource to see at a glance what Crimethinc. has published; the opening paragraph is supposed to be an introduction to their publishing activities, highlighting the main points.
 * OK, just suggestions. FAC will likely object to the direct external links to the publications without articles - probably better to just use a reference to the online source for each. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 16:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've came across that preference at WP:FLC, and to be honest it is a little puzzling. For example, in this case all of the zines/pamphlets/essays without articles are linked to the same directory (http://www.crimethinc.com/tools/downloads/zines.html) - repeating "" a dozen times with different titles would not seem to add any encyclopedian value beyond the current format, in my view. I understand it's a concern of linkfarming?  Skomorokh

All in all an interesting read, but needs some work to get to FA status - hope this helps, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 21:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Again on the idea of putting things into context, identify groups / provide context - for example, identify Profane Existence in the Music section. Most readers will not know who they are otherwise or why this is a valid comparison.
 * I am not sure what a good model would be, but if you can find an article on another group that is FA that might give you some ideas here.


 * Thank you ever so much for the comprehensive review, Ruhrfisch, I'll try to address these issues when I have sufficient time. Initial issues addressed. Skomorokh  15:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You are very welcome, I have replied to your replies and hope they are useful comments. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 16:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments by BirgitteSB
First of all I think you have done nice job here with what you (I'll save what don't have for the end). I remember reading this article before trying to figure out something for Wikisource, and it is much more informative than it was back then. My first thoughts after reading the article is that it needs to come down a level. Right know you are assuming too much of the reader and not explaining things like "collective" and "splinter group". While these are certainly the proper terms to use later in the article, you need to describe everything better at first. "CrimethInc. . . is a decentralized anarchist collective composed of autonomous cells." Gives me the slight impression of Al Queda, but I don't exactly understand how Al Queda operates so it is like knowing two words are synonymous yet having a few educated guesses as to the definition. I think the average reader may come away from this article knowing what CrimethInc has done, half-way understanding what they believe, but still not able to say what they are.
 * I think that's the intended effect ;) Criticism well taken - I have tried to stick to what the sources say, and have consequently used their language, but if a little leniency on the WP:OR front is granted, I think I can summarize/translate for a general audience. Skomorokh

Overall I feel a lot of the problems stem from a sourcing issue. You need to find more sources about this organization and movement. Not by the organization. Not about things done by the organization. Finding more big picture, external sources would improve this article by leaps and bounds. Most of your sources right now are not offering you the proper perspective to write a really good encyclopedic article.-- Birgitte SB  23:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Lead: Not a summary of the article. Does not give the basic context needed by most readers.  How big is CrimethInc.? How radical is it? Where did it come from and how wide is it's influence? Is it the descendant/parent of any particular movement(s)? Why was it formed?
 * Not a summary of the article? I thought it touched on all the main points. The size or scope of CrimethInc. is impossible to discern, as membership is by unilateral voluntary association - anyone may take up the name, form a cell or use any CrimethInc. content without asking anyone else's permission. How radical is it? Would it help to say that they oppose all voting, disavow nonviolent resistance and outright refuse to work? Perhaps. Where it came from is prominently described in the lede - Inside Front, 1996. How wide its influence is is addressed by the line that it has "received national media and academic attention, as well as strong criticism and praise from other anarchists for its activities and philosophy." We could probably mention that it is described as one of the foremost American anarchist organizations, but would that be weasely? Skomorokh
 * Activities What is the difference between cells, splinter groups, and individuals adopting the CrimethInc nom de guerre? What exactly is the purpose of CrimethInc's activities? Have they been successful achieving that purpose?  Also I think the activity of publishing is noticeably missing here. That should probably be discussed with "Publications" as a sub-heading.
 * There is no hierarchy or even official designation of subunit, if that is what you mean; the terms "cells" "splinter groups" and "individuals" are terms the media has applied to different expressions of CrimethInc; I'm not sure if it would be helpful to elaborate on what is commonly meant by those terms in other contexts - what do you think? Purpose: "Its main goal is to inspire people to take more active control of their own lives, becoming producers of culture and history instead of passive consumers." - from the philosophy section. Good question as to success, the CrimethInc. Shareholder Report should probably be referenced more here. Publications is prominent enough to have its own section. Skomorokh
 * Convergences Why mention that FBI informants attended without discussing the investigation? If law enforcement has an interest in this group shouldn't that be discussed somewhere in the article?
 * It is in the context of explaining the convergence culture - no hard and fast rules save "no police informants" (violations explained). I might be able to expand on the law enforcement issue, I'll have a look for sources. Skomorokh
 * Philosophy I found this section the hardest to read. You need to do a lot more explaining here and focus on how their philosophy fits into the grander scheme of things rather than just drop the names of other philosophies.  I think there is too much quoted material.  Despite the first sentence about the variety of opinions within CrimethInc and the lack of an rigid platform, you give no examples an internal dispute.  This section would benefit from some compare and contrast writing.  Both of internal positions and with philosophies more likely to be  familiar to the reader.
 * I will perhaps try to give a broader context; opposition to capitalism, consumerism and working culture would probably help. There is quoted material because I am trying to attribute controversial claims; to use the material disquotationally would seem to misrepresent opinion as fact. How do you recommend we address this? I am somewhat puzzled to your reference to internal disputes - to my knowledge, no internal disputes have ever been reported upon. Just because organization lacks a rigid platform does not imply that there are internal disputes. I may try and find Crimethinc. publications that differ in emphasis and perhaps position, but I am worried that any attempt on my part to portray apparent differences as evidence of ideological diversity would constitute an unpublished synthesis. Do you have any suggestions on how to address this? I take your point on philosophies more likely to be familiar to the reader. Skomorokh
 * Publications Not enough prose. You could turn some of this into a bibliography apart from the actual article like Henry James.
 * It is possible that the publications could be split into their own article, but I'm not sure it would be long enough to justify the move. Would you recommend total conversion to prose or something like a brief description of each work listed? Do critical reactions to publications belong here? Skomorokh
 * This is the crux of the issue, as I highlighted in the peer review request. There are no overviews, only passing mentions in academic, news media and anarchist writings, and lengthy critical book reviews. Online sources have been virtually exhausted and I do not know where to turn to to look for more comprehensive material. Thank you profusely for your insightful, to the point and helpful comments thus far. Regards, Skomorokh  08:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * In general, I would say to look at my above suggestion as a wish list. If you can't find sources to back up info I wish for, then you can't grant my wish.  Definately do not stretch your sources.  If you exhausted all the Crimethinc sources I would suggest "zooming out" in what you are looking for.  How about general sources on anarchy that might have a section on Crimethinc?  Are ther any academic sources on anarchy in gerneral that might be useful?  What about genernal source on anti-consumerism or any of the other key issues Crimethinc is concerned with?  Is there any information in Philosophy or Sociology journals you could use?  If there are no sources, you may not be able to reach FA until they are written.  I will come back and give some more specific responces to your points soon.  I have been ill lately, and didn't want to go any longer without responding to you at all.-- Birgitte  SB  17:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)