User:Drcrazy102/sandbox/Reforms for Wikipedia

Not to be confused with User:QuackGuru/Reform of Wikipedia.

Being neutral improves article content.

Reform of Wikipedia is an essay seeking different ideas and suggestions in order to improve Wikipedia in its stated goal to create an on-line high-quality encyclopedia, written from a neutral point of view, written in a collegial manner, and written in accord with the policies of Wikipedia.

Reliable information is required to assert than anything is "true". Knowledge founded upon verifiable truth is an admirable goal for any article.

Wikipedia readers seek quality, accurate and trustworthy articles. A more accurate Wikipedia is therefore a more useful Wikipedia. This essay seeks proposals for the development of policies and guidelines for the reform of Wikipedia. This is a long-term project so please do not expect instant results. The ultimate goal of this essay is to improve the editing environment, both technologically and socially.

Suggestions

Civility vs. Incivility

Being civil is a mainstay on Wikipedia.

Wikipedia:Civility is a policy and one of the Five pillars of Wikipedia — FACT.

We should already have a proper anti-bullying policy — but we don't.

Why? Because one of the main issues is that both the Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Harassment policies lack "teeth" to allow for blocks, interaction bans and site bans in the most extreme cases without gaining broad community consensus over weeks, all while the offending editor(/s) can continue to disparage and attack editors. However, the wait for consensus allows for both meat-puppets and sock-puppets to defend the accused while also shifting the community's focus to unfairly criticise and "boomerang-block" the filing party.

An old, but repeated, proposal is that administrators warn editors to not "follow" other editors that they are in conflict; It is proposed to also allow for Admins to impose temporary interaction bans until either the original dispute is resolved or a set amount of time has passed.

Name-calling, 'written' assault and blame-shifting in a heated content dispute is highly disruptive and editors should be properly warned and sanctioned. However, even when there is evidence of disruption and blatant incivility, editors should focus on improving the page rather than name-calling and "editor-bashing".

Uncivil behaviour during a content dispute – such as alleging editors of "POV-pushing" & "WP:IDHT" behaviour, as well as basic insults – is uncivil behaviour. Alleging "ownership" of a mainspace page via the talk page or a revert is also disruptive. Claiming such behaviour is "not uncivil", "just a joke" is uncivil and rude. It is proposed that an editor may be blocked for a period of one month after a warning by an editor or an administrator if they continue to be uncivil. If the uncivil behavior continues after being blocked then they could be blocked for a period of two months and so on.

The word "consensus" is widely used on Wikipedia, but all too often, disputes are settled by shouting and bullying; the winner is the person or group who shouts loudest. Wikipedia has an essay on WP:Bullying but this is not a policy. Some female editors have also stopped editing Wikipedia because they do not wish to enter into abusive fights with men.

It is proposed that both the original, and supporting, editor(s) could be blocked starting with 24-hr blocks, and increasing the time amount if the editor refuses to discuss issues civilly. In cases that are taken to WP:ANI, it is proposed that blocks start from a minimum of 1 week for the original uncivil editor, and 36 hrs for editors that participated in uncivil commentary during the discussion - regardless of an editor's "side" in the dispute.

A new noticeboard, perhaps a "Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incivility", made specifically for handling civility issues may help alleviate the problems editors face when having to confront aggressive editors.

Bias and Wikipedia:Neutral POV

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is not enforced consistently. This must change into an area that is consistently enforced by administrators, or even by experienced editors at the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard - perhaps through a formal vote.

This does not mean that fringe views should be given equal weight, or that an editor's opinion of what constitutes a neutral POV should ever take precedence over reliable, independent sources. Editors with a vested interest in using Wikipedia to promote their external agenda must be topic banned from directly editing the topic of contention.

Fairness of punishment

Wikipedia rules are not enforced consistently. Some editors are continually being banned while others commit the same offences and are neither banned nor warned for their behaviour. This suggests either bias on the part of some administrators, or a systematic bias towards certain editors. There are portions of the community who believe that highly productive content creators should be given much wider latitude than "civil" POV pushers, but most administrators prefer to take action without reviewing article content. To ensure higher quality article content it is proposed administrators first review article content to check who is actually improving the page rather than warn an editor for reverting.

Recall elections

A policy is needed for "sacking" bad admins – typically known as "rogue" admins – that, while not doing anything specifically disruptive, have lost community trust and/or the respect of the community because of their use of "the tools" or simply their interactions with editors.

A Recall election may solve, or at least alleviate, the problem since there are already Admins open to recall, but there needs to be a better way to deal with the Admins that decide to abuse their tools or have become a source of contention amongst the Editor Community. Needless to say, there would still need to be limits as to when this could occur due to Editors, possibly even other Admins, attempting to desysop "good Admins" that have made difficult choices or deal in problem areas such as WP:SPI, and/or contentious editing topics such as the Israel-Palestine area (WP:ARBPIA) or the Balkans.

One proposed solution is that every 10 years, a relatively long time on Wikipedia, administrators can be re-elected.. This could be in one of two ways;

1. Admins are temporarily desysopped at the 10-year mark, an election held on whether to re-instate the Admin and, depending on the result, the "mop" can be reinstated or withheld. In the case of a "no consensus", Bureaucrats would decide – based on the discussion and !Votes – whether the Admin will be re-instated or "retired" for a set period before the Admin can re-apply.
2. A "vote" can be put out on whether to "keep" or "retire" an Admin through the use of banner notifications, random mailing to user talkpages, etc. "No consensus" would be decided and interpreted by the Bureaucrats, just as in Option 1.

If any editors have alternative ideas, or wish to expand on the options above, visit this section's talkpage, here and start a discussion.

Administration; WMF and Sysops

The Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) has, by its design and charter, no accountability for content on Wikipedia. It cannot be made accountable for content due to the legal liabilities this would entail. Aside from the requirements of WP:OFFICE, content has generally been in the purview of the community. As such, content has been under the purview of the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) – in extreme cases; Formal Meditation Committee (MedCom) – in pure content disputes; and editorial consensus for the remaining majority of article content. However, this allows for many editors to insert original research into articles without interference.

Admins and dealing with Original Research

It is proposed that after an administrator warns an editor regarding original research (WP:OR) material that the editor has added to an article, that the editor may be blocked for a period of one week if they restore the same OR material, and continued restoration of the material should result in increasing block-lengths. If another editor supports the original research being added into the article, then the issue should be taken to the No Original Research Noticeboard (WP:NORN), the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard (WP:DRN), or a Request for Comment (WP:RFC) should be created – for community discussion and consensus-building. The contentious material should be removed from the article during the discussion, until a consensus is found in favour of its addition to the article; editors that attempt to force its addition should be given due warning, followed by short blocks of escalating lengths to deter such disruptive and tendentious behaviours.

WP:Consensus is currently the only way of altering existing procedures, policies and guidelines, as well as many of the disputes and miscellaneous issues that arise on Wikipedia. Consensus gives no guarantees of a beneficial resolution to an issue, or that any resolution at all, will surface.

In mainspace this does not work well: the fact that consensus and vote-counting is used, means that attempts to flood a debate with arguments not grounded in policy, has succeeded. Editors state vote-counting should not be used, but it is often the case. For example, a debate is closed by consensus based on the number of votes rather than reviewing the strengthen of the arguments. There may be a small clique of editors with a vested interest, and in this case consensus can result in a non-compliant article. Consensus also breaks down when there are substantial camps with entrenched views, and this can often lead to arbitration. Administrators claim consensus is what matters and ignore whether the change was inaccurate or was original research and refuse to review the change because they claim it is explicitly not the job the community elected them to do. Volunteers are not here to help administrators to enforce the rules. Administrators increase damage done by disruptive editors to article content when they refuse to enforce policies that would improve article content. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable, yet the rules are not being actively enforced. Editors have replaced sourced text with WP:original research, yet administrators refuse to police article content and help fix the ongoing problems. Editors delete sourced text claiming the statement was not supported by the citation, yet administrators will agree with consensus rather than read the citation to determine whether the citation verified the claim. Administrators could be trained to enforce WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:OR policies rather than continue to ignore the rules. WP:Consensus should not override WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:OR policies; on many occasions bad-faith or incompetent editors ignore those policies. The Wikipedia community has no leader, but that could change when there is a new non-profit organization enforcing the rules. They can vote who is the leader or co-leaders. Wikipedia:Administrators and WP:ArbCom, and also other WP:WP processes such as WP:DR must actively enforce the rules, including WP:NPOV and WP:V policies.

ArbCom does not, but should be used to, enforce policies regarding article content. This would help ensure editors do not "game" the system of WP:Consensus and continue to make counterproductive edits.

Deletion of articles

See also: meta:Deletionism and meta:Inclusionism

There are attempts to remove "suitable" information or topics for bad reasons, including wikilawyering and 'oversimplification' of article content.

"Deletionism" is said to be the main cause of many other problems, including the editor retention problem, and "inclusionists" seek reform of our deletion criteria and processes. We might, for example, make WP:GNG less subjective, so that it could not be taken as an excuse to make arguments of the "no matter how much coverage there is, I won't accept that it is 'significant'" variety. If the article is detailed and well sourced it does not have to be deleted. Votes according to "consensus" can delete articles on subject matter editors do not like. There is occasional confusion between subject-specific inclusion guidelines.

Sockpuppetry

New accounts that aren't actually new users (i.e. sockpuppets) are a plague on the project, with sometimes dozens of socks from a banned editor. Administrators refuse to block a new sock account unless there is "solid evidence" of sockpuppetry, per WP:Assume good faith. It is proposed administrators will run CheckUser requests for Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations when there is a minimal level of acceptable evidence, including behavioural evidence, recent contributions correlation, and/or discussions correlation.

Favorite quotes

• Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance. — Confucius
• I don't pretend we have all the answers. But the questions are certainly worth thinking about. — Arthur C. Clarke
• Knowledge is power. Information is liberating. Education is the premise of progress, in every society, in every family. — Kofi Annan

WikiProject for Sensible Reform

It is proposed that editors that wish to help Wikipedia modernise its practices and help streamline processes join a Wikiproject that will be cleverly monikered as WP:Wikiproject for Sensible Reforms after a disastrous attempt to push "reforms" through was seen and created a public outcry. One of the main ideals would be to, of course, create and discuss reforms that are both sensible and practical to the Wikipedia community without betraying the core values of either the institute of Wikipedia, nor its communities.

See also

• Gender bias on Wikipedia
• Wikipedia#Systemic bias
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force
• Wikipedia:BMJ/Expert review
• Wiki Project Med Foundation

Possibly relevant sources

• http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/520446/the-decline-of-wikipedia/
• https://posthegemony.wordpress.com/2016/01/09/meltdown-at-wikipedia/
• http://wikistrategies.net/james-heilman-removed/
• https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2016 Strategy/Community consultation