Weasel Words Worry Wales - new blog post

[Zoloft]

Weasel Words Worry Wales

Greg Kohs examines the sincerity and accuracy of Jimbo Wales on 'Weasel Words':

Wales lamented how modern journalism, to him, no longer seems to produce evidence-based news stories. He asked, “How often do we see phrases like this in the news?

• ’Experts claim’
• ’Studies show’
• ’Top officials say’
• ’According to a person familiar with the matter'”

And he continued, “On Wikipedia, people call these ‘weasel words’ because they weasel out of telling you the unadorned truth. These kinds of formulations are misleading, and I believe they should be avoided wherever possible.”

Let's get some nice comments on the blog post.

[Johnny Au]

More weasel words found in "reliable sources":

•Social media said...
•People on Facebook said...
•According to the Twitterverse...

Never forget the classic "Wikipedia said..." and "According to Wikipedia..." Many journalists often forget that Wikipedia says nothing; it's the Wikipedians who add stuff in.

[Poetlister]

Surely, "Experts say", giving sources, is no different from stating something and giving a reliable source to back it up.

[HRIP7]

Never forget the classic "Wikipedia said..." and "According to Wikipedia..." Many journalists often forget that Wikipedia says nothing; it's the Wikipedians who add stuff in.

A key point.

Wikipedia contains vandalism, hoaxes and other unsourced rubbish added by anonymous drive-by editors that no one has spotted yet as well as material that reflects top-class sources and has been subject to exhaustive discussion by knowledgeable contributors.

It would be nice if journalists learnt to check and cite the sources given in Wikipedia instead of using the "Wikipedia says ..." or "According to Wikipedia ..." shortcut.

Even nicer if they wrote (or at least realised, in their own thinking), "Someone on the internet wrote x days ago on Wikipedia that ... and so far no one's deleted it" – at least if that's all that happened – but except for vandalism and hoax stories that's hardly ever done in media reports.

[Poetlister]

"Someone on the internet wrote x days ago on Wikipedia that ... and so far no one's deleted it"

Of course, it can be quite difficult to disentangle who wrote what when in a much-edited article. And the person who appears to have written something may just have been reverting an old deletion. And that someone may be an IP or a silly pseudonym.

[Rogol Domedonfors]

I would really like to deprecate the use of the word "editor" to denote the contributors to Wikipedia. An editor is a person with a responsible (indeed, legally accountable) position, requiring expertise and judgement. It conveys a certain connotation of gravitas. The people called editors on Wikipedia have nothing to do with that sort of responsibility -- although of course their cargo cult encourages them to think of themselves as such -- they are more like the people who scribble on toilet cubicle walls. Wikipedia has no editor, which means no-one is responsible for it. So "according to Wikipedia" has about as much weight in the world of human knowledge as "according to this toilet wall". Can we start to try to get that message out?

[Bezdomni]

Of course you're right, Rogol; this is a very important part of overturning the narrative the wiki-spinners are pushing. Greg didn't use the term in his post, but I do read it far too often in the press. Using the word "spinners" is what first got me in trouble on WP. I guess I have a knack for finding the word that disturbs "Neutrality (T-C-L)"

To respin Poetlister... "it can be quite difficult to disentangle who wrote what when in an overspun article"
or Andreas... "unsourced rubbish added by anonymous drive-by spinsters"

or even their motto: "the weeble-wobble anyone can spin"


(Yeah, yeah, I ain't proud: ^^

[Midsize Jake]

I would really like to deprecate the use of the word "editor" to denote the contributors to Wikipedia. An editor is a person with a responsible (indeed, legally accountable) position, requiring expertise and judgement. It conveys a certain connotation of gravitas. The people called editors on Wikipedia have nothing to do with that sort of responsibility -- although of course their cargo cult encourages them to think of themselves as such -- they are more like the people who scribble on toilet cubicle walls. Wikipedia has no editor, which means no-one is responsible for it. So "according to Wikipedia" has about as much weight in the world of human knowledge as "according to this toilet wall". Can we start to try to get that message out?

I've always felt the same way (here's an example), but it's swimming against a pretty big tide, I'm afraid. I used to put the word "editor" in quotes a lot, and I'd try to use "user" and "contributor" whenever possible, but generally speaking it's the sort of thing where you just have to do it consistently yourself and hope other people emulate it. If they don't, it doesn't mean they're terrible people. Can't win 'em all, as they say.

[Randy from Boise]

. It conveys a certain connotation of gravitas. The people called editors on Wikipedia have nothing to do with that sort of responsibility -- although of course their cargo cult encourages them to think of themselves as such -- they are more like the people who scribble on toilet cubicle walls. Wikipedia has no editor, which means no-one is responsible for it. So "according to Wikipedia" has about as much weight in the world of human knowledge as "according to this toilet wall". Can we start to try to get that message out?

You sell us short. The end product is far better than that; there is no traditional top-down editorial structure, but the bumblebee does fly... Shit gets cleaned out. Janitors paint over graffiti...

RfB

[thekohser]

. It conveys a certain connotation of gravitas. The people called editors on Wikipedia have nothing to do with that sort of responsibility -- although of course their cargo cult encourages them to think of themselves as such -- they are more like the people who scribble on toilet cubicle walls. Wikipedia has no editor, which means no-one is responsible for it. So "according to Wikipedia" has about as much weight in the world of human knowledge as "according to this toilet wall". Can we start to try to get that message out?

You sell us short. The end product is far better than that; there is no traditional top-down editorial structure, but the bumblebee does fly... Shit gets cleaned out. Janitors paint over graffiti...

RfB

And weasel words are used just as much as in the news media.

[Randy from Boise]

. It conveys a certain connotation of gravitas. The people called editors on Wikipedia have nothing to do with that sort of responsibility -- although of course their cargo cult encourages them to think of themselves as such -- they are more like the people who scribble on toilet cubicle walls. Wikipedia has no editor, which means no-one is responsible for it. So "according to Wikipedia" has about as much weight in the world of human knowledge as "according to this toilet wall". Can we start to try to get that message out?

You sell us short. The end product is far better than that; there is no traditional top-down editorial structure, but the bumblebee does fly... Shit gets cleaned out. Janitors paint over graffiti...

RfB

And weasel words are used just as much as in the news media.

Obviously, 5.5 million articles presents virtually unlimited targets for complaint and the mother of all sampling problems.

But I would say the basic issue is this: are weasel words even a problem? I wouldn't include "too many weasel words" in a list of the top 10 problems with Wikipedia content. Just because "Jimmy sez," this somehow becomes a significant issue?

RfB

[Kingsindian]

My preferred way for Wikipedia articles would be:

(a) Much more open discussion and editing. This would, of course require changes so that discussions can scale.
(b) Quality assessment by independent experts. Preferably: multiple quality assessments, by multiple "rating agencies" who have reputations, which can go up and down.

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Obviously, 5.5 million articles presents virtually unlimited targets for complaint and the mother of all sampling problems.

Is this what Kentucky Burgers say when you find a dead rat in their Chicken Whopper?

[thekohser]

Just because "Jimmy sez," this somehow becomes a significant issue?

Just significant enough to take the time to prove (at least with a cursory analysis) that what "Jimmy sez" is another falsehood. We're establishing a pattern here, you see.

[Randy from Boise]

Just because "Jimmy sez," this somehow becomes a significant issue?

Just significant enough to take the time to prove (at least with a cursory analysis) that what "Jimmy sez" is another falsehood. We're establishing a pattern here, you see.

I thought it was already axiomatic.

RfB

[thekohser]

Just because "Jimmy sez," this somehow becomes a significant issue?

Just significant enough to take the time to prove (at least with a cursory analysis) that what "Jimmy sez" is another falsehood. We're establishing a pattern here, you see.

I thought it was already axiomatic.

With no offense intended whatsoever, you are not the target audience that I hope to reach.

[Poetlister]

"unsourced rubbish added by anonymous drive-by spinsters"

How do you know that they're unmarried?