No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 54: | Line 54: | ||
I would appreciate it if you did not misrepresent my comments by removing portions of them. I will be removing these for you if you do not.[[User:Cptnono|Cptnono]] ([[User talk:Cptnono|talk]]) 21:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC) |
I would appreciate it if you did not misrepresent my comments by removing portions of them. I will be removing these for you if you do not.[[User:Cptnono|Cptnono]] ([[User talk:Cptnono|talk]]) 21:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC) |
||
:Disregard. The most efficient way to handle this is through AE. [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Prunesqualer]] [[User:Cptnono|Cptnono]] ([[User talk:Cptnono|talk]]) 21:40, 29 October 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:40, 29 October 2010
Due to a block, I am currently unable to archive this page. Older versions can be accessed in "view history".
Welcome to the fascinating world of Wikipedia Editing
- My beginners guide to surviving – Wiki Editing
At first, as an inexperienced editor, you may feel a little intimidated by the sheer mass of information involved in contributing to Wiki eg
- Policy statements, rules, regulations, and good conduct guides etc
- Editing technicalities (Wiki procedures for formatting text or adding citations etc)
- Abbreviations and jargon eg "WP:WORDS", "MoS" "NPOV" etc
That said, generally speaking, Wikipedia dose it's best to present a welcoming, helpful, and non threatening environment for the beginner. By reading a few help pages, and with a little perseverance, most new editors should be able to pick up the skills and understanding, necessary to make valid contributions, within only a short time. Most will find their Wiki experience to be enlightening and rewarding.
However Wikipedia dose have a less cuddly side.
If you choose to edit articles which engage controversial, or contentious issues, you are likely to face a series of obstacles and bruising encounters. Most or my editing experiences have been in the field of "the Middle East conflict" (I happen to find that area fascinating). Articles concerning this issue, most certainly do come under the heading of "controversial, or contentious" (it is surly a contender for, the most fought over issue, on the whole of Wiki). My experience in contributing to these articles leads me to give the following advise about editing controversial articles - unless you are exceptionally thick skinned, have the mind of a lawyer, and the patience of a saint then - DON'T DO IT
Here are some of the reasons why you should steer clear of controversial articles;
The root of the problem is that; some editors working on these articles have strong opinions and agendas. In extreme cases these editors will have no regard for normal standards of fairness or balance in the article, and will feel no compunction about pushing an article, well to one side of what most informed neutrals would consider balanced. Their guiding principle is not "what is fair and balanced" but rather "what can I get away with". They use a verity of tactics in order to further their cause. Some may be used by determined editors working alone, but the most effective strategies require a significant number of editors working in concert. This, I suspect, has been achieved, in the case of the pro-Israel cause, by large scale recruitment and training programs (see the "Wikipedia subverted?" section on this page for more info on this). The basic objective of agenda driven editors is to maximise control over relevant article content.. This is achieved by;
- Persistent and maximal insertion of edits favourable to the cause (this may be seen as legitimate but in cases where cabals of enlisted and trained editors are involved this behaviour, is likely to, seriously unbalance an article).
- Persistent and maximal deletion/reversion of edits unfavourable to "the cause". Even when a contribution has been- scrupulously researched: properly cited: carefully worded: thoughtfully considered in terms of it's relevance, and overall effect on the balance of the article- there is still a very good chance that these people will revert it (an excuse can always be invented).
- Encouragement, facilitation and co-ordination with "on side" editors, whilst deterring "off message" contributors. Examples include: The insistence on consensus prior to contributing for "off message" editors, but not for "on side" ones. Where consensus is sought, on the relevant talk page then "off message" editors are often met with interminable, obtuse and irrelevant argument, or Wiki lawyering. Prominent complaints and threats of sanction are directed at "off message" editors for even minor infringements, but mild remonstrance and advice is given to "on message" transgressors.
- Where possible neutralising (eg getting blocked) editors who persist in making "off message" edits. Whether external pressure groups have succeeded in recruiting so-called 'stealth admins'" is a moot point, but even without such "high up" it is certainly true that a determined, experienced and potentially trained editor (see the "Wikipedia subverted?") will know how to play the system, far more effectively than an inexperienced one.
In short, if you edit on controversial articles for long enough you can expect to be reverted, run around the houses, bullied, sneered at and, if you aren’t extremely careful eventually sanctioned. No mercy will be shown. If you want to feel like the protagonist from a Franz Kafka novel then go ahead. Otherwise I repeat DON'T DO IT.
Please Note: these are personal observations and in no way representative of official Wikipedia policy.
Wikipedia subverted?
There has been some discussion over the years about the potential for Wikipedia to be at least partially subverted by organised special interest groups. The case of CAMRA (a group whose aim is to serve Israeli interests in the field of information dissemination ie propaganda) springs immediately to mind. They appear to have been engaged in the large scale recruitment and training of persons sympathetic to Israel, for the purpose of biasing relevant Wiki articles ie showing Israel and it's policies in a good light, and showing Israel's perceived enemies in a bad light. This particular scheme was eventually exposed thanks to an infiltrator who leaked incriminating e-mails to the Wiki administration. The following is part of Wiki's written response;
"We believe that the group posed a significant long-term threat to the integrity of Wikipedia's Middle Eastern articles. We note that CAMERA reportedly has 55,000 members and that its mailing list had already been used to recruit "Isra-pedia" members. There is no reason to believe that the group would not have grown in numbers and experience over time, particularly if CAMERA had continued to use its mailing list to solicit recruits. However, we regard the group's apparent intention to recruit so-called "stealth admins" as naïve and unlikely to have succeeded."
I wonder if that last sentence about the "intention to recruit so-called 'stealth admins'" being "unlikely to have succeeded." Is just a tad complacent. Surly such a admin infiltration/subversion operation would be hard to detect provided that the operatives where well trained to avoid suspicions. If such a scheme is already in operation, then I think it would be reasonable to make the following prediction; editors who have frequently made contributions critical of Israel will have been proportionatly - more frequently, and more severely sanctioned than, those who make pro-Israeli contributions. I suspect that performing the large scale statistical study, necessary to test such a prediction, would be very arduous. It might make a very interesting post grad project for someone though? Prunesqualer (talk) 21:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
I offer the following Guardian article as further food for thought Re- the possibility of Wiki neutrality being systematically undermined;
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/18/wikipedia-editing-zionist-groups
Prunesqualer (talk) 23:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
The Vultures move in
Yesterday I was banned from contributing to articles concerned with the Middle East conflict. My downfall was the Gaza War article. I worked hard to influence the intro section (against determined resistance from certain quarters), because I sincerely felt it to give an incomplete and biased impression of that piece of history. I allowed myself to become too emotionally involved and made some procedural errors. Other parties where not slow to capitalise on my mistakes. One day later, and I note that nearly all my work is undone, and that editors on the talk page are advertising an open season on reverting my edits.
For instance;
- Under the section "Obama and congress in the lead" we have "Procedural note: Edits by Prunesqualer can be reverted since he was banned. This was one of them…"
- Under the section "Citation overkill" we have "Procedural note: Edits by Prunesqualer can be reverted since he was banned. A couple of them culminated in this edit…"
- And under a newly created section titled "Edits of banned user" we have "I have reverted this edit of banned editor Prunesqualer who was under an article ban when he made the edit". This from an editor who had previously offered (but not acted on the offer) to perform the very edit he was now reverting.
Strangely enough there was no extra comment under the existing section titled (by another editor) "Prunesqualer's edit".
I think this gives a very revealing insight into what conditions prevail re. editing on the Gaza War article.
I would appreciate it if you did not misrepresent my comments by removing portions of them. I will be removing these for you if you do not.Cptnono (talk) 21:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
- Disregard. The most efficient way to handle this is through AE. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Prunesqualer Cptnono (talk) 21:40, 29 October 2010 (UTC)