Wikipedia talk:Strategic issues with core policies, guidelines and structures

Recent edits Wp:VER / WP:NOR-> main discussion section
This is a work in progress. I think that Whatamidoing was right to point out/correct that the particular example/comment pair was not accurate. The policy does in fact have wording to resolve that too-extreme example that I used. The example was intended to illustrate that the is a lack of taking-into-account the expertise and objectivity of the source regarding the topic at hand. A better example is needed. I don't think that the "so this shows that there's no issue" type statement as itself valid, but take that as a flag on the above issue. Point taken and I'll remove the whole thing. North8000 (talk) 13:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

controversial claims
I like this effort.

"Controversial claims require stronger sourcing" - be very careful with this. Instead of reducing disputes it will create many about "controversial yes/no", "this source is strong enough yes/no".

See also my REDFLAG concern: Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability

--POVbrigand (talk) 13:07, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Good point....like always, we have to watch for unintended consequences.  Feel free to edit. North8000 (talk) 13:09, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

NPOV vs OR
''"Example: "Priest John Smith said that he is a homosexual. Smith critics noted that the XYZ study concluded that allegations of homosexual child molestation by priests is 9 times more common than allegations of heterosexual child by priests.""''

I think it is not a case of NPOV, because both statements are NPOV (in your example). But putting the two so close together implies something. I thing that is covered in SYNTHESIS "imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources"

I see you already brought that up, but think it is a weak defence. I don't think it is weak.

--POVbrigand (talk) 13:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

(Edit conflict, responding only to previous post) ::Agree, and I mentioned that. My example is one that such is so obvious that wp:synth becomes usable/effective. But the point is that mere presence of material can be POV, even in cases where there is not a wp:synth smoking gun making it usable. So, good point that my example a bad example. Thanks. North8000 (talk) 13:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Feel free to edit. North8000 (talk) 13:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, I will add my thoughts indented to the essay --POVbrigand (talk) 13:28, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * On second thought, it is more difficult than I thought

first hurdle WP:V and WP:RS

 * is the proposed content verifiable ? (yes / no)
 * is the source used for verification reliable ? (yes / no)

PASSed 1st hurdle -> NPOV effect of the proposed content on the article

 * is the proposed content serving the majority or a minority point of view of the article's subject ? (either directly or by implying something "reading between the lines") ? (majority / minority)
 * (minority) -> is the article devoted to the minority point of view ? (yes / no) see -> Reliable_sources_and_undue_weight "Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them—Wikipedia is not paper. But on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it should not be represented as the truth."
 * (minority) -> is it a significant minority point of view ? (yes / no) see -> UNDUE

using this incomplete flow chart, it could be possible to describe the "worst president of the last century" as an insignificant minority point of view which would add undue weight.

It could also be possible to describe the implications made by adding "second cousin child molester" in a prominent place in the article as an insignificant minority point of view which would add undue weight. (However if the article's subject is "Convicted family members of US presidents" then it would be a different story.)

Your proposed "relevancy" guideline should be part of a clearer NPOV guideline. It boils down to "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article."

--POVbrigand (talk) 14:52, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes. FYI, I tend to think a lot of the logical mechanics of policies and situations. For example, my "worst president" was to illustrate a different point.  The mechanics of the statement is simply accurately telling the readers what Limbaugh said, not telling them what kind of a President Obama is.  So it flies under the wp:Npov radar screen. North8000 (talk) 17:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, maybe the best of the two options when something flies under the npov radar should be inclusion in a non-prominent part of the article. For some presidents/politicians/rulers/monarchs the "worst of the last century" label could be indeed valuable information to the article. Not as a hard fact, but as an assessment by a noteworthy commentator. If the article would become an unreadable collection of such "negative" tidbits than wp:undue could be used to reduce it. Or maybe even make a separate article out of it. I am very much an inclusioninst; when in doubt, add it.
 * Inclusion of one line could lead to deletion of another line. Each line by itself could be admissible, but too many of them would ruin the article.


 * My current account is SPA for cold fusion. Because that is a controversial topic I have seen many reverts "against" the minority POV which were questionable. POV pushing goes both ways, reverting minority views while calling wp:undue is very often just tendentious editing, especially in an article dedicated to a controversial topic. --POVbrigand (talk) 20:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Structure needed to resolve clarification of wp:coi (North's original)
I (North8000) will probably copy this into the wp:coi talk page. (Title elsewhere:  Structure to untangle the WP:COI Gordion knot) The effort clarify wp:coi do this is hopelessly mired down because it is a structurally a complex topic; actually an entanglement of many different topics. Each "topic" of discussion has, in fact, been on multiple related topics which creates a Gordian Knot where progress is nearly-impossible. A tool to cut through that is to analyze and delineate the key unresolved underlying structural questions and put them into a framework as follows. After months of analysis and work, here is an attempt at that:


 *  1. Especially since there is no consistent real world definition of the term "conflict of interest" to use here, shall we try to define define a Wikipedia meaning of the term "conflict of interest"? (whether or not the term is actually used in the specifics of the guideline)


 *  2. If so, shall the definition of the term be


 *  2.1  A starting-point definition - based on the mere presence of prescribed types of influences?
 *  2.2  A near-the-"finish line" definition, where, the conflicting interests have overly "won" the editors mind with respect to potential editing, and so unrestrained editing would go against the objectives of Wikipedia? (E.g. the current bolded definition at the beginning of the guideline)
 *  2.3  A "Wikipedia-mis-actions" finish line definition, where an editor has actually edited against the objectives of Wikipedia due to conflicting interests?


 *  3.  IF it is decided to define the term (Wikipedia) Conflict of interest, shall the term be significantly used in the guideline? And if it's not used much, shall we make up a different term (e.g. a "high-COI-concern" situation)  for use in the operative sections, or just use descriptions?

Structurally the operative parts of wp:coi are a blend of these three things:


 *  4.  Attempts to define "presence of interest" situations which are an issue or risk.  This has several components/measures
 *  4.1  Degree that certain benefits are concentrated on the editor.  High concentration examples would be payments to the editor, self promotion of the editor (e.g. their book), the editor receiving a promotion at work. Medium concentration examples would be a regular employee/member  of a large company/union helping the company/union do better,   A low concentration example would be the benefits of greater world peace to an individual from promoting world peace.
 *  4.2 Extent that benefits to the editor are monetary vs non-monetary. High = e.g. pay for editing, increased sales of the editor's book, a promotion for the professor covered in the article. A non-monetary benefit might be the pleasure of "scoring one" for one's (outside-of-Wikipedia) cause.
 *  4.3 Given that we lack knowledge of the other particulars (such as whether or not the editor is willing and able to ignore their interests when editing), how strong of an indicator is the mere presence of a situation that editing would influenced? High is an ad that says "if you pay me, I will make you look good in Wikipedia"  Medium might be editor activism in a field related to the article.


 *  5.  Attempts to define "thresholds" of these (individually or cumulatively) where special provisions should kick in.
 *  6.  Attempts to define special provisions which should "kick in" at those thresholds. (Particular actions can be tied to particular thresholds of particular situations)   Examples are:
 * Advise the editor that they should be extra cautions about keeping the interest of Wikipedia in mind when editing.
 * Abstain from editing
 * Edit only under special methods and oversight (and define those)
 * Identify the editor being as "higher risk"....in general on certain topics (which would influence things such as weakening their voice in certain discussions)
 * Define something or some things as being improper.

So, there an be different linked "strings" of answers that go through #4,#5,#6. E.G. "If ABC is present, then XXX applies"   "If XYZ is present, then ZZZ applies"
 *  7.  Discussions have centered on whether particular situations are problematic on their own merits. Are there certain behaviors that we want to discourage for strategic purposes, even if they are not necessarily individually problematic on their own merits?  For example, Wikipedia could say that it has a strategic interest in avoiding a paid editing cottage industry from growing, and that it wants to flatly ban all paid editing, (thus forcing such to be secretive, which vastly reduces it) even if there is no actual COI and the editor behavior is otherwise perfectly fine.

Framework notes


 * Each numbered item is a question to be decided. Where not worded as a question, the question is how to define that element.
 * Discuss /decided individual (separated) questions, using the above framework. The can be taken one at a time.
 * Explicit questions do not necessarily require explicit answers. In the answers, some of the "fuzziness" that makes Wikipedia work is fine and probably needed.  Just resolving one or two of them would be more of a step forward.
 * Decisions should keep in mind that self-declaring a potential-COI situation often, for legitimate reasons, not occur. So the plan should not heavily depend on that.
 * Being willing and able to set influences aside when editing is a quality / situation that some people have and some don't, and with varying degrees. For example when a person paying them is guiding their WIkipedia work. So some people may WANT guidelines or firm rules that apply to themselves.

Discussion
Regarding the definition and use of the term, North8000 would pick 2.2, which is the current bolded definition at the beginning of the policy. It is elegant, universal, provides an excellent "guiding light" to high-minded potential-coi editors. But minimize the use of the term elsewhere in the policy because. while an excellent guiding light, it is not usable at the operative nuts-and-bolts level.

Structure needed to resolve clarification of wp:coi (As evolved by CorporateM)
The effort to clarify WP:COI has resulted in a Gordian Knot, where we are unable to make progress because the discussion lacks structure and there are too many topics of discussion. I propose we create a framework to create a more structured discussion, perhaps on the basis of six key issue.


 * 1. Definition: Should COI be defined on the basis of "motives," "interests," and/or "relationships/affiliation (for PRs)"?


 * 2. Confirmation: Does an editor have a COI (or potential COI) on the basis of their editing or on the basis of outside influences? At what point is their COI confirmed?


 * 3. Gradation of COI: How shall we categorize different intensities of COI and offer reasonable guidance for each?


 * 4. Action: At what point should a COI be warned, blocked, asked to use Talk pages, or asked to abstain from editing on a particular topic?


 * 5. Encourage/discourage: What behavior/participation/etc. do we want to encourage and what do we want to discourage? And how can we encourage/discourage the participation we prefer?


 * 6. Direct/Talk: In what circumstances should we encourage/require Talk an editor to restrict themselves to Talk

Discussion
Regarding the definition and use of the term, North8000 would pick 2.2, which is the current bolded definition at the beginning of the policy. It is elegant, universal, provides an excellent "guiding light" to high-minded potential-coi editors. But minimize the use of the term elsewhere in the policy because. while an excellent guiding light, it is not usable at the operative nuts-and-bolts level.


 * Hi North. I probably mucked it up quite a bit, so feel free to revert all or some. I felt it was a little confusing and I re-wrote a lot of it to make it simpler and broke it down into five issues: Definition, Confirmation, Gradation, Action and Encouragement/Discouragement. CorporateM (Talk) 14:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok make that six. Feel free to re-write or even return to the original, but I felt it had gotten kinda out of hand and confusing. On that note, what might be helpful after the 5-10 concepts that need to be tackled are identified, would be to document the course of the arguments through each to push discussion participants to actually further the discussion. CorporateM (Talk) 17:18, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Cool! Thanks! I'm going to have to noodle on that. North8000 (talk) 17:31, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that that is good work.  Also you usefully pointed out that mine was awfully big. I may bring back some of the points from mine into a separate item. Sincerely,  North8000 (talk) 15:22, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Response to questionnaire by CorprateM

 * 1. Why not all three? "A conflict of interest (COI) occurs when an individual or organization has outside interest(s), motive(s) or affiliation(s), that could possibly corrupt their servitude to Wikipedia's objectives.


 * 2. If they have not edited yet, they have a "potential COI." If they have edited in conflict with Wikipedia's principles, the COI is confirmed.


 * 3. Three grades: 1. Personal bias (editor has an opinion that may create a bias) 2. Personal incentive (editor is here for the purpose of promoting or defaming a subject, etc.) 3. On behalf of an article subjective


 * 4. PR COIs should be encouraged to use Talk, warned to use Talk/WP:BRIGHTLINE if their edits are non-neutral, blocked if they fail to adhere to the warning (just 1 warning, not a long drawn out process)


 * 5. Direct/Talk: Same as #4
 * CorporateM (Talk) 17:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)