User:Valjean/Essay/How to increase Wikipedia's credibility

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Credibility and reputation are everything. Without them, nothing else matters.

Research shows that Wikipedia gains credibility by being an active fact-checker and anti-fringe.[4][8] Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia and always strives to report facts as found in reliable sources (RS). Our articles should leave no doubt as to what is factual and what is false or unproven. Falsehoods, pseudoscience, and conspiracy theories damage Wikipedia's credibility, and when fringe editors leave Wikipedia it becomes more trustworthy.[12]

The recipe for increased credibility is simple: be anti-fringe; be factual and call things by their right names; and firmly oppose fringe editors.

This knowledge should result in a mentality shift toward actively opposing fringe editors who push nonsense. They insidiously undermine our RS policy and damage Wikipedia's credibility, so they don't belong here. When possible, it's better to use topic bans to redirect their energies toward more constructive ways of editing. If they won't do that, other sanctions should be applied boldly, without hesitation or delay.

Research of credibility factors[edit]

The following research by Steinsson, published in the American Political Science Review, lays out some facts about Wikipedia's credibility:

A qualitative content analysis shows that Wikipedia transformed from a dubious source of information in its early years to an increasingly reliable one over time. Process tracing shows that early outcomes of disputes over rule interpretations in different corners of the encyclopedia demobilized certain types of editors (while mobilizing others) and strengthened certain understandings of Wikipedia’s ambiguous rules (while weakening others). Over time, Wikipedians who supported fringe content departed or were ousted. Thus, population loss led to highly consequential institutional change. (bold added)[13]

— Sverrir Steinsson, American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press (2023)

Here's a good analysis of Steinsson's work by ShahBano Ijaz:

Steinsson traces the change in the content of English Wikipedia over time to suggest that the combination of ambiguous institutional rules and certain editors leaving the site helped Wikipedia transition from being a source that hosted pro-fringe discourse to one that gained credibility as an active fact-checker and anti-fringe. A close examination of the content of selected Wikipedia articles, their publicly available editing history, as well as the comments made by the editors, allows Steinsson to show that a change in the interpretation of Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View (NPOV) guideline affected the nature of content in its articles. As the interpretation favored by anti-fringe editors became popular, pro-fringe editors faced increasing challenges and began to leave Wikipedia. This shift in the balance between pro-fringe and anti-fringe editors, which was a result both of the way editorial disputes were resolved and the exit of pro-fringe editors, made Wikipedia gain credibility as a source that debunked myths and controversies and did not promote pseudoscience. (bold added)[14]

— Syeda ShahBano Ijaz, Political Science Now (2023)

Recipe for credibility[edit]

That research by Steinsson lays out some facts that can be summarized in a simple recipe for quickly increasing Wikipedia's credibility: be anti-fringe, factual, call things by their right names, and confidently oppose fringe editors.

Be anti-fringe[edit]

No fringe advocacy

Wikipedia does not cater to "lunatic charlatans"[15] by permitting them to misuse the encyclopedia.

Wikipedia does not cater to what Jimmy Wales calls "lunatic charlatans",[15] nor does it allow advocacy of fringe points of view, so the fact that fringe believers don't like some of our articles shows that we must be doing something right.

Because Wikipedia has a bias towards use of reliable and accurate sources, fringe POV pushers should have a hard time here. While it should not be difficult to include facts about proven reality, it should be difficult to make fringe points of view appear to be true. If fringe POV pushers want to edit here, they should have a hard row to hoe, and they shouldn't be allowed to make life difficult for defenders of proven reality. Advocacy of nonsensical opinions and beliefs is forbidden here, while advocacy of proven reality isn't forbidden. The POV pushing may look the same, but it's allowable to have a bias for reality, but not allowable to frame nonsense with a favorable bias.

Our fringe guideline requires that we avoid a false balance when it states:

"When discussing topics that reliable sources say are pseudoscientific or fringe theories, editors should be careful not to present the pseudoscientific fringe views alongside the scientific or academic consensus as though they are opposing but still equal views."

Editors must avoid a false balance because not all points of view are equal. In any controversy, when one side is true, the other side will usually be wrong:

When dealing with evidence for claims, and especially claims for fringe subjects, scientists and skeptics follow the basic principles of science and scientific skepticism, and editors should use the same principles in their editing. These involve critical thinking and are a fundamental part of the scientific method. The scientific reliance on evidence and reproducibility is paralleled by, and perfectly aligned with, the editorial needs and demands found in our reliable sources and verifiability policies. When editors use these policies properly, they are applying the scientific method. The following notable quotes touch on these matters:

  • "I believe in evidence. I believe in observation, measurement, and reasoning, confirmed by independent observers. I'll believe anything, no matter how wild and ridiculous, if there is evidence for it. The wilder and more ridiculous something is, however, the firmer and more solid the evidence will have to be." — Isaac Asimov, The Roving Mind (1983)
  • "The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it." ― Neil deGrasse Tyson
  • "A habit of basing convictions upon evidence, and of giving to them only that degree of certainty which the evidence warrants, would, if it became general, cure most of the ills from which this world is suffering." — Bertrand Russell[21]

Both in the real world and here at Wikipedia, the fringe point of view must produce very strong evidence (good sources) if it can ever be accepted as legitimate and true. Those who are so far out of left field as to not understand reality, or to consider nonsense to be true, should have a hard time here, and they do because they lack good sources. To make up for the lack they often use original research and poor sources, and then dare to demand that they be treated in a special manner[15][22] not recognized by our policies and guidelines. Such attempts have been soundly ridiculed and rejected here,[15] and such editors often end up blocked and/or banned.

Be factual and call things by their right names[edit]

Wikipedia is nobody's fool. We do not suffer fools gladly, so fringe editors are unwelcome here.

Wikipedia gains credibility by being correct and factual, and by rejecting false information. We must have a reputation for fact-checking and leave no confusion as to what is true or false. We must always side with facts and reliable sources of information. Readers should not be forced to figure it out. What RS consider to be true or false should be obvious to them.

Did you think that Wikipedia never takes sides? When there is a disagreement between reliable sources, that is true. We explain the points of view and give them coverage according to their due weight. But when dealing with a disagreement between reliable and unreliable sources, we side with RS. Unreliable sources have no weight here. They are always "undue", and the only way we document their views is when RS mention them. Then we use the RS and give the content the framing found in the RS. Falsehoods are framed as what they are. They are not simply stated, as is. No, they are labeled as falsehoods. When we can call out the false or misleading statements by Donald Trump, we can certainly do it with other topics. He is not the only purveyor of falsehoods we must identify at Wikipedia.

Facts and opinions are not the same, and facts must win. Lies, pseudoscience, and conspiracy theories should be called out by name in the text. We must use the labels used by RS. We must not be afraid to say falsehood, lie, liar, pseudoscience, and conspiracy theory when good sources justify doing so. We expect the truth, and any deviation should be labeled as such. If reliable sources use those words, it is not a violation of the NPOV policy to do the same and use those words in the text. When in doubt, just attribute it.

"Neutrality is not the average between bollocks and reality. In science, any compromise between a correct statement and an incorrect statement, is an incorrect statement." User:JzG, November 2019, on Talk:Craniosacral therapy.

On Wikipedia, "neutral point of view" does not mean "no point of view" or that we do not use biased words from the sources if they are true. It is editors, not sources or words, who must be neutral. We must neutrally and faithfully document biased words and biased sources without neutralizing or censoring their words or meaning. When the content and title are aligned with RS, no matter whether they are left, right, up, or down, the content and title are "neutral". When editors edit in a way that deviates from the RS, the editors are not editing neutrally. We must not make facts sound like opinions or opinions sound like facts. We follow the scientific method. If reliable sources discover that they have made mistakes, we will update our content accordingly. Many of Wikipedia's rules follow the scientific method and the rules of logic.

A contentious term or value-laden label like "conspiracy theorist" can and should be used to describe someone for whom RS apply this label consistently without meaningful rebuttal. We should call a spade a spade and note that plain understanding of RS takes precedence over avoiding giving offense to the subject's sensibilities. BLP is not a protection from any negative information. A public figure must be described as they are understood by reliable sources.

Some opinions are more important than others[edit]

Wikipedia guidelines require us to express points of view in WP:DUE weight. That means that opinions which are from noted experts, or which are closely aligned with neutral and factual analysis at a high level of authoritativeness and prominence, should take precedence over lesser, more fringe or novel perspectives, with the most fringe perspectives afforded the least weight, or none at all.

Fringe editors should be opposed[edit]

Fringe editors should be met with topic bans and blocks until they drop their fringe agendas, leave, or are banned. Wikipedia must not accommodate or allow fringe editors to dilute our content by using bad sources and wishy-washy wording. We are brave enough to call a spade a spade. Firmly taking that position will freeze out disruptive editors and allow mainstream editors to edit without so much distraction from fringe editors who advocate nonsense and seek to undermine our reliably-sourced content. Their loss is a net positive for the project, so the sooner we get rid of them, the better.

Wikipedia is allied with the facts and is clearly on their side. Wikipedia doesn't know what is true if reliable sources don't tell us. All our content is based on reliable sources, so they tell us what is true and factual. Our requirement to use reliable sources makes sense, and, of course, we side with our own RS policy.

Therefore, we reject editors who do not side with RS. Research shows fringe editors damage Wikipedia's credibility. Their ability to disrupt should be hampered. If they don't have the necessary competency to vet sources,[23] they should stick to uncontroversial topics, maybe only minor edits, or leave. Their influence must be curtailed, often with topic bans, but sometimes with blocks or bans. On the other hand, when possible, it's better to redirect their energies toward more constructive ways of editing. WikiGnomes are always welcome, and even fringe editors can do such good work.

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^ Okoli, Chitu; Mehdi, Mohamad; Mesgari, Mostafa; Nielsen, Finn Årup; Lanamäki, Arto (8 July 2014). "Wikipedia in the eyes of its beholders: A systematic review of scholarly research on Wikipedia readers and readership". Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65 (12). Wiley: 2381–2403. doi:10.1002/asi.23162. ISSN 2330-1635.
  2. ^ Jullien, Nicolas (2012). "What We Know About Wikipedia: A Review of the Literature Analyzing the Project(s)". HAL Open Science. ffhal-00857208f: 86. Retrieved 22 June 2023.
  3. ^ Smith, Denise A. (18 February 2020). "Situating Wikipedia as a health information resource in various contexts: A scoping review". PLOS ONE. 15 (2). Public Library of Science (PLoS): e0228786. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0228786. ISSN 1932-6203.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
  4. ^ Several systematic and narrative reviews in the scholarly literature have described Wikipedia's credibility among scholars and experts and connected it to our robust content policies, including our medical sources guideline and other policies which appropriately restrict fringe content.[1][2][3]
  5. ^ "Wikipedia is 20, and its reputation has never been higher". The Economist. 9 January 2021. Retrieved 22 June 2023.
  6. ^ Cooke, Richard (17 February 2020). "Wikipedia Is the Last Best Place on the Internet". Wired. Retrieved 22 June 2023.
  7. ^ Steinwehr, Uta; Bushuev, Mikhail (14 January 2021). "Wikipedia's 20, but how credible is it?". Deutsche Welle. Retrieved 22 June 2023.
  8. ^ Several highly trustworthy news sources extoll the reliability of Wikipedia, and connect it to our robust content policies, including our anti-pseudoscience guideline and other related policies.[5][6][7]
  9. ^ Harrison, Stephen (5 April 2023). "Wikipedia's "Supreme Court" to Review Polish-Jewish History During WWII". Slate. Retrieved 22 June 2023.
  10. ^ Silva, Marco (November 19, 2021). "Climate change: Conspiracy theories found on foreign-language Wikipedia". BBC News. Retrieved June 22, 2023.
  11. ^ Ward, Justin (12 March 2018). "Wikipedia wars: inside the fight against far-right editors, vandals and sock puppets". Southern Poverty Law Center. Retrieved 22 June 2023.
  12. ^ Several well-publicized incidents over the years have highlighted what happens when our anti-fringe theories and other content guidelines fail to live up to their stated goals.[9][10][11]
  13. ^ Steinsson, Sverrir (March 9, 2023). "Rule Ambiguity, Institutional Clashes, and Population Loss: How Wikipedia Became the Last Good Place on the Internet". American Political Science Review. Cambridge University Press: 1–17. doi:10.1017/s0003055423000138. ISSN 0003-0554.
  14. ^ ShahBano Ijaz, Syeda (May 29, 2023). "How Conflicts and Population Loss Led to the Rise of English Wikipedia's Credibility". Political Science Now. Retrieved June 20, 2023.
  15. ^ a b c d Wikipedia:Lunatic charlatans:

    Quote: "No, you have to be kidding me. Every single person who signed this petition needs to go back to check their premises and think harder about what it means to be honest, factual, truthful. Wikipedia's policies around this kind of thing are exactly spot-on and correct. If you can get your work published in respectable scientific journals - that is to say, if you can produce evidence through replicable scientific experiments, then Wikipedia will cover it appropriately. What we won't do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of 'true scientific discourse'. It isn't." — Jimbo Wales, March 23, 2014

  16. ^ Carl Sagan (writer/host) (December 14, 1980). "Encyclopaedia Galactica". Cosmos. Episode 12. 01:24 minutes in. PBS.
  17. ^ While Carl Sagan's version is likely the most popular, Marcello Truzzi had preceded him by a couple years in 1978:

    * "An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof." — Marcello Truzzi, "On the Extraordinary: An Attempt at Clarification," Zetetic Scholar, Vol. 1, No. 1, p. 11, 1978

    * "In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded." — Marcello Truzzi, "On Pseudo-Skepticism", Zetetic Scholar, December 13, 1987, p. 3

  18. ^ Quoted in Robert Sobel's review of Past Imperfect: History According to the Movies, edited by Mark C. Carnes
  19. ^ Christopher Hitchens, "Mommie Dearest: The pope beatifies Mother Teresa, a fanatic, a fundamentalist, and a fraud.", Slate, October 20, 2003.
  20. ^ Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (2007) p.150. Twelve Books, New York.
  21. ^ Bertrand Russell, Why I Am Not a Christian (1927). Watts, London.
  22. ^ Hall, Harriet (September 2015), "Evidence: "It Worked for My Aunt Tillie" is Not Enough", Skeptic, Volume 20, Number 3, retrieved November 22, 2015

    Quote: "Science-based medicine has one rigorous standard of evidence, the kind [used for pharmaceuticals] .... CAM has a double standard. They gladly accept a lower standard of evidence for treatments they believe in. However, I suspect they would reject a pharmaceutical if it were approved for marketing on the kind of evidence they accept for CAM."

  23. ^ "Guides: Determine Credibility (Evaluating): Ask CRAAP Questions". Illinois State University. September 29, 2015. Retrieved June 20, 2023.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Valjean/Essay/How_to_increase_Wikipedia%27s_credibility&oldid=1182884731"