User talk:EEng/ASSUMEGODFAITH

I'd thought of something like this a while back, just without the great pun of a shortcut. The gist would go something like this:

Editors should assume by default that any given reader (including another editor) is religious, and write accordingly – both in the article content and in inter-editor communication. There's a strong bias on WP against religion and in favor of science. Being an empiricist, I like it that way, and it would be a shitty encyclopedia if it weren't that way, at least as regards our content, the facts we report in it, and the kinds of sources we use for these facts, and how we use those sources.

However, this bias exists in the editorial community – inside the minds of the people writing the encyclopedia – not just in the content. This systemic bias problem at the human level is a real one. Being an anthropologist by training, I've learned to be culturally sensitive and relative, to recognize that something like 90% of the world's population are religious, and that adherents of each religion are all equally certain that theirs is the One Truth, while science can offer nothing at all in deciding between them or against all of them (only against a particular, testable claim made by one of them, and few testable religious claims are every central to any religion's dogma). Even in the US, UK, and other major English-speaking countries, a large majority of the population are active followers of one or another branch of the Christian faith, and many of the remainder are Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, or some other faith. Agnosticism and atheism are strongly concentrated in the mostly coastal major cities (which still have large numbers of religious people in them, probably a numeric majority). All the rural places in between have a supermajority of religious people that is probably above 95%.

Our editorial base is also concentrated in the agnosticism-friendly major cities, and most of these editors are definitely not anthropologists by training. They are not cultural relativists, and their cultural sensitivity is only about as good as that of what they watch on TV and YouTube (which is highly variable, and may not actually be improving because of the echo-chamber effect of selective media choices, and reinforcement by self-selecting online "communities" – we have less of a shared Zeitgeist today that we did even a generation ago).

Consequently, while our content tends to get balanced out to an extent and over time, and necessarily reflects an empiricist leaning toward science, our editorial community can feel downright hostile to religious people. It will typically be fawningly pseudo-sensitive to Religion A versus Religion B conflicts, and careful to not, say, use discriminatory language toward someone for being Muslim or whatever in particular. But the community acts, collectively, quite discriminatorily toward religious (and spiritual) editors in general, and has a low sensitivity level to the religio-spiritual belief levels of readers (who on average have a markedly higher religiosity level than the editorial base). The content balance is often only partial; an article on a notable religion-connected topic is likely to exist (e.g. biographies of religious leaders), but articles on more general topics that have a religious viewpoint on them are likely to have that viewpoint suppressed to an extent, by minimization of the amount of content written about it, use of loaded terms, denial of sources from the religious quarter as being usable, and other mechanisms.

This manifests in myriad ways. Some common examples:

Describing matters of broad cultural faith, such as traditional Chinese medicine as "pseudo-science" or "fringe science". It is not necessary to use pejorative labeling like this; if properly written, an encyclopedia article on the topic will demonstrate with the reliable sources that TCM is pseudo-scientific without ever having to actually use that word.
Labeling doctrinal stories from current and especially old-but-revived religions as "myths", "mythology", and "legend". There are more neutral terms available, such as "account" and "narrative" and "tradition".
Refusing to permit religious viewpoints in articles that have a scientific side to the story, or grudgingly permitting brief mention that focuses on why those views must be wrong. This is a misapplication of the WP:UNDUE policy, which really wants us to have balanced coverage that uses reliable sources to make the case that one side or another is better-accepted. We are not to try to use our own views to suppress coverage, or to effectively engage in a "convince the reader" debate within that coverage, as some kind of shortcut to arrive at the answer.
Rudely dismissing editors' and readers' talk page comments as mumbo-jumbo if a religious thread in them can be detected. Experienced and broad editors have to remember that readers, as well as new editors and those with a narrow topical focus, often do not understand our policies and guidelines, and generally have not read them. Avoid "biting" these participants. An edit summary of "Deleting faith-based claims and quack source per NPOV and DUE" doesn't mean anything to such a reader or new editor. A big rant on the talk page identifying that person's views as faith-based and dependent on quack sources, in pointed and dismissive wording, is going to feel like a personal attack. Take the time to gently explain how things work around here, putting yourself in the shoes of someone who is certain that what they're saying is true.
[other stuff here?]

That's kind of what came to mind doing a first draft from memory of how I'd though of addressing this before. I have 100 WP essays in my head that I've not actually written out. :-)
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 15:23, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]