User:GTBacchus/AGF Challenge Exercise Answers

My wife is not a coauthor

Suppose someone has coauthored 10 books with their wife. And suppose that this person also wrote 10 books on their own, and on this second group of 10 books, their wife is not listed as a coauthor. All 20 of these books are listed on a website belonging to the couple for sale, and on various other websites, with the authorship list for each book listing either the person, or the person and his wife. All of these websites and descriptions of these 20 books agree with each other. Suppose that in interviews, this person is quoted as saying that his wife had coauthored some of his books, and that this person listed this coauthorship in his autobiography.

Therefore, in the biography of this person on Wikipedia, we state that this person has coauthored some of his books with his wife. And then this person contacts WP, using the OTRS system, and threatens to sue Wikipedia for describing his wife as a coauthor of some of his books. He wants Wikipedia to assert that he wrote all the books himself and his wife was not involved.

What should Wikipedia do? Do we just state something that is contrary to more than a dozen reliable sources, which all agree with each other? Do we state something for which we have not a single source except a private email purportedly from the subject of the biography (but of course we do not know for sure)? What is the ethical thing to do? What is the encyclopedic thing to do? What precedent would your actions set, if any?

Suggestion

The first step would be to reply to the OTRS ticket, clarifying that he is, in fact, disputing the 12 reliable sources including his own website; I would want to see him say explicitly that they are wrong, and explain why his own website remains wrong. This could be asked in the context of simply repeating his complaint back to him and asking him to confirm just which edit he is requesting - people often like it when you say, "let me be sure I'm getting this right," and state their position back to them accurately.

When we get the reply confirming that he's retracting what his website says in favor of his new position, then we have an interesting situation. Wikipedia is source-based, so he would really have to do some legwork to get independent sources to line up with his position. He would probably want to start with some kind of public statement that we could reference; at least he would change his own website.

If he's unwilling to make such a statement, then we'd just have to stick with what the reliable sources say, and explain to him that we're simply repeating information that is published elsewhere. Then we would be very careful to only repeat in the article what is published elsewhere, and to be very clear about where we get our facts. If he repeats his legal threat here, then he would be blocked per WP:NLT, because we simply can't have legal threats flying around on the wiki. After that, the conversation would happen via email. At that point, I would want some guidance regarding how we handle legal threats off-wiki, because I haven't really worked with that yet. (I've just been accepted to the OTRS team, where I hope to learn more.)

I would also probably point out to the correspondent that, given the existence of sources claiming his wife as a co-author, people would be likely to re-add that piece of information (WP being source-based, and freely editable), and that it would be easier to maintain the article in a corrected state if he could arrange to correct the publicly available sources, or at least produce some publicly viewable statement asserting his sole authorship. Then we could at least report that, although most sources list his wife as a co-author, he has publicly claimed otherwise.

At no point in this interaction should we say that the person is lying, or call his good-faith into question. It sounds as if his case will fail of its own merits, and bringing up any personal issues would only serve to muddy and destabilize that otherwise clear result.

My town's library

You run across an article, created a few days ago, that reads:

A quaint little library established in 1939. Set in the delightful village of Smithille, Iowa, this library has seen many changes in it's time, not least the new wheelchair ramp laid in place in 1995 due to new government legislation. A controversial move indeed. To rub salt into the wound, two disabled parking spaces were placed outside in spring 1998 (Iowa council). Lois Cooper, Beverley Sixsmith and Jill Chesser were the original founders, Lois being the only sirviving members. Lucy Keene a former employee commeneted on the late Ms Sixsmith: "An admirable woman. A sufragette to the end." Realsiing the need to move with the times in 1993, the library implemented a late night closing on Tuesday evenings, remainin open until 18:00 instead of the usual hour of 17:30. Although this incited industrial action from the current staff, Lois failed to backdown from this radical new policy.

Other smithville attractions (past and present)

terry's Cockney Chuckles Chelone Deux Clothesline Curtainline Wow (later West Iowa video) Belle veux Wool o' the west Whitewoods Shoestring The Cabin Deli Select and Save (David's) Brenda C's Johnnie loves Lucy Scissor's Duo Hurst's Tudor Lounge Bakewell Cafe (Toby Jug) The Ginger Jar Bread basket Tony's and Doreen's bargain shop (moved to newberry, now bust) Briscoe's books Plumbley's Bread and Cakes Tony's Eve's Electrical Live Wire Traidcraft Geoffrey's Rainbow fish bar Double dragon Turning heads

You do some web searching, and find nothing about this library on the internet. What should Wikipedia do with such an article? How would you handle this situation?

Suggestion

I would format it a bit (bullets, white space, headers), add whatever links I could, and then nominate it for deletion. I'd probably use AfD instead of PROD. Then I'd watch the AfD, and if the author comes around, I'd ask him if he knows how to find print sources for any of the claims in the stub. By pointing to the verifiability policy and other articles, and seeing people at AfD saying "delete", I'd let the author draw the conclusion for himself that his article really doesn't meet our objective standards, so it's not at all personal. I find that, when people are pointed to clear criteria, and their article doesn't meet those criteria, they often realize it and don't really fight.

To address AGF, per this being the "AGF Challenge", I see nothing in this case that would call any contributor's good faith into question.

I am the best

"Theobold Johnson III" is notable for having been involved in a football cheating scandal and also writes books about orchids, illustrated with beautiful pictures. Johnson has written several self-published books about orchids, and in their autobiographies and interviews he describes himself as "the greatest living orchid man" and "widely recognized by the academic world as the greatest orchid scholar in the world". Johnson refers to himself as "Dr. Johnson" or "Professor Johnson" frequently in print. Johnson also asserts in print that he is a professor in the Botany Department at the famous "Winthrop College" and has given his mailing address as "c/o Winthrop College" for many years. Johnson often writes that all other people studying orchids are morons and even all other botanists are stupid and vile disgusting fools who should be publicly flogged or worse.

In the course of writing a Wikipedia biography about Johnson, you start to uncover disturbing information. First, you are able to find a mention of a "Theobold Johnson III" on archived versions of the Winthrop College website from 1994-1997, but there is no mention of Johnson on earlier versions of the website, or later versions. A "T. Johnson, III" is listed as a visitor in the Computer Science Department of Winthrop College in the 1994, 1995, 1996 and 1997 versions of the website, and a phone number is given. You contact the President's office at Winthrop College and the Dean of Science office at Winthrop College and ask if Johnson is or was a faculty member there. Receiving no reply, you ask a friend who knows the Dean personally to ask the Dean privately. The word comes back from your friend that he has talked to the Dean privately, and that Johnson is an embarassment and never had a faculty appointment at Winthrop College and just has his mail forwarded from Winthrop College due to some arrangement he made with someone in the Winthrop College mailroom 25 years previously. Johnson never was on the payroll of Winthrop College and never had an official position at Winthrop College and has not been on campus for 10 years or more. Johnson was listed for a few years on the telephone list and was a short term visitor, but this was just a courtesy and he was one of 3500 visitors a year who get this courtesy. The Dean's office then, thanks to the probing of your friend, issues a very carefully worded "official statement" about Johnson, stating he was never a faculty member at Winthrop College and inviting further inquiries to their Press Office, and sends you a copy.

You do some more checking, and find no evidence that Johnson has a PhD or any degree in botany or science whatsoever, at least from Liberty Washington University, as he claims. You do find a record at Liberty Washington Community College that Johnson obtained a bachelor's degree in history 30 years previously. You also find a report in the local newspaper that Johnson was expelled from Liberty Washington Community College for theft while he was an undergraduate, and then was readmitted and eventually graduated. You look at various lists and directories of prominent orchid scholars and find no mention of a Theobold Johnson in any edition of these directories. You also dig up 5 reviews of Johnson's books on orchids in various scholarly journals from different botanists and orchid scholars from Harvard and University of Pennsylvania and Yale. These reviews are uniformly poor, and state that Johnson is a charlatan and a fraud and his books are replete with errors and the worst possible nonsense. You then find another interview of Johnson published in Sports Illustrated where it is stated that Johnson has no PhD or other Doctorate, but it is a title that people use for him out of respect for his tremendous knowledge and learning.

How would you write a biography of this person on Wikipedia? What would be reasonable and accurate and ethical? What would be fair? What should Wikipedia do if this person contacts Wikipedia and demands that it write his biography the way he dictates? What if this person threatens legal action if Wikipedia does not do what he asks?

Suggestion

His biography must be written from sources, giving due weight to various notable aspects of his life and career. His notability is established by the level of coverage in independent sources. Material from self-published sources may be included, but not with undue weight with respect to independent sources. This is all handled by using sound editorial judgment and building consensus. If he tries to dictate his biography, he may not.

If he offers to sue, then he can't talk about it on the wiki. He can communicate with the OFFICE at that point, and if they make a decision based on legal advice, we'll implement it. Until then, we stick with writing our article based on NPOV, V, RS, NOR, etc.

The editor is clearly acting in good faith (because he's clearly insane), and that doesn't matter one bit. I would only mention that I don't doubt his good faith if he suggests that I might doubt it.

Arrow of Time

In the Young Earth Creationism article, an editor with a total of 47 edits to their credit repeatedly inserts the phrase

Fundamaental to both YEC and cosmological / biological evolution is the concept of Time. Time itself, and its perceived or actual forward progress (Arrow_of_time) is a discussion topic that includes the Second Law of Thermodynamics and questions as to whether time existed before the Big Bang.

This appears to have little if anything to do with Young Earth Creationism. After all, the Big Bang produced time itself, according to the Big Bang theory, first advanced by Belgian Roman Catholic priest Georges Lemaître. Discussions of whether time existed before the Big Bang have already discarded one of the main features of the Big Bang, and so are not about the Big Bang, and definitely not relevant to Young Earth Creationism, which does not have a Big Bang associated with most versions of it. It is a confused and somewhat nonsensical statement.

No sources or references are provided, although this editor is asked for sources dozens of times by several other editors. Other editors remove this phrase, and the new editor responds angrily that he is being censored. The new editor reinserts this phrase 38 times over the next 2 weeks, and never provides references or sources of any kind. When asked for sources, he states it is the responsibility of the other editors to provide them, not him.

On the talk page of the article, this editor posts vaguely obnoxious statements like

It appears that our problem in editing is more fundamental than I first thought: 2 Timothy 3 (Godlessness in the Last Days) 1But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. 2People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, 4treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God— 5having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with them.

He states that since the other editors do not want to include his statement about the Arrow of Time without a reference, they will be sued:

But, you are going to get WP and yourself sued if you continue to believe WP's rules supercede laws regarding defamation. They raise money, so there are real damages

Everyone is polite to this editor. No one threatens him. No one curses him. He is tolerated.

What should Wikipedia do in this case? What is fair? What is the journalistic thing to do? What is the encyclopedic thing to do? Could someone like this demand that Encyclopedia Britannica include this kind of statement in one of its articles? The New York Times? What sort of chance of success would they have?

Suggestion

Any editor who alludes to Wikipedia being sued may be summarily blocked per WP:NLT, after one (1) warning, until they agree to stop. That can be done very politely and diplomatically, without labeling the editor in any way. It's nothing personal; we just insist that legal talk happen off-wiki, and we tell him how to do that. I'm happy to personally block anyone making legal threats after being told of our policy.

Next, anyone who does anything 38 times is out of line, except in very exceptional circumstances. Having to do something more than once on Wikipedia is a good indication that there's another way 'round. That warrants a block for edit warring, whether or not the guy has violated 3RR. There's a huge difference between not threatening, not cursing, not calling names, and putting up with crap. We don't have to put up with crap, at all. We just deal with it swiftly, cleanly and professionally.

Anyway, it's obvious that we don't include this guy's content. This is someone we can block pretty quickly unless they agree to work collaboratively with others. The block will stick more or less quickly, depending on how it's done, of course.

Good faith, as usual, may be assumed the whole time. There is nothing inconsistent about blocking someone, even community banning them, for disruption, while assuming perfect faith.

Ghost in the machine

Some people have decided that sometimes ghosts call humans using cellular telephones (i.e., mobile phones). Strange anonymous cell phone calls are said to be caused by phantoms and spirits trying to communicate with the living. Ringing cellular phones during inopportune moments are believed to be caused by mischievous spirits playing tricks on humans. Static during cellular telephone calls is said to be the voices of those from beyond the grave, that can be heard if you listen closely enough. Crosstalk between calls and other phenomena are said to be the results of spectral beings and supernatural influences. Cats that get strange looks on their faces when cell phones ring, or run and hide, are said to able to hear the ghosts. It is claimed that sometimes cats look into the corners of empty rooms watching these phantoms that are present, and invisible to humans.

Several articles on this "Cellular Phantom Phenomenon" (CPP) are written for Wikipedia. Since there are no mainstream scientific studies of CPP, the editors demand that no negative material or mainstream material be presented in the Wikipedia articles on CPP, since there are no mainstream reliable sources. Conventional explanations for CPP and information about how cellular telephones work and the causes of crosstalk and static are dismissed by the proponents of CPP as WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The proponents of CPP maintain that the conventional mainstream scientific explanation must be kept out of the articles on CPP, and refer to those trying to include them as "pseudoskeptics" and "not real scientists" and "close-minded"struck irrelevant, GTB, 21:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC). Efforts to try to balance the article lead to huge disputes about trying to distort WP:NPOV and make it WP:SPOV instead, which some claim is an abuse of the policies of Wikipedia.

What should these articles on CPP in Wikipedia look like? Does mainstream science have any place in these Wikipedia CPP articles? What should Wikipedia do in this case? Can the rules of WP:FRINGE be applied or is that inappropriate and unfair?

Suggestion

It might be best to cast the discussion in terms of reliable sources. Sources that give credence to ghost stories tend not to be reliable; reliable sources tend not to give credence to ghost stories. That's part of the definition of "reliable," right? Insofar as reliable sources talk about ghost stories, they plainly identify them as such. Perhaps an article on CPP could be stubbed to include reliable source coverage (presumably critical). We could use sources advocating CPP for a limited amount of description, just as we use a work of fiction for basic description of its own content. As with works of fiction, we're careful to ascribe statements and not to write in an "in universe" voice.

I'm looking at WP:FRINGE, and it's a bit odd. In parts, it's very consistent with WP:RS and WP:NPOV, but there are other parts with which I'm far less comfortable. I would tend to fall back on WP:RS, WP:V and WP:NPOV, and would be unlikely to cite WP:FRINGE unless it were cleaned up a bit. I don't want to pursue that tangent in this context, but I'm be happy to do so elsewhere. I'm working on some thoughts at User:GTBacchus/sandbox.

Take me to your Leader Extraterrestrial Shape-shifting Reptile

David Icke is one of a suprisingly large group of people that believe that most of the world's leaders, from Bill Clinton, Hillary Rodham Clinton and George W. Bush to members of the British Royal Family, are blood drinking shapeshifting reptilian humanoids from the Alpha Draconis star system. A little investigation reveals that there are literally dozens of books and videos on this subject, including a number that purport to present "proof" of the truth of these claims. There are also thousands of websites on this subject matter and many many people who believe this to be completely true, and supported by immense bodies of incontrovertable and irrefutable evidence.

An editor appears on Wikipedia and wants to include a paragraph or two in the biographies of many politicians around the world alluding to the fact that these politicians are in fact secretly shape-shifting extraterrestrial lizards of some kind. This editor links to one or more of the sources that are claimed to provide "proof" for these allegations. This editor wants to include this material in several hundred Wikipedia biographies. This editor protests vehemently about any efforts to remove this material from Wikipedia articles. This editor angrily denounces Wikipedia as unfair and biased, and the removal of this material as evidence that Jimbo and Arbcomm and many of the admins on Wikipedia are also shapeshifting extraterrestrial reptiles, conspiring to keep this information secret and from the public.

What should Wikipedia do in this case? What would be fair and reasonable? Should Wikipedia allow these claims only in the biographies of politicians and leaders that are already deceased, to avoid problems with WP:BLP? What is the best course of action, and most journalistic and encyclopedic and ethical? How does one avoid offending this editor? What if this editor is joined by 50 others with the same agenda so they can overwhelm any minor response by Wikipedia editors? What sort of precedent would this set? Are the rules of Wikipedia important in this situation or not? Should they be ignored? Whose rules should be applied and when, to which cases?

Suggestion

The undue weight clause of NPOV is relevant here. If you look objectively at the sources on which we base a politician's biography (living or dead), you'll find that their being a shape-shifting extraterrestrial lizard is not a major part of how reliable sources talk about them. In fact, it's so low in prominence that we would be justified in giving it no weight at all, in most if not all cases. There is also the BLP issue, but I can't see even needing to invoke that, because undue weight should cover it.

Since the theory about the reptilian aliens is documented, we could have a sourced article about it, as a theory espoused by some people. In that article, it would be fair to list examples of people who are claimed to be reptilian extraterrestrials. However, it would not be neutral to talk about the alien theory in the articles about the people.

As for avoiding offending the editor, we'll treat them politely but firmly, and if they're offended by that, then tough. Some people are offended by reality, and we can't protect them, although we certainly won't go out of our way to offend them, by calling them a fool, or telling them that their theory is stupid, or anything like that. We just talk professionally and dispassionately about undue weight, and we don't need to mention that the "theory" is completely harebrained.

If meat-puppets come in, then we might need to step up our response by describing the problem at WP:AN/I, WT:NPOV, etc. In that description, there would be no need to label people as "cranks", we would just say that there seems to be a concerted effort to place undue weight on one particular view of the people in question. It would be easy enough to get 100 Wikipedians to agree that being a lizard-alien is not a significant documented fact about, say, Al Gore. It would be less easy if we present the problem in terms of ad hominem remarks about the meat-puppets, because someone will invariably question the civility of those remarks, and that would take us off-track. By focusing on the content, and not the editors, we can build a strong consensus.

Related to a saint

Oacan was an editor whose aunt compiled Oacan's family genealogical history in the 1950s. Oacan's aunt claimed that Oacan's family was descended from the brother of a well known 15th century saint. Oacan then altered the Wikipedia article about the 15th century saint drastically and aggressively, for over a year, to support the claim his aunt had made in the family genealogy. Oacan removed any discussion that was contrary to this claim of his aunt, and any sources that contradicted this claim. Oacan drove off several other contributors because he insisted on creating a biography that supported his aunt's claims and "altering" the Wikipedia articles to do so.

However, Oacan's aunt's genealogy was never published, or checked by a professional genealogist. It also appears to contradict several published reliable sources. In addition, Oacan's aunt's genealogy has gaps in it as long as 95 years.

In this case, what should Wikipedia do? What is fair to Oacan? What is fair to everyone else? Should Wikipedia go with the published material from reliable sources, even if it hurts this editor's feelings? What about the ethical issues? What would a good journalist do?

Suggestion

This one is clear. Wikipedia is source-based, and that's non-negotiable. Any editor who insists on repeatedly removing sourced content and adding non-sourced content is being disruptive. Avoiding "hurting the editor's feelings" is not a consideration we ever make here; I'm not sure why that's included in the question. I'm not sure what the ethical issues are, either. We've got a policy called Wikipedia:Verifiability, and we're sticking to it. What's ethically questionable there?

While Oacan may be acting in the best of faith (and presumably is), we can't allow the encyclopedia to be given over to original research. If Oacan doesn't respond to dispute resolution, then it might take an ArbCom case to get a page ban, which would be better than a full ban, assuming the disruption is confined to this article.

I make my own rules

One editor who was fond of WP:FRINGE theories such as conspiracy theories and alien abduction theories, and edited articles on these topics on Wikipedia, decided that he disagreed with the standard interpretations of Wikipedia principles like WP:NOR and WP:RS and WP:NPOV. So he wrote his own versions of these policies. He altered all these standard policies to make them more friendly to WP:FRINGE topics, contrary to community consensus and rulings of Arbcomm, etc.

Then this editor proceeded to send out his own "welcoming statements" to new Wikipedia editors, with links to his nonstandard altered versions of Wikipedia policies, similar to the procedure normally followed for new Wikipedia editors.

What is appropriate in this case? Can someone decide unilaterally to design their own policy statements, contrary to those of the community? What is the ethical thing to do? What is the reasonable thing to do in this case?

Suggestion

This one isn't difficult. No, people don't get to just re-invent policy to suit themselves. The welcoming of new editors with links to policies that aren't supported by consensus is clear disruption, and if the editor wouldn't stop when someone explains the situation and asks him to stop, then he would have to be blocked to prevent further damage. Any welcome messages he left would have to be replaced by proper welcome messages, with links to proper policy pages.

At no point here is the editor's good faith called into question; that just doesn't come up. We can assume good faith the whole time.