Wikipedia talk:Expert retention/Burden of proof

This is proposed as a stronger alternative to Tendentious editors.

See Expert Retention for background. Mangoe 21:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Why I wrote this
Watching the action in Tendentious editors, it has become apparent to me that we are slipping into the sort of behavior-based standard that we had earlier agreed was a contributor to the problem (see "OK, let me try a different angle: mission priorities"). While we all agree that, um, personality issues are important here, it seemed to me that we needed a way to state this in terms other than those of personal conflict. It seemed to me that we were focusing on rules which would give more ammunition to the ArbCom process, when having to use it at all seemed to be one of the major issues that the experts had.

This seems to be me to be both a good fundamental principle and a good way to cut article damage short. Since the issue revolves around people coming in and editing against the expert consensus, it seemed to me that instead of trying to figure out what that consensus was and imposing it later in the process, it would be more effective to assume up front that Wikipedia content already represented that consensus and put the burden upon those who wanted to change it. By focusing on the challenges to those changes, I would allow uncontroversial changes to simply fall through, whether or not they were well-referenced. This, plus the stricture against devil's advocate actions, would protect the run-of-the-mill article from this proposed rule, regardless of how well-written it was, because most people would not be inclined to issue challenges. In the problem cases, administrators would be empowered to shut down edit wars quickly, in favor of stability, essentially putting teeth behind the principle that controversial changes should be worked out in talk before being imposed. It would also bias against edit creep.

Obviously this needs a lot of refinement. Mangoe 02:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

So far, I'll support either this or TE
Either would improve Wikipedia.

Some of the limitations on Tendentious editors are political concessions, I'll freely admit--I'm expecting a significant blowback when it goes to a vote. Many cranks are rather protective of their right to be cranky.

It might be useful to summarize what you think the similarities and differences are between the two policies; I'll work on my take on the diffs once I study this proposal further.

--EngineerScotty 22:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * In principle I like this a lot. What concerns me is the potential for abuse.  I take it for granted that a good number of edit warring Wikilawyers will attempt to turn any proposal along these lines against a non-crank editor.  How would you guard against that? Durova 01:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

One change I would suggest
In addition to the exclusion on topics considered controversial; I'd also add topics which are generally not the focus of formal study. This includes much fluff (i.e. Pokemon) and such, which has little if any scholarly material written about it. (And even if someone does write a formal paper about a topic such as Pokemon--I'm sure it's been done--I'm still not sure that Pokemon and similar subjects should fall under the scope of the policy.) --EngineerScotty 22:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Made the change; also added a note that repeated editing of the sort described is disruptive.

Doesn't Verifiability already cover this?
Verifiability already says the burden is on the person adding information to source it. Fagstein 02:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * This proposal makes it clear that repeated disregard of WP:V is disruptive, and thus blockable. --EngineerScotty 03:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * They are very similar, and it may make sense to roll this into WP:V. There's a bit of a difference in that this proposal isn't so much aimed at sourcing as it is at stability. Also, this proposal is more procedural. The point is to keep disputes away from the ArbCom and empower admins to cut things off faster. Mangoe 03:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * So at what point would this proposal kick in? How much good faith attempt at resolution does it require before blocking? Durova 03:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it's (also) time to expand WP:DIS
WP:DIS is currently an essay, little cited, and seems to consist of someone kvetching about the great userbox war--a spectacle which I'll agree was a great waste of the time of all involved. :)

Perhaps it could become an "umbrella" policy, which covers the following more specific ones:


 * WP:3RR
 * WP:POINT
 * This, and/or Tendentious editors

--EngineerScotty 03:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's merge these two proposals into one
What would it take to fold Burden of proof together with Tendentious editors? I'd rather have either than none - and we'll probably wind up with none if both get put to a formal vote in competition with each other. Durova 15:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The biggest difference that I see is that TE is more explicit in what it covers and what it doesn't cover; this one is a bit less so. The debate over explicitness (which some say only encourages wikilawyering in order to maneuver around the restrictions) vs vagueness (which other say encourages abuse of policy far beyond it's original intent) is longstanding on Wikipedia.  The only concern I have with BoP is that it is sufficiently open-ended it may attract no votes for that reason--there are quite a few influential editors who might support this, but are distrustful of the administrators' corps.  --EngineerScotty 15:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The chief intended difference is procedural: BoP is directed at cutting off editing of the article early in the dispute process and doesn't really address the conduct of the ensuing discussion. It's possible that we could merge it into the other, but so far I haven't figured a good way to do that. Mangoe 18:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Merger proposal
Here's my attempt at merging the two:

Tendentious editors/Merger proposal

Added some comments to the talk page. Main issues (other than style issues) are when blocking/banning kicks in; and the issue of stare decisis on Wikipedia. --EngineerScotty 20:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Ending consideration of this proposal
It has become apparent that this proposal largely duplicates material in Reliable sources. Although the latter is a guideline rather than a policy, there seems to be no strong inclination to continue considering this as a policy proposal. Mangoe 17:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)