controversial articles and neutrality problems

I saw an interesting post. I'm not sure that I agree with it, but I wanted to relay it to the rest of you to see what you think. I think it shows an important challenge you will face in fixing controversial articles.

The post focuses on Israel-Palestine and makes some very interesting and informed observations.

I can see why it's tempting, but I disagree. I don't see anything in that post that would prevent a capable user stating "Rashid Khalidi says this, and Anita Shapira says that".

Again I emphasize, our job is not to resolve the scientific dispute, but to present where knowledge is currently at. Saying "It is hotly disputed and there are multiple views in this area" is exactly what we should do, if that's the case.

Weight and balance are the usual problems in such disputes. How much weight should view X be given? Is view Y mainstream or fringe? (Sourcing disputes are a bit easier to resolve)

My acid test of the issues in the Israel-Palestine disputes is more cynical. It goes a bit like this:

Suppose we took all the source material used in these articles, and gave them to a team of 20 users with no connection to Israel or Palestine, who were used to high quality editing approaches and content disputes in unrelated fields like pseudoscience, beer, indigenous rights in Paraguay, paleobiology, laser welding, English literature... and we asked them to look at the I-P topic area. Would they be able to reach a consensus on some kind of fair representation of the views and their balance?

Answer: probably. Mainly because they'd be considering evidence and seeking NPOV and balance, looking at sources and reliability, and identifying issues of fair representation of facts, as opposed to fighting like kids over it.

In other words, expecting people "too close to the trees" to solve a problem is itself the problem. This is a classic case where we do actually have the resources and can solve the problem fairly well, "outside the box".

Yeah, call me naive, but I really think that as a neutral party I could solve things by saying "this source says this, that source says that, and it's disputed."

Okay

You're naive.

:)

The link is to a dispute I resolved exactly that way. It's not the only one I've done that on. What's interesting is the article's been stable ever since, and that was 2 years ago.

Our job is to characterize the views, including the (genuine) dispute if any. Not to take sides on it, nor to try and decide the answer for the academic population. That makes it a lot easier. People just don't think that saying "we don't know which" or "it's in dispute" is a valid option. But it is.

We are amazing editors ;) Do you think that it's a product of having some experience with working on quality articles... or do you think the skillset comes from something else? The reason I ask is because it would be useful to train other editors with those skills, or at least be able to identify those editors who "naturally" possess those skills.

For some it's intuitive and commonsense I guess. That said, most people learn behaviors and skills from their peer group, and their peer group's expectations and approaches. The point I'm making is that even difficult disputes like Palestine-Israel that reflect very troubled real-world issues, are resolvable in article terms. We have the tools. We just aren't using them fully.

To summarize these are the tools likely to be sufficient for most disputes like that.

1. A substantial population of users whom we can broadly trust to edit with good understanding and regard for core Wikipedia editing principles on any article (including self management of COI and interactive behavior).
2. A very clear understanding of NPOV, including that NPOV does not aim to solve the academic or real-world dispute, but only to fairly represent it.
3. (Optional but useful) a couple of specialists or experts (or experts on both sides), who, while not involved in the dispute, can be used as external resources to help where needed (eg source material, identifying major/fringe views in the field, etc).
4. The ability to remove all editors who don't have this kind of proven community recognition of their editing approach to the talk page, so that those who do can listen to them, consider the views represented -- and then act and discuss to a high standard the points arising.

In other words, global Wikiprojects (and their ability to identify and collect expertize)... trusted/senior users... core editing principles applied strictly... and a formal dispute resolution agreement (eg Arbcom or community decision) to let these users deal with the content for a few months, long enough to work it out and let issues stabilize, with others restricted to the talk page. After 3 or 4 months, review and decide if the restriction should be relaxed.

I think you'll agree all are within our reach. I can't say if we have the will to solve them, but they are achievable. I don't see any reason to make excuses why we can't resolve these disputes. We have the means to do so without changing our current ethos. We just aren't using them fully.

As a note on this:

I have commented in the past on enwiki, that edit warring is an intensive job. If greatly disrupted, or the article is "clean", it's hard for an edit warrior to "get back into the war" because it's a lot more obvious when they do. Preventing article editing for a few months while users the community feels can be trusted to act well address the content issue, would make edit warring really obvious on return to community editing, and normal adminship could probably sort it out.

I agree with a lot of what you're saying. NPOV is more reachable than people think, but it just requires someone who is really committed to being neutral.

But I'm not sure your idea for "mass acquisition" of senior editor status fits with that. If it's something that's acquired on a mass level, then I think even some of the good faith I-P editors with a strong opinion could still become "senior". Not all POV warriors come carrying a torch and a gun. Many don't even realize they're warriors, which is what makes it so easy to slip into systemic bias. In fact, systemic bias is (by definition) not the fault of a specific editor acting in bad faith, but a mass of editors acting in good faith.

What we're calling for is closer to some kind of "informal moderator" status. A status parallel to adminship but focusing on content disputes and quality problems. In addition to senior editors, but a higher standard.

You're missing a key point still: "A substantial population"

The principle is not that we delegate I-P (or fringe science, or others) to a couple of users to sort out. We still use the classic crowdsource model, but the crowd is of users (from all topics and areas) that the community has agreed consistently edit to core principles and a high standard, including in dialog. Not "just a handful of moderators". Those users whom the community has not yet formally agreed edit and interact with a consistently high standard can still participate, but stick to the talk page.

In that editing environment, a user who is tendentious or greatly biased, or a subtle warrior, won't stand much chance. They, and any users who obstruct good editing, will rather visibly be bringing their own standing as a "senior editor" into question (which is a high barrier to regain if lost)... because the peer group of editors is other users who are acting to a high standard -- and recognize/expect the same.

(In a practical sense, if a quality mark takes time and effort to acquire, and is readily lost if abused, then those acquiring it will want to not lose it. Gaming the system is a lot harder in a group of high quality peers who know what the norms are and what is expected.)

Or for certain issues we even may consider delegating several senior editors to resolve the dispute, making sure of course that none of them has been involved in the conflict and none of them has possible issues with systemic bias. I see it as a viable option.

I'm not sure I agree that's how it will work out in practice. But your ideals certainly make logical sense. I think this would still be a big step forward, and it's the kind of thing that can be re-assessed once we've put it all into action.

In a way, all we have to do is propose the recognition of such editors (which makes sense for many reasons not just this one item). The rest can almost be left to individual communities to consider. We don't need to force this area of usage.

In other words, if the recognition of such users is there, and the global WikiProject structure and referee panels exist, and a major dispute is ongoing, the community will have these extra tools to use and at some point will probably decide to do so. Mention it as an ancillary idea or "possible extra use" for those communities wishing to try it. Then leave it to them, once they have the tools needed.

Yeah, I actually have a bit of faith in the community to adapt. The problem is that the community has a hard time with big changes, which are sometimes necessary. But once we have the senior editors and baseline standards in place, we can leave it to the community to refine them so that they meet their intended purpose.

For me, addressing that "hard time with big changes" is something our report needs to broach head-on.

I think that this is a key post. I agree that if this plan were to be implemented it may very well work as advertised. However, I see no real indication that it is "within reach" or particularly "achievable". Certainly, it is a solution that is envisionable, but anything beyond that will depend entirely upon the execution. Drawing up a plan is one thing; many organizations and governments have archives full of plans that would have worked if only they could or would have been implemented. The core values have always been there, for anybody to read and to apply; they have just not been followed universally or even commonly. In practice there is considerable resistance to actually following the core values.

Speaking of core values, I quite liked the idea of a brand statement. Adopting a brand statement would be relatively easy to implement; that looks achievable to me (the earlier proposed statement was probably a bit long for practical use, but essentially said it all). - Brya 03:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

BTW: I neither encouraged nor discouraged "senior editors" when they were adopted at .nl (voting on candidates here), and am not in any way involved in the failing of this plan. It was abandoned some two-and-a-half years ago. - Brya 05:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

We cannot force the solution for everything. Our job is to point to suggestions as we presently can. If our recommendations happen to provide some core tools that are likely to be needed or useful in addressing heavy duty POV wars, and we also note this and provide an analysis how they might be used for that effect (if a project wishes), then this is likely to be the best we can do for now.

There's nothing preventing a further review in a while.

And yes, agree in principle.

Actually, this Task force cannot force any solution for anything. Indeed, suggestions are the best this Task force can do. Providing tools is out of reach of this Task force, at most it can make suggestions for developing tools. However, actually implementing said tools needs "higher powers" swinging into action. - Brya 05:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, agree. We cannot "force" anything; we can only make what we hope are insightful recommendations.

The page that failed on nlwiki (English translation) looks like it was a proposal to recognize topic experts (PhD's and the like?) -- "A special editor is someone who is designated by others as a specialist in a particular knowledge" ... "A special editor is basically just special regarding his/her knowledge. His/her other skills do not matter...". Under that idea the user was designated a specialist (or expert) in a given field in their on-wiki editing. We also seem to have decided not to go down that route, for various reasons, so this is reasonable corroboration, though we did consider what ways experts and expertise could be best fitted within the classic Wikimedia ethos (given their specific needs and situations) and have found what looks a more solid answer.

Yes, the details are different, but that is the point: it is all in the details. The mere idea, by itself, is not likely to get far. It will make all the difference how it is implemented. - Brya 07:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The recommendations of this taskforce will be likely to include a fair bit of backup material, including specifics of proposed approach. Too much is specific "this way, not that way" to avoid providing such detail. So yes, agree 100%

I just happened on this thread, and can't tell you how delighted I am to see that a post of mine has generated so much interest. And since I am the guy who lit the fire, let me add a bit to the flames:

FT2 suggests that a POV dispute can be simply resolved by writing "Rashid Khalidi says this and Anita Shapira says that." But that same information can take on a completely different meaning when written, "Anita Shapira says this and Rashid Khalidi says that." Order, emphasis, and nuances of language are the substance of these disputes, and not the specific content.

I, like many of those responding to this thread, am a pretty senior editor. Moreover, in the Israel-Palestinian arena, I am one of the very few editors that enjoy the respect of both sides in the dispute. And I assure you that, even with the most creative suggestions, and the most arduous and tactful negotiations, I have been unable to resolve the key POV disputes occuring in that area.

My argument that there is no such thing as neutrality in life-and-death struggles such as this one is perceived to be, was stated explicitly by the Palestinian director of a music school in East Jerusalem. Struggling with the scarcest of resources and a lack of qualified teachers, he refused to enlist help from Israelis, many of whom would gladly help out. Why, I asked him - music is one area where we can be neutral, where we can look beyond the conflict, at real human values. "In this conflict, there is no such thing as being neutral," he said. "If you are not with us, you are against us."

To suggest that we know better - that we editors can be really neutral - is not only naive, it is arrogant. --Ravpapa 14:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

And moreover, if some of you are confident that you can resolve these issues, I suggest you give it a try. There is an ongoing dispute at w:Jerusalem on the English Wikipedia, over whether Jerusalem can be accurately called the capital of Israel. It is a dispute that, so far, has defied the best of English Wikipedia's administrators and negotiators. Perhaps you will succeed where others - including myself - have failed.

You propose a two-article solution. I'm not really comfortable with that. But to me, if you can solve the problem with two articles, then you can solve the problem with two sections in the same article.

Two sections of the article that say the same thing? Remember, in my suggestion, the rule is that the two versions of the article must have exactly the same content. Every fact appearing in one must appear in the other as well. The only difference between the two versions is in the presentation, not in the information.

Then I'm not sure we couldn't do two presentations in one version. "According to X1, Y1. According to X2, Y2."

"FT2 suggests that a POV dispute can be simply resolved by writing "Rashid Khalidi says this
and Anita Shapira says that." But that same information can take on a completely different
meaning when written, "Anita Shapira says this and Rashid Khalidi says that." Order, emphasis,
and nuances of language are the substance of these disputes, and not the specific content."

Exactly. The POV warriors have already agreed all of the substantive differences and are reduced to quibbling over semantics. That the scope of the disagreement is this narrow is IMHO a success for the wiki process. Options for resolving this last issue are:

1. pick one side. The sides are so close together that this would almost have to be at random.
2. let the POV warriors continue to discuss this till the cows come home (i.e. forever). It does no harm and keeps them occupied. Outside intervention being limited to enforcing civility and process.
3. Create two separate point of view articles which gradually drift farther and farther apart as each gets captured by extremists since no one else cares enough to fight them.

I would pick option 2 - the current system. Like Churchill said about democracy "It's the worst system, apart from all the others".Template:O Rly

I suppose that from a quality standpoint, it's not terrible to have an article that's deadlocked on a fine issue like "do we say 'X says Y is true' or do we just say 'Y is true'?" But from a community health standpoint, these kinds of debates really make Wikipedia a crappy place to do work, and drive out all but the most stubborn editors. Even if they're civil and not rude, sheer stubbornness is enough to drive people out.

Can we find a better way?

Reading the responses to my idea, I understand the reticence to the two-thread solution. I just want to clarify a couple of things about the proposal:

• The pro and con versions cannot, in my proposal, drift further and further apart. Because the rules of engagement are that every documented fact in one article must be included in the other. You can bury it in a footnote, you can print it in small type at the end of the article, but it has to be there. I trust the opposing editors to insist on this.

• I find our labeling of editors "POV warriors" incorrect and offensive. It is true that there are editors whose sole objective is to slant articles. But the majority of editors I have encountered in article battlegrounds are not fighting for their private points of view. They are fighting for their own understanding of neutrality. It is important for us, as senior editors, to understand and appreciate that. Denigrating editors involved in article wars is only exacerbating the problem, not helping.

• The parallel article approach is, first and foremost, a tactic, and not an objective. If two opposing editors have each written their own versions of an article, and both versions contain exactly the same information, there is a solid basis for negotiation on a single version. In a lot of edit wars, the rationale for this or that version becomes obscured in a cloud of enmity, where sometimes there are simple and imaginative ways to resolve problems. By having opposing versions that are completely agreeable to the sides (each version to its own side), there is a good starting place to negotiate an agreed version. I don't think this will always be possible, but in some cases it may well be a springboard for agreement.

I've participated in mediation, and one tactic that they use IS to have two different editors write the article/section in two different ways. And it is definitely a good way to start a negotiation.

I'm not worried about offending POV warriors. Frankly, I'd be glad if they left. Somewhere between this postmodern "you and I have two different understandings of neutrality", there is actually a neutral way to present the material if people can get off of their soapbox. I hope that one day I could build enough support to make it very very hard for a POV to enjoy Wikipedia, forcing them to adapt or leave. But in the meantime, I'm not going to go out of my way to accommodate their battleground mentality. There are opinionated people who can get over themselves, and then there are POV warriors. The worst threat to community health isn't one side or another, but everyone who dogmatically insists upon their side.

The difference between a POV warrior and a fair-minded but opinionated editor is this: the POV warrior wants to excise the opposing view. The fair editor wants to include both views, though he may want to present them in a way that makes clear which view is correct.

An example of this is the ongoing war over the lead of w:Jerusalem. ProPalestinian editors argue that that the lead should contain an explicit statement that half of Jerusalem is occupied, and that its status as Jerusalem's capital is disputed by almost all nations of the world. The ProIsraelis point out that the issues of occupation and status are amply discussed, including an extensive footnote in the lead, and a section in the article. None of the editors involved in this dispute wants to remove information supporting the opposing view; the entire dispute is one of presentation. None of these editors, in my mind, are POV warriors. That doesn't make the battle any less bloody.

I am curious to know what you think: should the lead of the article contain an explicit statement about the dispute over its status? Or, in other words, which camp are you in?

For some of these debates, it really would be easiest if people could acknowledge that readers could figure out the correct view. We could present all of the facts and all the reasonable opinions from a neutral point of view, and let the content speak for itself.

I think you raise a pretty fair distinction between someone who is a POV warrior and someone who is relatively fair minded, though. It's just that we're now talking about very fine and subtle distinctions -- arguing about what the lead should contain and with what presentation. I don't mean to trivialize the significance of the I-P debate, but when you remember that our goal is to write an encyclopedia it's hard not to roll your eyes.

I honestly think these issues are small enough that they can be settled by the community. If it's small enough that you can solve it by having two versions of the article with only minor differences -- one where the statement is included in the lead, and one where the statement is included in the body -- then clearly this is something that could be settled if it were put to mandatory mediation.

This thread is going nowhere, and I know why: because my proposal, which may or may not be any good, does not address the central quality problems of articles on disputed topics. And these problems are two:

First, the disputes around these articles lead to a shift of emphasis from the main to the marginal. The dynamics of this shift are clearly visible in articles like w:Judaization of the Galilee. There is a dispute going on there about the background section: the proIsraelis want this section to show that Israel acquired the territory of the Galilee after a war in which its existence was threatened. The ProPalestinians want the section to emphasize that under the Partition plan the Galilee was never supposed to be part of Israel. Because of this disagreement, both sides have been adding citations and detail supporting their positions, resulting in a Background section that is inflated far beyond its importance or relevance.

This distortion is characteristic of many disputed articles. w:Mohammad Amin al-Husayni is so full of polemics on picayune that you need a Rashi commentary to understand it.

Not only do disputed issues get disproportionate attention, entire topics become inflated far beyond their importance. A prime example is w:Muhammad al-Durrah incident. That article, about a Palestinian boy who got shot during the second intifada, is 100 kB long. The article on the w:1948 Arab–Israeli War is 87 kB long. Was the al-Durrah affair really so important that it deserves so much attention?

I know Wikipedia is not like other encyclopedias, but in the eyes of the reader, the amount of space you devote to a topic is seen as an indication of the topic's importance. This is a fundamental distortion of truth inherent in the way Wikipedia is edited.

The second problem is article spawning. Proponents of a particular political position try to multiply the number of Wikipedia articles supporting their side. The Pro-Palestinians have, for example, written 153 articles on Arab villages depopulated as a result of the conflict. Almost all these articles are stubs, and are likely to remain so, as very little information is available about them. The pro-Israelis, not to be outdone, have 67 articles to their credit on Israeli settlements depopulated during the conflict.

I am not saying that each of these villages is not, theoretically, a legitimate topic for an article. As things stand, though, there is no question that almost all of the information in these articles could have been presented more succinctly and accessibly in other forms - for example in a table, showing the village size, population, date and circumstances of the depopulation. In those few cases where there is more information than this included in the article, a separate article would certainly be in order.

But I contend that the objective of these articles is not to present the information in the way that is most accessible, but rather in the way the maximizes the propaganda value.

I have no solution for these two problems, which, I believe, have a profound impact on the quality and reliability of Wikipedia's coverage of disputed topics.

Yeah, this is a really tough problem. It's one thing to settle an article. It's another thing to settle a policy on how to handle certain articles. But there's very little to stop someone from creating a new article if they can find one or two sources and carve out something barely distinct. With the most inflammatory content expelled from dhimmi, a group of editors managed to keep it alive at dhimmitude. Not even saying that the second article shouldn't exist, but we really just don't know how to handle these kinds of spin offs. We have an entire article called criticism of Facebook. I think there's a place for this kind of criticism, but I can't help but wonder if the very framing of the article (as a place for criticism only) is a major threat to neutrality...

And I really do think that neutrality is a big community health problem too.

I don't have many answers on this issue except to empower the community to resolve them.

(edit: i realize I can't link to Wikipedia articles here, so I'll leave it to others to look them up if they want.)

I agree with everything you have said (including your criticism of my use of the phrase POV warrior - I was wrong) right up to your final sentence:

...these two problems, which, I believe, have a profound impact on the quality and reliability 
of Wikipedia's coverage of disputed topics.

If articles on controversial matters are longer, better researched and more carefully reviewed than articles on less controversial matters then this does "have a profound impact on the quality and reliability of Wikipedia's coverage" but the impact is entirely positive and should be welcomed and celebrated.

If "imbalance" between articles is a problem it is not a big one in the scheme of things and has minimal effect on readers provided the treatment in each article is balanced - which it generally is.

We should

• formally thank the tireless editors who have worked so long and hard to arrive at a fair presentation of the facts in these Palestine and Israel related articles
• congratulate them on the level of success they have achieved so far
• encourage them to continue to engage together to resolve the remaining outstanding issues and the other issues that are likely to arise in the future
• hope they will continue working to improve the articles.

These articles may never be perfect or even feature quality but they are already good and useful and I suspect they are already among the best articles on these subjects anywhere. Read the Muhammad al-Durrah article for an example. Any attempt to "solve this problem" is, in my opinion, far more likely to make it worse.