Wikipedia talk:Tendentious editing

"Wikipedia:POVFIGHTER" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Wikipedia:POVFIGHTER. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 23#Wikipedia:POVFIGHTER until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:15, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Threatening to quit Wikipedia

I'd like to start a discussion about potentially deleting WP:TE#Threatening to quit Wikipedia. It was created in 2019 by WhatamIdoing, [1], whom I'm pinging now.

I can appreciate that the original impetus for it was that some high-profile editors were, indeed, making a habit of performatively making such threats, but most of those individuals are no longer editing here. And Wikipedia has changed since then, with significant numbers of good-faith editors really struggling over whether or not it is worth continuing to edit. It seems to me to be cruel to make such difficult and good-faith personal crises a target of disdain.

Today, I saw an editor whom I have long respected scramble his password and quit. And I think it's worth seeing this recent discussion with another good-faith editor at my talk page: [2]. This wasn't someone playing to the balcony. It was someone really conflicted about whether or not to retire, and who fortunately decided to take a break instead.

This is absolutely not tendentious conduct. In fact, I would argue that it is tendentious to accuse someone experiencing this of being difficult. So I hope that we can delete the section. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:01, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Part of the issue is that the section "Characteristics of problem editors" isn't the best fit for this essay, because not all problematic behaviours are tendentious ones. The other part is that it depends on how broadly one interprets "threat", and the surrounding context. The specific behaviour mentioned—posting a "resignation manifesto"—can be a self-important behaviour, but it depends on the situation. I wouldn't ordinarily think of it as tendentious in itself. The content itself would have to be tendentious, or there would have to be corroborating actions to put it in that context. isaacl (talk) 21:27, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

I've skimmed through that conversation, and I sympathize with the editor's frustration. We did a poor job of defending the editor against someone else's idea of fun. The situation reads like someone's annoying brother in the back seat of the car, hovering a finger right in front of your face and saying "I'm not touching you!" Knowingly annoying people isn't okay, and our response to it was inadequate. It also reminds me of an ugly incident some years back, when a (self-identified) Black editor was repeatedly called "boy" by a jerk, despite being asked to stop. We failed.

As for this section, I didn't write it in response to any particular incident, but because the behavior is broken and it harms other people. I wrote it because having people stamp their feet and declare that if we don't agree with them, then they are going to take their ball and go home is destructive to the whole community. We should not have to hear whiny, self-absorbed brats pitch their little fits. A serious discussion with a friend about whether and how you will choose to participate can be helpful. A single temper tantrum is forgivable; we all have the occasional bad day. But if you make a habit of it – in particular, if you declare that you will quit unless you get to win whatever argument has gotten under your skin, but you refuse to actually make good on your threat and decamp for a length of time proportionate to your resignation manifesto – then you should be kicked out of the community until you can manage to grow up. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:07, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

I didn't go down that path as it didn't apply to the cases Tryptofish was alluding to, but I agree that if you threaten to resign unless you get your way, whether or not it's tendentious behaviour, it's uncollaborative and should be discouraged. isaacl (talk) 02:35, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

The replies from both of you are quite helpful in focusing this discussion, and in helping me to see the "other side" of this issue. So, if we were to treat the tendentious aspect of it as repetitive behavior centered on demands to have things one's own way or else, I can agree with regarding that as within the scope of this essay. I personally don't know of any recent (past few years) examples of that actually happening, however. (Of course, that might not mean much.) Have other editors seen this conduct in the past few years? I ask, because I would want to be convinced that this actually is a problem, because otherwise it becomes needlessly theoretical.

Isaacl noted the essay about "high maintenance", and I had been thinking about that too when I posted the opening comment. It's worth thinking of that, on the one hand, along with WP:Gravedancing, on the other. My point is that I have seen accusations of being high maintenance leveled in a mean-spirited way at editors who are struggling with whether or not to leave, in a sort of preparing-to-gravedance way. (This includes a comment that was directed at me not too long ago.) I think that we can agree that, on the one hand, using threats to quit as leverage to win an argument is tendentious, but struggling with unhappiness about Wikipedia, without making demands, is behavior that should be treated sympathetically. And I have seen multiple examples of unsympathetic treatment of the latter in the past year, so it's a real thing.

In my opinion, the current version of the section does not make the distinction clearly enough. Would a revision, instead of removal, be a better option? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:51, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

I have seen examples within the last month of editors resigning or threatening other action if their specific requests were not met. I don't want to describe them further, because as you allude to, I don't think it's the best way to foster a collaborative environment. As described in this essay, tendentious editing is biased editing, and to me the connotation on Wikipedia is that the editor ignores other viewpoints as long as they are personally unconvinced. I don't feel that making these types of threats necessarily correlates to biased editing, although it is certainly not a good approach.

In general, I have mixed feelings about trying to refine essays on behaviour. I fear that all too often, they only provide pithy link targets for editors to brandish in a dispute. (I discuss this a bit in User:Isaacl/Address problems without creating new specialized rules.) In an ideal world, I might try to rearrange the text in some ways, perhaps separating some or all of the description of problem editors, and maybe trying to incorporate more techniques to deal with issues. But it feels like something that's not going to have much effect either way, particularly relative to the effort in getting a group consensus for change. isaacl (talk) 00:25, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Well, if we don't change it the way that I want, I'm going to quit Wikipedia! Sorry, that joke was just waiting to happen, and I couldn't resist!

But seriously, I can see that there is consensus against removing the section. Given that anyone can make edits that attempt to improve anything, and nothing remains in stone around here, I'm going to make an attempt at revising the section. I won't get to it right away, but I'll either do it directly per WP:BRD, or I'll make a proposal here in talk, depending on how big a change it is. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:03, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion, consensus isn't clear yet. My views are larger scale than just that particular section, so it's not a simple for or against view. True enough until more people weigh in, there isn't a consensus for removal at this point. isaacl (talk) 21:16, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Regarding this edit: I disagree that berating an editor in the indicated manner is tendentious in itself, based on its base definition and the connotation I mentioned earlier. I agree that berating is bad. I'm not convinced, though, that we need to say it again in yet another place. isaacl (talk) 03:03, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Does this help: [3]? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:10, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

I changed it to this: [4]. I think that's more than reasonable. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:21, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks; the change addresses my concern about not labelling the behaviour as tendentious. (The larger question about whether or not this entire section is relevant remains, or if it might be more effective to instead add/enhance a warning about berating on another page, such as Wikipedia:Don't be high-maintenance § Dealing with high-maintenance editing.) isaacl (talk) 14:55, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

After you replied, I made this additional change: [5], which both makes the reason clearer and also better differentiates good-faith from tendentious situations. I trust that's still OK with you, and I think I'm satisfied now. Absent a clear consensus to delete the section entirely, I'm fine with leaving it at this. And because my concern was really in terms of the specific issue of editors who are considering leaving, and not with other potentially "high maintenance" behavior, I'm personally not motivated to pursue it at the other page. So I'm satisfied with this, and I'm glad that you are, too. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:58, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I just don't think it's going to accomplish much here—I don't think this page is a natural place for anyone faced with a retirement notice to come looking for guidance. isaacl (talk) 22:19, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I understand, and I think that, as long as there's nothing objectionable, this is OK. I'm less worried about dealing with a retirement notice than about dealing with retirement quandaries before giving notice. That is, one person posts something about possibly retiring, and another person criticizes the comment. I want there to be guidance about when it is appropriate to find fault with the comment about retirement, and when it is unhelpful. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:32, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Sure, but is the person contemplating making the criticism going to find the guidance on this page? If we're trying to prevent problems then we need to try to get the guidance seen by the appropriate people. (This is part of why I'm more inclined to promote the more general guidance to just not berate people.) isaacl (talk) 20:15, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

At this point, I think we've exhausted the discussion that can be of use here. No edits here preclude other edits elsewhere. Even if the berater berates without consulting here first, other editors can then point to here. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:21, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't like having guidance that exists primarily so someone can point to it later: it adds to the impression that there is an overwhelming number of guidance pages that everyone is expected to read. But of course this is an existing issue with lots of guidance spread across dozens of pages already. isaacl (talk) 20:26, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

• I think that it might be worth covering somewhere, but I'm not sure it's WP:TEND behavior, yeah (it seems more like it belongs on WP:OWN or the like, in the sense that it shows that editors consider themselves irreplaceable. To some extent it is also covered by WP:YANI. --Aquillion (talk) 03:58, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Fringe advocacy and disloyal behavior

Tendentious behavior includes advocacy of fringe views, IOW views inconsistent with mainstream narratives found in RS and our articles, which, in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, we should assume are based on reliable sources.

Where there is disagreement in RS about the "proper" narrative, it is legitimate to hold differing views, but this is always in the context of differing mainstream views found in reliable sources, not fringe views documented by reliable sources. Fringe views have no weight, even when found in reliable sources, but it is those same reliable sources that give them due weight for mention, but not that we should believe or advocate them.

It also includes dissing of RS and pushing for favorable treatment of unreliable sources. Repeatedly griping about what most editors consider reliable sources is tendentious behavior. Such actions are a direct attack on Wikipedia's core content policies and guidelines and have the effect of undermining them. This is an unwikipedian and disloyal way to effect change. It is better to directly address attempted change at the relevant policy's talk page and then, regardless of whether or not you like the decision, to follow the spirit and intent of those policies as worded at the time.

Can we find places to use these points on this project page? (Feel free to improve them.) -- Valjean (talk) 02:45, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

This seems to say that we should assume that a Wikipedia article's "narrative" is based on reliable sources, but this is not always the case. For one, there are often multiple mainstream narratives, and sometimes an article has been skewed or was from the beginning. This thus defines someone trying to fix that as a tendentious editor. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:40, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

You may have missed the "Where there is disagreement" part, but please point out any weaknesses or inaccuracies. The point is to improve it.

I forgot to mention that you are also mentioning an aspect I didn't deal with, and that should be fixed, so feel free to suggest something. -- Valjean (talk) 06:31, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I have just added more. -- Valjean (talk) 06:40, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

@Valjean: Vague.
…Repeatedly griping about what most editors consider reliable sources is tendentious behavior. … Given prior consensus this may be dealt with by WP:SNOW. You however have to always remember that the WP:consensus can change On the rest - I strongly disagree with any attempts to set categorical rules that would prevent editors from discusssing issues with sources or biases toward certain narratives. This kind cast-in-stone WP:STONEWALLING is unacceptable. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 18:30, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Your comment is a bit confusing to me, so I may have missed your real points.

Do you know what STONEWALLING means? There are only three people in this discussion, so it can't apply here.

Is there some prior consensus based on a SNOW decision regarding the subject of this thread? Is that what you mean?

Of course consensus can change, including what are considered RS, and I'm only dealing with the consensus at any given time. That is the only thing we can do. If a consensus about some situation changes, so will the way we deal with that situation and which sources are used, so I don't understand your point.

We are always free "to discuss issues with sources or biases toward certain narratives". I haven't said anything that would forbid that, but of course we're talking about discussion of "sources and biases" found in RS that may disagree with each other. We do not compare them with unreliable sources as they have zero due weight here. They are off-limits. If a formerly unreliable source becomes reliable (that occasionally happens), then its voice can become part of the discussion, but not before then. My point above is that pushing of currently fringe views from currently unreliable sources violates ADVOCACY and is disruptive because it pits RS (with varying due weight) against unreliable ones (with zero due weight). That is a fruitless, tendentious, and timesink effort.

If there are questions about the reliability of a source, and a talk page discussion gets bogged down on that subject, then stop pushing the matter at the talk page and go deal with it at WP:RS/N or Wikipedia talk:RS/P. That is the proper way to effect change about what we consider a RS, not by continual griping on other talk pages. -- Valjean (talk) 19:02, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I think this is about what most editors consider reliable sources - Alexander reads "most editors" as meaning "most editors in a given discussion". Implicitly change "most" to "overwhelming majority" and you get WP:SNOW. In that interpretation, the suggested text would mean that the minority not only loses but is officially categorized as tendentious, thus WP:STONEWALLING. That is how I understand Alexander's response, but I may be wrong.

Of course, that is not the real meaning of the proposal - what most editors consider reliable sources talks about the general rules in WP:RS and the application in WP:RSP. Only two users are needed for this scenario: one who wants to use a source that is clearly unreliable according to WP:RS and one who points out that it is. I think the wording of the proposal should be changed accordingly. --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:19, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I would like to clarify myself a bit. When I mentioned WP:STONEWALLING I meant that I oppose establishing actual policies or guadelines that may/may not exclude certain views (whether fringy or not). Especially given an extensive framework of policies that are already doing that. Regards. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 13:12, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

And you intend to perform Repeatedly griping about it on article talk pages, instead of trying to change the guidelines on the talk pages of the guidelines? That would be highly annoying, and the suggested text would be a great way of preventing you to do that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:20, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Who are you referring to? AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 18:56, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Coming late to this discussion I wish to record my thoughts on the problem of WP:RS and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS that should be resolved in some manner especially as the words "disloyal", "fringe" and "narrative" and other non-encyclopaedic terms are given undue weight. I read that primary sources are not good but reliable secondary sources are gold standard because Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia that is not reason enough to ignore primary sources ESPECIALLY when they contradict the secondary sources that are setting the narrative. Where did these secondary sources get their facts if the pool of primary sources mostly disagrees with their finding?

I am convinced that Wikipedia is under the influence of "state capture" when it comes to medical sourcing. There is probably no way to determine how it happened but it is incumbent on Wikipedia to determine if it is in fact the case and to develop strategies to counteract the influence of external control.

I recently came across the guideline WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and was quite struck by the blind spot there that can be and appears to be used to weaponise Wikipedia. The implication is that it is not Wikipedias place to fix the world but to meekly follow the trends of secondary sources (because primary sources are not acceptable).

I have not edited as much of late because it seems I hold what the Mainstream media consider fringe views in spite of being supported by voluminous primary sources yet denied by the mainstream media and by proxy Wikipedia which also considers them fringe views, this causes me concern.

When it comes to biomedical matters this fervour has been amped up a few notches and the gold standard for secondary sources has shifted from published meta studies or reviews to mainstream media (that should be assumed to be propaganda as our history books tell us) to the public health departments that now appear to be run by individuals that are financially very conflicted, there is no easy way to demonstrate that they are not captured yet their behaviour indicates that they are.

So what Wikipedia is doing is promoting the great wrong and is, in a way, smug about just following rules that cause this to happen. Perhaps Wikipedia should not champion to right the great wrong but I do believe when it seems to be complicit it is time to consider change. I am a bottom tier editor who knows that a wrong is occurring and can see the mass of the policy machinery that is in place, policed by well meaning helpers that will thwart any steps I take alone. Does anyone know of a forum where this could be discussed formally at higher levels that has some hope for a fair hearing?

What I read in this Talk thread led me to feel that editorial consensus determined which mainstream or Public Health Department narrative was encyclopaedic and that was the end of it.

It appears to me that no amount of credible primary sources would indicate bad faith by mainstream media or public health departments and Wikipedia is HAPPY to be party to this. I want the world to be a better place and Wikipedia is sabotaging that ideal by serving commercial interests.

An encyclopaedia is intended to contain knowledge not commercial narrative. There are guidelines for conflict of interest and often the 'reputable' secondary sources should fail because they are based on WP:SPONSORED content yet they get a free pass and editors will delete any balancing viewpoints.

The use of statements giving any credence to social media fact checkers should also stop. They have been shown to be wrong, certainly out of date, rarely if ever prepared to correct mistakes, often written by journalists instead of someone skilled in the field and Facebook by their own court admissions says their fact checkers are simply offering a "protected opinion", they are not worthy of mention on Wikipedia and any 'facts' attributed to fact checkers must be drilled down to reliable sources or eliminated.

The level of capture can be determined simply. Change policy to allow a balanced viewpoint if large quantities of primary sources contradict the secondary sources. If this level of truth cannot be tolerated then we know that Wikipedia is captured because truth must stand on its own and not need the support of conflicted and captured parties that claim narrative and editorial consensus is more important than facts.

Idyllic press (talk) 20:46, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

This is not the place to push such conspiracy theories. You seem to be under the impression that your original research and synthesis of primary sources would somehow be better than the research of those with the experience and training to do that job.

Sorry, but you don't carry any weight around here. In fact, none of us do, not even Nobel Prize laureates. (Yes, I know one who is blocked for not following our policies.) We all bow to the superior skills and experience of reliable secondary sources who have done the original research and synthesis for us.

This is not the place to right great wrongs.

I suspect you are not here to follow our policies and guidelines, so goodbye. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:20, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

False balance

Regarding this edit: I think the final sentence, Sometimes one side of an issue really is right and the other false., works against the overall theme of the section, which explains how "Seeing editing as being about taking sides" is a characteristic of some problem editors. I propose removing this sentence, as I think the linked term "false balance" is sufficient to convey the message. isaacl (talk) 02:12, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

isaacl, it may or may not be enough to convey the message of what a false balance is about, which is often a resistance/failure by editors to take sides with RS when they say one thing and unreliable sources don't agree with them, so they compromise (a misunderstood "staying neutral") by not taking sides with RS. We are always supposed to side with RS, unless there is a real disagreement between RS.

I have removed the final sentence anyway, and others can restore it or a better version to demonstrate the relevance of "false balance". BTW, it would have been nice if you had pinged me. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:25, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

@Valjean: Sorry, but I reverted the rest of it. It's not that it was exactly wrong, but more like it was out of place and resulted in a mixed message. The status quo language to which I reverted it isn't implying that everything has to split the difference 50-50, but just that one shouldn't go automatically to side-versus-side. The language immediately before it simply says to consider what the other "side" is saying. To follow it immediately with the message that, yeah, but sometimes one side is entirely right and the other side is entirely wrong just muddles the point. There's definitely a place for the message you are giving, but this isn't it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:03, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Okay. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:19, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Accusing others of whitewashing

"Accusing others of malice" section lists accusing others of "suppressing information", "censorship", or "denying facts" as signs of problematic behaviour. I think the list should also explicitly mention "whitewashing", a fairly common incivil accusation closely related to "censorship". Which is why I will now boldly add "whitewashing" to the list.

A separate but loosely related issue is that WP:WHITEWASH and WP:WHITEWASHING currently redirect to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. I have considered going to Redirects for discussion and propose targeting this essay. (Before those redirects were created, I actually planned creating a redirect or redirects pointing to this essay.) Politrukki (talk) 21:41, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Whitewashing isn't inherently an incivil accusation. See also: sugarcoating. It's a description of providing a euphemistic or overly positive spin. I can see a legitimate use for this term in the discourse. Also, in my edit summary, I wrote "this is a policy" and I mean to write "essay."Andre🚐 21:58, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Imagine a user says torepeatedly asks another (in an edit summary or discussion) to "stop whitewashing this article". What would be the legitimate purpose of saying that and how that would not be incivil? Now switch "whitewashing" with "censoring", what changes (except that "censoring" may go both ways)? Note that an accusation of "whitewashing" can be totally baseless. Politrukki (talk) 12:54, 6 October 2023 (UTC) edited 13:24, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

In some circumstances such a statement might be regarded as a personal attack in violation of NPA if it is done in a way that implies ill-motivation rather than innocent bias. However, I think that "tendentious editing" refers only to what editors put into articles, not to what they say to each other. Zero^talk 13:14, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

I was caught in edit conflict, but I was going to add this: Accusing others of censoring is not inherently incivil behaviour, e.g. there are very specific cases where using the class of {{Uw-notcensored}} templates is appropriate. Politrukki (talk) 13:24, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

This is about the editing of articles, not discussions and personal attacks. In this context, whitewashing is tendentious editing, and confronting such editors is proper. Don't muddy the waters. Deal with this at NPA. We do not take the side of tendentious editors when they complain. Only if they have been grossly and unfairly accused do we deal with it, and we do that at NPA. We don't do it in a way that undermines the continued fact that they are engaged in tendentious behavior and pushing of fringe agendas and unreliable sources, or, as is usually the case, ideas from unreliable sources where they don't mention the source. We know where their ideas are coming from. We do know what unreliable sources say.

Unfortunately, the waters are a bit muddied because we discuss "the behavior" of tendentious editors, which includes whitewashing of articles. When they fight back against such accusations, things can get nasty. They don't usually say that there is whitewashing. Instead they usually say their information is being kept out of articles, that the left-wing controls the narrative, that only left-wing sources are used, etc. It's very rarely the other side of the coin, so don't give it too much weight. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:07, 6 October 2023 (UTC)