Pit of Despair, SV is not a happy editor Options

[Cla68]

Lately, SV and a couple of other editors (Rockpocket and Tryptofish) have been working on the Pit of despair article, which is about a restraint device that was used to study depression in monkeys. Both Rockpocket and Tryptofish have taken issue with the NPOV, or lack thereof, of SV's edits. SV did not take to kindly to the placement of a POV tag on the article and has been expressing her displeasure with those editors on the talk page, especially here.

SV, Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. If someone puts a POV tag on an article and disagrees with your editing, please try to work with them instead of personalizing the dispute.

[Angela Kennedy]

Lately, SV and a couple of other editors (Rockpocket and Tryptofish) have been working on the Pit of despair article, which is about a restraint device that was used to study depression in monkeys. Both Rockpocket and Tryptofish have taken issue with the NPOV, or lack thereof, of SV's edits. SV did not take to kindly to the placement of a POV tag on the article and has been expressing her displeasure with those editors on the talk page, especially here.

SV, Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. If someone puts a POV tag on an article and disagrees with your editing, please try to work with them instead of personalizing the dispute.

Frankly Cla, I can't see where SV's conduct here is a problem, and I think the 'other' side is just as likely to have a POV here. I've looked at this and compared it to the 'CFS' page, and I can see very some similar subtle goal-post shifting on sources, naming etc. and POV promotion from both Rockpocket and Tryptofish. Where has she 'personalised' the dispute? I can't actually see it. (That may be I've missed something of course.) I note the deeming of SV herself by as 'naive'- patronising and guaranteed to get one's back up: a couple of appeal to ('scientific') authority fallacies on the talk page etc. This is common Wikipedia fare.

Frankly ALL contentious articles on wikipedia would do well to be slapped with a POV tag- and that should apply to ALL viewpoints. But then I'm banned and a non-person! What do I know?

[Kelly Martin]

Battleground article; you're not going to get the parties in this dispute to agree on any one presentation as "neutral", no matter how much you try, because the parties are fighting a pitched battle for ideology. Slim has no interest (or, I suspect, capability) of writing "neutrally" on an animal rights issue, and I suspect the people on the other side are explicitly baiting her, to boot.

If Wikipedia isn't willing to allow multiple articles on the same topic written from different viewpoints, it should probably just delete entirely battleground articles like this one, or reduce them to extremely short stubs and lock them in that state.

[Malleus]

If Wikipedia isn't willing to allow multiple articles on the same topic written from different viewpoints, it should probably just delete entirely battleground articles like this one, or reduce them to extremely short stubs and lock them in that state.

I think you're probably right. Wikipedia is incapable of effectively enforcing its proclaimed NPOV pillar, as everything that happens is just a vote, under the subterfuge of "consensus". All that "consensus" means is that you got all your mates to turn up and agree with you.

[Angela Kennedy]

Battleground article; you're not going to get the parties in this dispute to agree on any one presentation as "neutral", no matter how much you try, because the parties are fighting a pitched battle for ideology. Slim has no interest (or, I suspect, capability) of writing "neutrally" on an animal rights issue, and I suspect the people on the other side are explicitly baiting her, to boot.

If Wikipedia isn't willing to allow multiple articles on the same topic written from different viewpoints, it should probably just delete entirely battleground articles like this one, or reduce them to extremely short stubs and lock them in that state.

Well yes. Only that then may mean that MANY articles on wikipedia should be in that state (locked short stubs.)

I would like to see that on the Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and Lyme articles, to name just a few. That's because I do have what might be termed an 'ideological' standpoint. But good grief just look at each and every contributor to that bunch of articles. Not one of them is free of such a thing. I am just more honest about where I am coming from.

It should be done to Intelligent Design, Cold Fusion, Lyndon LaRouche, most of the psychology entries, evolution etc. etc. There are so much more- especially where 'ideology' is hidden. Perhaps the vast majority of WP articles need to be locked stubs.

The problem is that some people really believe they are 'above' ideology, that they have privileged access to an 'objective' viewpoint etc. or that they alone are perfectly able to be 'neutral'. But even here we see Tryptofish and Rockpocket being just as 'ideological' here as SV, and just as incapable of acting 'neutrally'.

The NPOV rule never works because the vast majority of Wikipedia editors and admins have no idea about the epistemology of claims to neutrality. I don't know why that is exactly, though I could hazard guesses. There's many possible explanations. Maybe anyone who wants to become an admin should be made to study a 'feminist epistemology 101' course at their local university, financed by Wales (shocking for some. Except those 'girlies' are one of the few academic groups who actually have a handle on this problem!)

[Malleus]

Maybe anyone who wants to become an admin should be made to study a 'feminist epistemology 101' course at their local university, financed by Wales (shocking for some. Except those 'girlies' are one of the few academic groups who actually have a handle on this problem!)

I don't think it's only "girlies" who see or suffer from this problem, it's endemic. Try editing any article on an Irish Republican topic for instance, or any article discussing Israel's relationship with Palestine. Heck, why not try editing any article on the Catholic Church?

No rational person could expect teenagers to be able to effectively intervene in those kinds of daily battles. All they're qualified to do is to bleat about "civility".

[Emperor]

Nice example of the way Wikipedia works.

The purpose of the experiments is reduced to the sentence, "The aim of the research was to produce an animal model of clinical depression."

Good luck if even 10% of the audience understands what that is, and how it can help them and their families. Better to gloss over it and get to the pointless monkey torture.

[gomi]

Slim should be topic-banned from animal-rights articles for the same reasons Jayjg was banned from Israel-Palestine articles -- she is incapable of writing from anything resembling a neutral position. Combine this with her admin bit and substantial history of wielding it (and/or horse-trading with others to get them to do her dirty work), and you have a chilling effect on any but the bravest editors trying for academic tone and balance.

What exactly her deep interest in Marshalsea Prison (T-H-L-K-D) might spring from I do not know, but she would do better sticking with deep history of English jails rather than Lyndon LaRouche, Animal Rights, Palestine, or other areas where her biases might mislead an innocent and ignorant user mistakenly thinking s/he is reading an encyclopedia.

[Angela Kennedy]

Slim should be topic-banned from animal-rights articles for the same reasons Jayjg was banned from Israel-Palestine articles -- she is incapable of writing from anything resembling a neutral position. Combine this with her admin bit and substantial history of wielding it (and/or horse-trading with others to get them to do her dirty work), and you have a chilling effect on any but the bravest editors trying for academic tone and balance.

What exactly her deep interest in Marshalsea Prison (T-H-L-K-D) might spring from I do not know, but she would do better sticking with deep history of English jails rather than Lyndon LaRouche, Animal Rights, Palestine, or other areas where her biases might mislead an innocent and ignorant user mistakenly thinking s/he is reading an encyclopedia.

But then this issue is ENDEMIC in wikipedia. If you ban SV from Animal Rights etc., you'll also have to also topic ban JzG on nearly everything. You'd have to topic ban Mast Cell, JFW, Tim Vickers, Science Apologist, Orange Marlin, the whole of the 'ID Cabal', Killer Chihuahua, various- probably most- people from here, because they all -we all- are incapable of writing anything completely neutral. Even 'resembling neutral' isn't possible with many. Just because you might agree with them, doesn't make their position neutral.

Even Tryptofish and Rockpocket from the 'pit of despair' are writing from a clear value position on the topic and are promoting their own POV in the article and on the talk page.

There are just so many Wikipedians whose "biases might mislead an innocent and ignorant user mistakenly thinking s/he is reading an encyclopedia." This is one of the major problems of the project (and one of which Jimbo Wales appears to have no intellectual understanding), yet it is on the other hand merely a reflection of human societies in general.

[Angela Kennedy]

Maybe anyone who wants to become an admin should be made to study a 'feminist epistemology 101' course at their local university, financed by Wales (shocking for some. Except those 'girlies' are one of the few academic groups who actually have a handle on this problem!)

I don't think it's only "girlies" who see or suffer from this problem, it's endemic. Try editing any article on an Irish Republican topic for instance, or any article discussing Israel's relationship with Palestine. Heck, why not try editing any article on the Catholic Church?

No rational person could expect teenagers to be able to effectively intervene in those kinds of daily battles. All they're qualified to do is to bleat about "civility".

It's not just teenagers though.

[Malleus]

Maybe anyone who wants to become an admin should be made to study a 'feminist epistemology 101' course at their local university, financed by Wales (shocking for some. Except those 'girlies' are one of the few academic groups who actually have a handle on this problem!)

I don't think it's only "girlies" who see or suffer from this problem, it's endemic. Try editing any article on an Irish Republican topic for instance, or any article discussing Israel's relationship with Palestine. Heck, why not try editing any article on the Catholic Church?

No rational person could expect teenagers to be able to effectively intervene in those kinds of daily battles. All they're qualified to do is to bleat about "civility".

It's not just teenagers though.

You have to start somewhere.

[gomi]

But then this issue is ENDEMIC in wikipedia.

Yes.

you'll also have to also topic ban JzG on nearly everything.

Sounds good to me.

There are just so many Wikipedians whose "biases might mislead an innocent and ignorant user mistakenly thinking s/he is reading an encyclopedia." This is one of the major problems of the project (and one of which Jimbo Wales appears to have no intellectual understanding), yet it is on the other hand merely a reflection of human societies in general.

More seriously: yes, of course. And what we have evolved in human society to combat this tendency might roughly be called the scholarly method of erudite writing followed by peer review, and the tendency for mass-market encyclopediae to only report on somewhat settled areas of science and history.

Suggesting that because Wikipedia eschews this method it should not be called on it, well, that's just silly. (Not that you said that, but essentially everyone on Wikipedia does, either explicitly or implicitly.)

[Malleus]

But then this issue is ENDEMIC in wikipedia.

Yes.

you'll also have to also topic ban JzG on nearly everything.

Sounds good to me.

There are just so many Wikipedians whose "biases might mislead an innocent and ignorant user mistakenly thinking s/he is reading an encyclopedia." This is one of the major problems of the project (and one of which Jimbo Wales appears to have no intellectual understanding), yet it is on the other hand merely a reflection of human societies in general.

More seriously: yes, of course. And what we have evolved in human society to combat this tendency might roughly be called the scholarly method of erudite writing followed by peer review, and the tendency for mass-market encyclopediae to only report on somewhat settled areas of science and history.

Suggesting that because Wikipedia eschews this method it should not be called on it, well, that's just silly. (Not that you said that, but essentially everyone on Wikipedia does, either explicitly or implicitly.)

No, they don't. Wikipedia's tendency to follow the stories of the day instead of focusing on "proper" encyclopedia articles is a cause of concern for many.

[everyking]

I read this article and I think it's quite good; I don't see any overt POV problem, and I'm not sure there's a subtle POV problem either. If a positive appraisal of these experiments has been expressed anywhere (in a notable context), that should be represented in the article--but if such viewpoints exist, the other editors involved should be trying to find them instead of simply slapping a tag on the article.

[MBisanz]

A major issue with the neutrality problem on Wikipedia is that generally the only people interested in writing a detailed article on a topic already have established an opinion on it. The way you get around that in the real world is to pay people to write/edit/review with the expectation that they won't be paid well/rehired if the wider generalist community finds their work biased and refuses to buy it. So even those with strong opinions will suck it up and write a neutral piece to play to the crowd or their editors will get people to review it and have it edited into something that at least looks neutral.

Today I saw a large exhibit at the Smithsonian on nosegays that showed there was substantial historical commentary on them. Right now the article is barely a dictionary definition since so few people have an opinion on it that they want to push. Even if I could find an expert on it and convince him to write a free article, it would probably not be neutral since he would be able to write his opinion knowing he would not be financially impacted in the future as a result of the article.

Also, it has absolutely nothing to do with Cla68's comments, but File:Pitofdespair-Harlow.jpg is totally insufficient and in violation of WP:NFCC #1, #3a, and #10c

[Random832]

Also, it has absolutely nothing to do with Cla68's comments, but File:Pitofdespair-Harlow.jpg is totally insufficient and in violation of WP:NFCC #1, #3a, and #10c

Um.... I can't help but think of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Shii/Ima...ime_by_nima.jpg. You are walking on dangerous ground.

(that said, I don't see the problem with the article either. A tag adds no value if there's no actual substantial dispute other than people wanting to put a tag on.)

This post has been edited by Random832:

[Somey]

I read this article and I think it's quite good; I don't see any overt POV problem, and I'm not sure there's a subtle POV problem either. If a positive appraisal of these experiments has been expressed anywhere (in a notable context), that should be represented in the article--but if such viewpoints exist, the other editors involved should be trying to find them instead of simply slapping a tag on the article.

I'd have to agree with the folks who posted earlier to suggest that an article of this length on this subject is simply excessive. I do think SV means well, and I personally don't have a problem with it in terms of bias, but she simply doesn't understand the concept behind the statement "there's no such thing as bad publicity." Information regarding horrific animal experiments like this should be confined to "expert literature" such as scholarly journals and the like, and even then, suppressed as much as practicable. Going into this much detail on a highly-visible website, viewable by all, just gives bad people bad ideas and legitimizes their sick fantasies.

If you want to call that censorship, go ahead - but I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts that fewer animals would be harmed if "how-to" articles like this were deleted.

[MBisanz]

Also, it has absolutely nothing to do with Cla68's comments, but File:Pitofdespair-Harlow.jpg is totally insufficient and in violation of WP:NFCC #1, #3a, and #10c

Um.... I can't help but think of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Shii/Ima...ime_by_nima.jpg. You are walking on dangerous ground.

That appears to be a dispute over derivative images, which are poorly defined in general, on the other hand, I have tagged or deleted over 20,000 images on en for these kinds of NFCC things and several hundred more on Commons where I am an admin, so I do have a fairly good grasp of the material and would not make an FFD nomination unless I was fairly confident.

Have you even looked at my FFD nomination for this image yet or are you just generalizing that some people are exempt from NFCC rules?

This post has been edited by MBisanz:

[Lar]

Also, it has absolutely nothing to do with Cla68's comments, but File:Pitofdespair-Harlow.jpg is totally insufficient and in violation of WP:NFCC #1, #3a, and #10c

Um.... I can't help but think of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Shii/Ima...ime_by_nima.jpg. You are walking on dangerous ground.

(that said, I don't see the problem with the article either. A tag adds no value if there's no actual substantial dispute other than people wanting to put a tag on.)

That tag should be justified with some concrete examples from the article but they are there to be enumerated.

I was rather dismayed to read the threads on the talk page after Tryp brought the matter to my attention.

Have you even looked at my FFD nomination for this image yet or are you just generalizing that some people are exempt from NFCC rules?

There are no free passes on Wikipedia, everyone knows that.

[Cla68]

The problem here isn't necessarily the articles's content, it's SV's reaction when a couple of editors objected to how the article was written. Her responses to them on the article's talk page were unnecessarily hostile and personal. Having a NPOV tag on an article shouldn't be a big deal. If you're the primary editor of the article, just go to the talk page and try to work through the concerns with the objecting editors.

Based on my experience, Rockpocket is mildly pro-animal rights, Tryptofish is mildly antagonistic, and we have a fairly good idea where SV stands. The three of them should be able to amicably resolve the POV concerns in the article. Rockpocket and Tryptofish are generally very polite and respectful editors, at least from what I've seen. In this case, SV was out of line.