I also get the same impression from the groups of editors who camp out on
other articles that they feel threatened by anyone who doesn't completely agree
with them. Groups of editors like this are really a significant threat to the
idea that Wikipedia could ever be considered even somewhat as a neutral,
complete, and credible encyclopedia. It surprises me that more isn't done to
correct this problem [...] Citizendium's administration, in
contrast, from what I've observed, is very active in ensuring that this kind of
nonsense doesn't go on.-- Cla68, posting at Wikipedia Review
Cla68's observation is rather common among people who have been around Wikipedia for a while and see the ongoing problems of the website. Bias occurs regularly, which wouldn't be too bad if it could be easily changed in all articles by editors dedicated to removing it. But there's the rub: there are too few editors doing that and the bias is protected by tendentious users who want to see their point of view represented as The Truth. In too many cases, there is a group of editors who support the bias and fight any efforts to make an article more neutral. It isn't necessarily a "cabal" perpetrating the bias (Cla68 was specifically referring to the "ID cabal" [ID refers to "Intelligent Design", a concept used by some pro-religion people to give an alternate explanation to evolution], but as he points out, this happens on numerous Wikipedia articles by various groups of editors). Once a group of editors gets ahold of a page, they [[WP:OWN]] it unless some larger group can be rounded up to establish a new consensus that overwhelms the old one. Since consensus takes more than a majority, that's difficult to do.
I've started this blog to make it easier for editors to overcome political bias on Wikipedia. I hope to comment on various aspects of political bias in the 'pedia, discuss some past controversies and report on current problems. Political bias is only one form of bias, but the overall problem is too broad for me to cover, and my interest lies with bias of the political stripe. I may comment on controversies that are marginal to politics -- perhaps the "ID cabal", for instance. Comments from other Wikipedia editors are welcome.
What I don't intend to be doing is launching personal attacks on editors, although criticism is to be expected. I am not interested in asking people outside Wikipedia to flood some AfD or other discussion with their support or opposition for some particular point of view. I hope Wikipedians who are concerned about bias (or, in Wikispeak, "POV" -- "point of view", as opposed to "NPOV" or "Neutral Point of View") can use this blog to find out about problematic areas and perhaps flood them with a new, better consensus that favors neutrality and fairness to all points of view.
Rootology, another Wikipedia editor who posts at Wikipedia Review, made this comment in the same thread, and it reflects my own hopes:
Until the wider community slaps down these groups--whether they're noble, or
not, good, or not, or anything but neutral, it will happen again and again.
[...] [I]f a group is locking the articles down, the only fix is
to permanently and constantly flush the pipes out with lots and lots and lots of
new editors. The center will straighten itself out, because the small group will
be irrelevant then in the flow of all the other voices.Consensus is clogged in
the tubes? Flush out the tubes with even more water and make sure the water
doesn't stop flowing.
I agree with that, too. I think that's the best solution Wikipedia has, given the current state of the website's policies and guidelines. Here's something else I agree with, posted by Cla68:
But others, without mentioning any names, because we know who they all are,
have figured out ways to game the system in order to get their content to stick,
mainly by forming cabals. As Rootology points out, their influence and ability
to keep pushing POV is weakening over time, but in the meantime they're still
driving away new editors and ruining the chance for some important articles to
be made neutral and truly informative, in the process contributing to the
destruction of whatever chance Wikipedia might have to be considered as a
credible and reliable source of information. Moreover, Wikipedia is so chaotic
and uneven in its enforcement of the rules, that this is also driving away
casual editors who apparently don't want to participate in something so
anarchic.
Truer words were never spoken. Cla68 said his response, in part, was to take a closer look at Citizendium. This blog is meant to try to help fix the problem at Wikipedia, which (so far, at least) I haven't given up on.
In that same thread, The Joy wrote: But the crazies drive away the sane people and the sane people have a tendency to go crazy themselves after a while.
That's the danger. I don't know about you, but sometimes I feel a little crazy, myself. I'm hoping this blog may help keep me and some other Wikipedians a bit saner. And -- who knows? -- maybe Wikipedia a bit saner as well.
-- Edited to remove inaccuracy about Cla68 moving over to Citizendium. He's still at Wikipedia.
