Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Science policy

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived proposal of the WikiProject below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the project's talk page (if created) or the WikiProject Council). No further edits should be made to this page.

The proposed WikiProject was created at Wikipedia:WikiProject Science Policy. Lightning1115 (talk) 05:49, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Description

[edit]

The purpose of this project is to serve as a central location to maintain articles that are related to science policy topics. Topics should be related to the connection between policy and STEM topics, and everything in between. As the 2020 election ramps up this year, there are a variety of topics that people go to Wikipedia to learn about, in relation to policies that are discussed at different levels of different governments. Improving the quality of these articles will provide readers with quality free information that is non-partisan and neutral. A project like this exists nowhere else on Wikipedia and fill a void in the knowledge found on Wikipedia. Lightning1115 (talk) 19:34, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of important pages and categories for this proposed group

List of WikiProjects currently on the talk pages of those articles
Please invite these and any other similar groups to join the discussion about this proposal. See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Directory to find similar WikiProjects.
Why do you want to start a new group, instead of joining one of these existing groups?

The scope of this Wikiproject is broader than any of the Wikiprojects listed above. Science policy has a variety of different topics that contain important information. The hope is that more articles will be added under this Wikiproject for different members of Wikipedia to visit and improve the quality of them. This Wikiproject can also serve as a starting point to find other articles that can be improved on.

Support

[edit]

Also, specify whether or not you would join the project.

  1. Lightning1115 would join and help lead (talk) 19:34, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sm8900. I like this idea. Lightning1115 I appreciate all your work on this idea. fully willing to help out. I am already busy with trying to WikiProject Council a little more active again. I'd be very glad to create the great resource mentioned above. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 22:58, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Gggg2123. I think this is a great project idea and I'm willing to contribute. It would be nice to have a repository of articles related to science policy, especially because we have several Wikipedians trained through Wiki Ed that are interested in these topics. This would provide a nice resource for people interested in science policy and improving science policy related articles. Gggg2123 (talk) 16:06, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. DK.Sci. I am in full support of this project idea. I think this would be a great way to coordinate an otherwise broad topic. DK.Sci (talk) 20:37, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Yul B. Allwright. I would also like to voice my support of this project proposal and would be very willing to join. This project uniquely addresses scientific topics that span many different disciplines but share the common characteristic of being highly relevant to public life and/or government policies. Yul B. Allwright (talk) 02:54, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. nhboyd1. This project is a fantastic way to build a repository of information regarding science policy topics and would be of great use to many in this field. --Nhboyd1 (talk) 20:51, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
  • Info for discussants: the link to this organization's website is https://scipolnetwork.org. UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:27, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. It's completely inappropriate and unheard of for an external organization to establish a wikiproject on Wikipedia. WP doesn't even permit usernames that are directly tied to an external organization, and editing on behalf of one typically requires clear disclosure. What people interested in these subjects should do (regardless of their professional affiliations) is join pre-existing science wikiprojects and help them adequately cover the topics listed above. If there's a major gap in the wikiproject scope coverage, then a new topical (not organizational) wikiproject might make sense, but at this stage it's almost certain it would be better as a taskforce/workgroup (i.e. subproject) of an existing science project.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:06, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SMcCandlish: I understand your point that it's unheard of. But is it against the rules and regulations of Wikipedia to have a Wikiproject that a non-partisan organization runs since its not a violation of any direct bias? The only point is to create a local space for members in NSPN to have a directory to understand what topics are other NSPN members editing, and how can the quality of these science-policy related topics can come about? Or maybe just a "Science Policy" Wikiproject would make sense. What are your thoughts? --Lightning1115 (talk) 15:29, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, obviously, per WP:NPOV and WP:COI. See also WP:WIKILAWYER; if you're response to "we don't do that, not even at the username level much less at the group level" is to start trying to WP:GAME the system with rule-mongering, you're making a mistake.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:00, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SMcCandlish and Lightning1115: The reasons for not allowing organizational usernames don't seem particularly relevant here, as they're mostly to do with promotional intent and shared use. Nobody here is looking to promote NSPN; they're people with a shared interest in science policy who joined NSPN because of those interests. We have plenty of organization-specific projects in the Wikipedia namespace, e.g. Consumer Reports, Osmosis, SimpleShow, NIOSH, Smithsonian, Cochrane, CRUK, etc.
A relevant distinction here seems like projectspace vs. a "WikiProject" in particular. WikiProjects are usually for coordinating the improvement and organization of a particular topic area, so a "science policy" WikiProject seems like it may make a lot of sense, since NSPN activities would be well at home there just like Cochrane is at home in WikiProject Medicine (it was separate initially). WikiProjects are typically unsuccessful when there aren't multiple active, experienced editors there at the start to do the significant maintenance associated with a WikiProject. As such any proposal should probably be advertised on other relevant WikiProject talk pages, and if insufficient participation can be found, a different sort of projectspace page may make sense. Food for thought. (Disclosure: Wiki Ed ran a course to teach a group of NSPN members how to edit Wikipedia. It finished some months ago, but I saw this and was happy to see folks sticking around. I feel like that sort of sustained engagement -- sufficient to be interested in a WikiProject! -- is exactly the sort of energy that should be harnessed and, if necessary, redirected). --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:07, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, "mostly to do with promotional intent and shared use" is exactly the concern here. WP isn't a place for people from an off-site organization to have a shared "forum" on-site from which to advance their viewpoint across our articles. If a wikiproject like this were created, WP:MFD would delete it rather quickly. We don't even permit Wikipedia-specific membership organizations to form inside Wikipedia (cf. the shut-down of WP:Esperanza). See also the shut-down of various "wikiprojects" that were basically canvassing farms for view-point pushing and for changing policies someone didn't like; the original version of WP:WikiProject English was nuked for this reason [1], and it wasn't the only one. Incoming editors recruited from Wiki Ed and other meet-and-greet processes need to be integrated into the overall editorial community, not encouraged or even allowed to set up insular on-wiki echo chambers of "their own kind". That way leads WP:FACTION.

We've already seen this before, and it was really, really terrible. I'll avoid pointing specific fingers or digging them into old wounds, but the short version is that people from, and fans of, a particular off-site alleged "standards body" with rather limited real-world buy-in, completely dominated a topical wikiproject here, and used WP:FAITACCOMPLI tactics. It led to anyone not in agreement with them being hounded out of "their" wikiproject (or at least into silence); it effectively became a wikiproject exactly like the one proposed here, devoted to a specific organization. Eight years of highly disruptive WP:DRAMA all across the site ensued. Among many other things, it included attempts to WP:POLICYFORK several guidelines; setting up their own "anti-WP:RM" pseudo-processes to bypass site-wide consensus to get what they wanted; pushing their preferences across an entire swath of science articles that had nothing to do with their topic in particular (after agreeing explicitly not to do that); threats to organize editorial boycotts if they did not get what they wanted; active WP:MEATPUPPETRY at offsite venues to come and vote-stack on Wikipedia (among other RfC disruption); someone from the wikiproject updating the off-site organization's webpage with reports on their "progress" in imposing that org's view on Wikipedia; WP:NOTHERE condemnations of Wikipedia and its editorial community as unprofessional and stupid for not going along with their preferences; and much else besides. After one of the longest RfCs in WP history finally shut this nonsense down, a bunch of them "quit in disgust" (with various personal attacks against their "enemies") because they'd become so invested in WP:WINNING / WP:BATTLEGROUND instead of in just doing the WP:ENC work. Things slowly went back to normal over the space of about four years after that (it took a long time for the wikiproject to attract new editors interested in the topic but not in the drama). The sick thing is, it was all over a trivial style matter, not even a question of scientific substance (cf. the bikeshed problem). Nothing like that can ever happen again.

"WikiProjects are typically unsuccessful when there aren't multiple active, experienced editors there at the start to do the significant maintenance associated with a WikiProject." That's very true, but really has nothing to do with this proposal. WikiProjects are about general topics, and anyone interested in the NSPN will also be interested in one or more science topics for which we already have a wikiproject (which probably also already has more specialized workgroup/taskforce sub-projects). There is no lack of a wikiproject place for science people to go and get involved. We just don't need an NSPN-connected cluster of editors concentrated in a single place as a bloc. Or, more to the point, we actively need that to not happen. We know from experience that professional-organization clustering on Wikipedia harms the community, and can even effectively wreck a science wikiproject for years; it has the opposite of the positive effects you want to see. Never underestimate the human propensity for politicking, wall-building, and fight-picking, especially when it comes to groups that already have a name. a collective identity of any kind, and a position to advance (on anything). If there is a banner to rally around, the rallying will happen. It's hard to keep people from manufacturing new ones out of nothing. There's a famous old psych experiment where two groups of people are put on opposite sides of the room, in different-colored overalls; they very quickly start developing unfounded suspicious about the other-colored group and a sense of own-group superiority. I forget off-hand if this one of Asch's or Milgram's experiments. Both of them and others have demonstrated in other experiments that people are willing to do bad things to other people and to take reality-defying stances if given peer pressure or pressure from someone who has an air of authority, especially in absence of face-to-face checks on their decisions. All of these factors can be seen to be at play when wikiprojects go off the rails, and it takes some community vigilance to prevent it from happening. An obvious first step is to not create a new wikiproject pre-loaded with a group identity, organizationally pre-defined positions with which to seek conformity, and a pre-existing off-site organizational hierarchy.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:38, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moving discussion to Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Science policy since we title WikiProjects by their subject and separating this proposal from a specific organization (and a U.S.-centric bias) seems like a good way to spur a more substantive discussion. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:41, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals/Science_policy&oldid=956410041"