Let's talk about LDS editors

[iii]

ARBCOM really should come down with a remedy that states, "LDS connected editors may not edit LDS connected articles, broadly construed."

One thing we're seeing here is part of the way Mormons have been so effective in areas like business or Multi-level Marketing Pyramid Schemes. They are all connected to each other and can prop each other up. The flip side is that this also makes them more vulnerable to scandal than other less well-knit groups because if you want to destroy my sweater, pull the string and walk away.

[Vigilant]

Further canvassing and meatpuppetry concerns

Luke_Olson_(BYU) (T-C-L) ... his talk page is a hoot.

Its a members only discord, you'd have a link already if you were supposed to. Luke Olson (BYU) (talk) 02:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

EEML == AML

[AndyTheGrump]

Further canvassing and meatpuppetry concerns

Luke_Olson_(BYU) (T-C-L) ... his talk page is a hoot.

Yeah. I'd still like to know how Wikipedia was going to 'cancel' a library. Does it work like levitating the Pentagon?

[iii]

Further canvassing and meatpuppetry concerns

Luke_Olson_(BYU) (T-C-L) ... his talk page is a hoot.

Yeah. I'd still like to know how Wikipedia was going to 'cancel' a library. Does it work like levitating the Pentagon?

I would love to see the discussion on that Discord server. Maybe someone will archive it and donate it to the Harold B. Lee Library.

[Wikiguy.DC]

FWIW Moneytrees said the Luke Olson account was a "Joe Job" by someone trying to troll the discussion, which seemed kind of obvious to me without the checkuser data

[Giraffe Stapler]

As for the Whitney Awards, that page was started by

CagedFury (T-C-L) whose first action was to create the page for Robison Wells (T-H-L)

It wasn't until I was browsing CagedFury's contributions that I noticed that there had been an AFD for the Whitney Awards back in 2009. There were AFDs for An author named Kerry Blair and Robison Wells himself around the same time. Looks like the "Article Rescue Squadron" folks saved them.

[iii]

FWIW Moneytrees said the Luke Olson account was a "Joe Job" by someone trying to troll the discussion, which seemed kind of obvious to me without the checkuser data

I must be too close to this because it did not occur to me. Go LULZ.

[greenday61892]

Has a single oppose vote given a reason that isn't essentially just IDLI?

[Giraffe Stapler]

Another LDS author autobiographer: Adrienne Monson (T-H-L). (As far as I know, she is unrelated to Joe "Nihonjoe" Monson, but of course her name pops up when you are searching for "monson" in documents.)

Adrienne Monson's article was created by Smadielady (T-C-L) whose user page says:

My mission in life is to be a fantastic writer and sell lots of books. So I joined wikipedia to advance my editing skills, and learn how to do great research. My favorite topics are fiction and health.

There's a SmadieLady on LibraryThing, which helpfully identifies her as Adrienne Monson.

Smadielady did very little on Wikipedia other than creating her own article and one for Marc Sorenson (T-H-L) (who appears to be a generic diet huckster respected author). While she gets mentioned on the AML site and in BtUE conference documents, she doesn't appear to have any connection to the AML/BYU crowd, which is probably why they don't show up in the history of her bio.

[The Blue Newt]

All the more troubling then that this incarnation of ArbCom seems to want to take their cues from the community, rather than setting the tone.

If they make a hash of the case, if Risker doesn't get a very public slap down for her ridiculous threats, then the editors who aren't on the make should just leave.

Let the self certifiing grifters and reality deniers have free reign creating a "neutral" (lol) encyclopedia.

The would change what, exactly?

Good faith editors don't end up wasting their lives on a doomed project, bad faith editors and their enablers end up dooming the project.

Or nothing.

Well, I think that is the status quo, although on a different scale. We have a lot of self-certifying griftage, and a good many reality deniers already.

[redbaron]

Another LDS author autobiographer: Adrienne Monson (T-H-L). (As far as I know, she is unrelated to Joe "Nihonjoe" Monson, but of course her name pops up when you are searching for "monson" in documents.)

I've wondered if there is any relation to Thomas S. Monson (T-H-L), the previous president of the LDS church. Given the Mormons' propensity for large families, I'd wager they may be at least distant relatives.

[rnu]

Another LDS author autobiographer: Adrienne Monson (T-H-L). (As far as I know, she is unrelated to Joe "Nihonjoe" Monson, but of course her name pops up when you are searching for "monson" in documents.)

Adrienne Monson's article was created by Smadielady (T-C-L) whose user page says:

My mission in life is to be a fantastic writer and sell lots of books. So I joined wikipedia to advance my editing skills, and learn how to do great research. My favorite topics are fiction and health.

There's a SmadieLady on LibraryThing, which helpfully identifies her as Adrienne Monson.

Smadielady did very little on Wikipedia other than creating her own article and one for Marc Sorenson (T-H-L) (who appears to be a generic diet huckster respected author). While she gets mentioned on the AML site and in BtUE conference documents, she doesn't appear to have any connection to the AML/BYU crowd, which is probably why they don't show up in the history of her bio.

Life, the Universe, and Everything 2014, page 3:

Mailing List Administrator Joe Monson

Staff Adam Applegate, Andrew Blomquist, Caitlyn Byers, Erin Kahn, Elisabeth Kaseda, Michelle Jefferies, Jeffrey Jensen, Adrienne Monson, Diana Parkin, Scott Slack, Michelle Stoll, Matthew Thayne, Alyssa Weathersto

Could be a coincidence of course.

[Kraken]

Just in case anyone notices any strange spikes in traffic....

https://corporate.uktv.co.uk/news/artic ... -over-usa/

....that's been getting the usual promo spots today.

[tarantino]

One of the more persistent editors critical of Mormonism is Pastelitodepapa (T-C-L). If you look closely, you'll see he was a gay student at BYU that eventually left and went to the University of Utah. He's been quoted in reliable sources.

[Rachel Helps]

Hey, it's me. Maybe my whole idea to improve Book of Mormon pages was bound to fail from the start--but I feel like I did try to get input from the community about how to edit BoM pages, and it's only now that I'm getting major feedback (some more specific and helpful than others). If we get topic banned on LDS and BYU topics, there are plenty of other pages my team can work on improving. Weirdly enough, I feel like discussion here is a bit saner than on ANI. Do you have any serious suggestions for what I should do now? I've been thinking of putting together some best practices for WiRs editing Wikipedia so other people in my position can know what the community expectations are.

[rnu]

Hey, it's me. Maybe my whole idea to improve Book of Mormon pages was bound to fail from the start--but I feel like I did try to get input from the community about how to edit BoM pages, and it's only now that I'm getting major feedback (some more specific and helpful than others). If we get topic banned on LDS and BYU topics, there are plenty of other pages my team can work on improving. Weirdly enough, I feel like discussion here is a bit saner than on ANI. Do you have any serious suggestions for what I should do now? I've been thinking of putting together some best practices for WiRs editing Wikipedia so other people in my position can know what the community expectations are.

[AndyTheGrump]

Hey, it's me. Maybe my whole idea to improve Book of Mormon pages was bound to fail from the start--but I feel like I did try to get input from the community about how to edit BoM pages, and it's only now that I'm getting major feedback (some more specific and helpful than others). If we get topic banned on LDS and BYU topics, there are plenty of other pages my team can work on improving. Weirdly enough, I feel like discussion here is a bit saner than on ANI. Do you have any serious suggestions for what I should do now? I've been thinking of putting together some best practices for WiRs editing Wikipedia so other people in my position can know what the community expectations are.

Firstly,

As for serious suggestions, I suspect that you'll get multiple answers here depending on who responds - one of the marks of our (relative) sanity here is a willingness to accept a diversity of views on, amongst other things, whether Wikipedia merely needs fixing, or whether a giant meteor strike that put and end to it would be for the best, even if it wiped out the rest of humanity as collateral damage. Personally, I'd go with taking a break, reflecting on whether being a WiR is good for you, and only then, if you think it's worth sticking around, working on your 'best practices' idea. And if you do go ahead, expect deep scrutiny and criticism, legitimate and otherwise. This whole thing has stirred up a hornets nest, and in doing so has made a significant portion of the 'community' uncomfortable. Which they like the least, when it makes them ask questions they'd rather not have to - of themselves, of their own editing habits, and of whether they are quite as squeaky-clean as they would like to have us think. Give them the slightest opening - and in particular come up with anything that looks remotely like an excuse for the sins they insist you have committed - and they will dismiss whatever you say out of hand. Much more comfortable for them that way...

[Midsize Jake]

Personally, I'd go with taking a break, reflecting on whether being a WiR is good for you, and only then, if you think it's worth sticking around, working on your 'best practices' idea. And if you do go ahead, expect deep scrutiny and criticism, legitimate and otherwise. This whole thing has stirred up a hornets nest, and in doing so has made a significant portion of the 'community' uncomfortable.

Call me cynical, but I suspect that what Ms. Helps here might be concerned about is the perception problem. If she quits WP, or takes a significant break, that might be interpreted (by other Wikipedians) as her never having had much interest in non-LDS topics all along, which would tend to confirm the COI allegations being made now. Whereas, if she keeps at it in another, completely different topic area, then she's in a double-bind/triple-bind thinking situation in which many other Wikipedians might think she's only doing it to prove she didn't deserve the topic ban and presumably hopes to have it overturned once the controversy has died down.

Still, without knowing what other topics she's personally interested in, it's hard to come up with a "serious" answer anyway, really. Also, we don't know yet if the final Arbcom decision (assuming there is one) will include the term "broadly construed" or not, and that could make a big difference in terms of what she might want to do next — i.e., take the recommended break, or else spend the next couple of years arguing over what the term "broadly construed" actually means in this particular context.

[Zoloft]

I would like to add - Rachel, you are safe here - there might be criticism and it could be rough, but if you feel harassed or unsafe at any time, please PM Midsize Jake, Tarantino, and myself, especially if anyone uses the PM or email system to insult, provoke, or attack you. If you feel a post is inappropriate, use the 'Report this post' button (the exclamation point).

The safety of our members is our highest priority here.

[Ron Lybonly]

I would like to add - Rachel, you are safe here - there might be criticism and it could be rough, but if you feel harassed or unsafe at any time, please PM Midsize Jake, Tarantino, and myself, especially if anyone uses the PM or email system to insult, provoke, or attack you. If you feel a post is inappropriate, use the 'Report this post' button (the exclamation point).

The safety of our members is our highest priority here.

[Kraken]

Do you have any serious suggestions for what I should do now?

I think your best bet is to ensure that you and the Wikipedia community are on the same page when it comes to what these two specific clauses of WP:RS mean to someone in your position....

Reliable scholarship – Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses

.....

POV and peer review in journals – Care should be taken with journals that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view. A claim of peer review is not an indication that the journal is respected, or that any meaningful peer review occurs. Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals

My fear (largely on your behalf since I can honestly say I'm not that invested) is that your arguably very narrow interpretation of these clauses, was a direct result of your position, rather than an organic entry into the Wikipedia universe. A conflict of missions, as much as it might be a conflict of interests.

It's a sad reality of Wikipedia that even as an organic volunteer, one can spend years labouring under false impressions until it finally dawns on you. Often with a jarring jolt. But it has also been suggested you were told your interpretation might be off, and you either ignored it, or viewed it as a matter of ongoing editorial (philosophical) disagreement.

[utbc]

Is there a Moneytrees here who can say whether this is a joe job?

[Midsize Jake]

Is there a Moneytrees here who can say whether this is a joe job?

You're asking if the real Ms. Helps is operating her Wikipediocracy account? I can assure you of that, unless her official work e-mail account (which she used to register here) is being used by multiple individuals.

[utbc]

Is there a Moneytrees here who can say whether this is a joe job?

You're asking if the real Ms. Helps is operating her Wikipediocracy account? I can assure you of that, unless her official work e-mail account (which she used to register here) is being used by multiple individuals.

Yes, thanks.

[Venefica]

It seems like the purpose of a WIR is supposed to be opening up the resources of an institution to the "Anyones" editing the encyclopedia; it should NOT be a program for paid editors to steer consensus to align with their interests.
And WIRs should expect some scrutiny, should be held to a higher standard if they are to be considered classier than normal paid editors. They should hold themselves to that higher standard even if they can get away with less, because they are both representing their institution and attempting to win the community's trust. Residents are, in fact, gettin' that bag. If the goals of the institution are what's driving you rather than a wish to be a good servant to the Wikipedia mission, you're a paid editor, no different than if an Indian dentist found you on Upwork and sent you some crypto to post their bio.

What about stepping back from article creation and focusing on making the BYU library catalog available to other editors? Look for citation needed tags and supply the much-needed citations. Read through AFDs and be the article rescurer who provides the strong sources with in-depth coverage. Take requests from a wide variety of people who are struggling to find documentation because they don't work in a library. If this is a real university library with real scholarship, and not just collections of dead white dudes' personal diaries, it ought to have reliable sources to expand and improve articles on topics outside of people named Coriantumr.

And maybe don't pay students to edit. College students have more time to volunteer than most people and they have more to gain by sharpening their writing skills. Compensate them with grades if they must be tangibly rewarded, but it is unseemly for them to be anything but independent, enthusiastic kids, really.

[Giraffe Stapler]

Hey, it's me. Maybe my whole idea to improve Book of Mormon pages was bound to fail from the start--but I feel like I did try to get input from the community about how to edit BoM pages, and it's only now that I'm getting major feedback (some more specific and helpful than others). If we get topic banned on LDS and BYU topics, there are plenty of other pages my team can work on improving. Weirdly enough, I feel like discussion here is a bit saner than on ANI. Do you have any serious suggestions for what I should do now? I've been thinking of putting together some best practices for WiRs editing Wikipedia so other people in my position can know what the community expectations are.

Welcome, Rachel.

I think a Wikipedian in Residence scheme for the Harold B. Lee (or BYU in general) is always going to end up being problematic. You hint at why when you say "my whole idea to improve Book of Mormon pages".

A typical WiR at a museum or gallery is trying to share the resources of that institution. They aren't trying to promote that institution (or at least they shouldn't be). You and your student employees seem to be actively promoting people who went to BYU. Or maybe it's just LDS authors, many of whom went to BYU.

If you want my advice, I would stick to working on articles of people who are dead (long dead if possible). Upload more pictures to Commons. Scan out-of-print books from the library. Don't edit articles about BoM.

[sásamh]

Hi,
Your knowledge of wikipedia is valuable but you will need to branch out from content creation. Create categories to identify baptized Mormons. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/ ... lds-church
Supplement these efforts by getting stuck into wikidata.
Proxy baptism is outside BLP rules--smart.

[rnu]

Hi,
Your knowledge of wikipedia is valuable but you will need to branch out from content creation. Create categories to identify baptized Mormons. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/ ... lds-church
Supplement these efforts by getting stuck into wikidata.
Proxy baptism is outside BLP rules--smart.

[The Blue Newt]

A typical WiR at a museum or gallery is trying to share the resources of that institution. They aren't trying to promote that institution (or at least they shouldn't be).

Or, perhaps to put it another way, WiRs often do promote the institution, but should do so by (accurately) showing what a resource-full high quality kinda place it is.

If other religions were involved, this would be a question of Faith vs. Good Works.

[Elinruby]

My suggestion would be one mentioned above: cn->ref is always welcome.

[Kelly Martin]

It seems like the purpose of a WIR is supposed to be opening up the resources of an institution to the "Anyones" editing the encyclopedia; it should NOT be a program for paid editors to steer consensus to align with their interests.

The actual goals of the WIR program:

• Recruit people into the "Wikipedia Movement", as participants but more importantly as donors
• Enable Wikimedia to borrow the cultural legitimacy of other GLAM institutions in support of Wikimedia's own claim to be a legitimate member of the GLAM industry sector
• Facilitate the ability of Wikimedia employees to network with legitimate GLAM institutions, which itself facilitates them them more readily moving from their sh*t job at Wikimedia to a real job at a legitimate GLAM organization

Thus, the duties of a Wikipedian In Residence are to:

• Act as a public relations agent for Wikimedia at that institution
• Identify individuals at the institution in question who are suitable for recruiting into the Wikipedia Movement
• Make efforts to create connections between Wikimedia and the host institution
• Keep appraised of employment opportunities that arise at the host institution, inform Wikimedians of those positions, and act as a point of contact to facilitate Wikimedians interested in those positions in their efforts to obtain those positions.

Note that none of this has to do with actually contributing to Wikipedia. You'll have to make a show at pretending that this is what you're doing because that's the shore story behind being a WIR, but the real reason you're there is recruitment, fundraising, and networking.

[Giraffe Stapler]

It seems like the purpose of a WIR is supposed to be opening up the resources of an institution to the "Anyones" editing the encyclopedia; it should NOT be a program for paid editors to steer consensus to align with their interests.

The actual goals of the WIR program:

• Recruit people into the "Wikipedia Movement", as participants but more importantly as donors
• Enable Wikimedia to borrow the cultural legitimacy of other GLAM institutions in support of Wikimedia's own claim to be a legitimate member of the GLAM industry sector
• Facilitate the ability of Wikimedia employees to network with legitimate GLAM institutions, which itself facilitates them them more readily moving from their sh*t job at Wikimedia to a real job at a legitimate GLAM organization

Thus, the duties of a Wikipedian In Residence are to:

• Act as a public relations agent for Wikimedia at that institution
• Identify individuals at the institution in question who are suitable for recruiting into the Wikipedia Movement
• Make efforts to create connections between Wikimedia and the host institution
• Keep appraised of employment opportunities that arise at the host institution, inform Wikimedians of those positions, and act as a point of contact to facilitate Wikimedians interested in those positions in their efforts to obtain those positions.

Note that none of this has to do with actually contributing to Wikipedia. You'll have to make a show at pretending that this is what you're doing because that's the shore story behind being a WIR, but the real reason you're there is recruitment, fundraising, and networking.

Well, yes. This.

[iii]

Do you have any serious suggestions for what I should do now? I've been thinking of putting together some best practices for WiRs editing Wikipedia so other people in my position can know what the community expectations are.

My suggestion is stay away from article writing entirely. Instead, try to get material from the library properly licensed and archived on commons or wikisource or wikidata so that others may have access to it and be able to use it as they see fit even after you have moved on to bigger and brighter things. Basically, if it requires an editorial judgement, just don't do it. But if it is a resource that others may or may not use in the future, who is going to complain about you improving access to it?

[rnu]

Hey, it's me. Maybe my whole idea to improve Book of Mormon pages was bound to fail from the start--but I feel like I did try to get input from the community about how to edit BoM pages, and it's only now that I'm getting major feedback (some more specific and helpful than others). If we get topic banned on LDS and BYU topics, there are plenty of other pages my team can work on improving. Weirdly enough, I feel like discussion here is a bit saner than on ANI. Do you have any serious suggestions for what I should do now? I've been thinking of putting together some best practices for WiRs editing Wikipedia so other people in my position can know what the community expectations are.

Some ideas. Some of these things will not be workable in case of a topic ban.

1. First of all never edit an article about someone you know or someone who works at BYU. That is where the most immediate personal and professional COI is. Strictly restrict yourself to COI requests or if you see major problems -- especially BLP violations -- to noticeboard notifications.
2. The next level of COI are BYU, AML and other organizations that you are directly involved with. Here you should restrict yourself to the most basic, uncontroversial factual information, e.g. updating who the AML president is. Always add a COI template to the article talk page and mention your COI in the edit notice. For everything beyond this kind of information use COI requests and noticeboards. Err on the side of caution.
3. The third level is the LDS and Mormonism in general. Don't create articles unless you're really convinced that they are notable beyond the LDS "bubble". Always send drafts through the Articles for Creation process (that process is pretty broken, but it's the only process available). Never treat religious doctrine as fact. If something is not mentioned by mainstream non-LDS sources assume that it is UNDUE. Start talk discussions if you're not sure. Err on the side of caution. Avoid publications by LDS associated organizations and publishers. Always use COI templates and note your COI in the edit notice. Do not treat the Book of Mormon and other religious texts as literature. That is not how people outside of Mormonism see it. Treat it like the Bible or Quran, i.e. a religious text that makes claims of fact. If these claims of fact contradict mainstream science, e.g. archaeology point it out. E.g. when writing about the Nephites always point out that mainstream archaeology unequivocally rejects the claim that the Nephites ever existed. Write like a disinterested atheist.
4. What topics to turn to for editing obviously depends on your interests and expertise.
5. Look beyond editing. E.g. you could certainly make valuable contributions to WP: WikiProject Resource Exchange (T-H-L). You could also see whether your library holds copyright free texts that could make good additions to the Wikisource project.

Given that a topic ban seems to be pretty much unavoidable at this point, I would recommend you to see whether there is a chance to restrict the ban to article editing. That would allow you to make COI requests and to take part in discussions about topics in the area of the ban (while always making your COI clear). It looks like at this point that train may have left the station, but it may be worth a try. E.g. Rhododendrites * and Vanamonde93 ** have made comments that suggest they might support this.

[Zoloft]

Rachel Helps
Joined:             Thu Mar 21, 2024 5:38 pm
Last active:      Thu Mar 21, 2024 11:24 pm

Come back, Rachel!

[Vigilant]

She can’t be Helpsed.

[Vigilant]

something about barn doors and horses

[yasslay]

something about barn doors and horses

Let’s hope that an administrator doesn’t use this as an absurd defence for Thmazing - it’s still public information.

[Rachel Helps]

Sorry for my late reply, I know that I'm stretching the unspoken etiquette of forums, having grown up on them myself, but it's because I'm trying very hard to limit my engagement with Wikipedia to my working hours (somewhat unsuccessfully).

For those of you mentioning that WiRs shouldn't edit Wikipedia itself: that is what Wikimedia Foundation states. But that's not the reality of many WiRs I know. I presented on this topic at Wikimania in 2022.
Video:https://youtu.be/Dp1low09TM0?si=_wV9VZ188LDnkqlk&t=1297
Slides:https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/ ... sp=sharing
My argument is that WiRs can help fill content gaps, like the history of insulin, or in my case, biographies of LDS Women. I went through the taxonomy of knowledge gaps, identified by WMF, and selected some examples of editing by WiRs that fills these gaps. I also made this presentation at Wikimedia+Libraries in 2022.

Now, the advice that I should be simply organizing editing events. I know this was the advice to WiRs five years ago. There is consensus among WiRs that this and class assignments are not effective in creating new editors. The quality of edits from classroom assignments and editing events also tends to be really uneven. However, this kind of outreach is excellent at increasing Wikipedia literacy (an understanding of how Wikipedia is written and edited). I also presented on this topic at Wikimedia + Libraries.
Video: https://youtu.be/cQXqY9VRnM0?si=XGjmWkNKVpRo_p-Z
Slides: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/ ... sp=sharing
In the presentation, I mention the outreach work I've tried to do in the past, and what was successful and what wasn't.

I'm telling you this at the risk of you saying "oh, so you knew what WMF wanted from WiRs and you decided not to do it??" Well, uh, they don't define what my job is, my employer does. I pestered my supervisor and his boss about what my job should be. They said I was the expert and I could say what my job should be better than they could. So yeah, I've been just trying a bunch of stuff out and seeing what works!

I'm also no newcomer to contributing content to non-Wikipedia projects. I think that these days, the OCR on archive.org is good enough that I don't need to try to upload our scans to Wikisource as well and ask volunteers to do it. We have a whole transcription unit who works on transcribing manuscripts. I have worked with digitization to try to make these transcriptions easier to discover (and yeah, I linked them from a few Wikipedia pages too). I did a mass upload of the photographs that Charles Savage took of pioneer-era Utah to Commons. I made a bunch of mistakes, and I found out that the people who were using these photos the most were me and my team. So to me, it seems more logical to upload public domain images from our collections as we need them, when we have a plan to use them on a page. I'm aware of DPLA's amazing pipeline to Commons project--I'm part of their working group. I anxiously await the day when my library and hub's metadata meets the requirements for the pipeline and can upload it all to Commons with the appropriate metadata, including structured data.

I've also experimented with sharing data with Wikidata. I did a big upload from OpenRefine, again, making a bunch of mistakes that I spent a month cleaning up. I found out how much data was missing from our Mormon Literature and Creative Arts database! My experience trying to figure out what works as a WiR is full of these failed experiments.

[iii]

I think that these days, the OCR on archive.org is good enough that I don't need to try to upload our scans to Wikisource as well and ask volunteers to do it.

Redundancy in these things is always good to have, I have found. If archive.org were to go down for whatever reason, having a backup at another site can be very helpful.

[Rachel Helps]

I haven't been editing Wikipedia as much the past year or two because I've been doing my own outreach projects. After making the rounds at WIkipedia-focused conferences, I realized that I should really be trying to do more locally. But editing events haven't been all that successful, right? So I decided to go to some academic conferences on Mormon studies and libraries to tell people about the library's projects with Wikipedia and try to get academics to edit Wikipedia. I was on the board of the WikiJournal of Humanities and I knew it was hypothetically possible to get an subject-matter expert to edit Wikipedia, but this was mostly unsuccessful.

Before starting to edit Book of Mormon (BoM) pages, I knew that I would need help from subject-matter experts. I wanted to be really careful about who I asked for help though, because I wanted to avoid apologetic-style editing (which exists on so many old pages about the BoM). My friend Michael Austin, who has come up in other conversations about my editing because I created a Wikipedia page for him from my personal account (before we were co-authors), has been an excellent resource. He doesn't work at BYU, and has in fact criticized some of BYU's administrative decisions. He isn't the kind of person to not tell me something out of loyalty to some ideal of how the BoM should be presented, if that makes sense.

Okay, so that is my background in outreach. I think another question some of you might be thinking is "how could you be so stupid as to think that Wikipedia editors wouldn't have a problem with you editing BoM pages?" Okay! I'm going to get a little personal here! I have a history of having some anxiety issues surrounding scrupulosity (a form of OCD). I started to get treatment for this and I realized that I had made up a bunch of rules for myself. Dumb things like "I should never drink caffeinated beverages" even though the LDS Word of Wisdom (rules about what members should eat/drink) only mentions coffee. One way I try to challenge my scrupulosity is to find out what the actual rule is. There's no actual rule in my church's teaching against occasional or even habitual caffeine consumption. So I started to apply this to my own editing rules. Is there actually a rule against me and my students editing BoM pages? Also to combat my own scrupulosity, I took on an attitude of "well, if I'm doing something wrong, someone will eventually yell at me" (and now they're yelling at me!). I did try to solicit input from various people on- and off-wiki. But in hindsight, it seems a bit stupid of me? Although it seems like that's so often how we develop consensus on Wikipedia. "Silence is the weakest form of consensus" is part of [[WP:Silence]]. HEB was complaining about my edits, but he believes that all paid edits are COI, which is not what all other users think.

[Rachel Helps]

I think that these days, the OCR on archive.org is good enough that I don't need to try to upload our scans to Wikisource as well and ask volunteers to do it.

Redundancy in these things is always good to have, I have found. If archive.org were to go down for whatever reason, having a backup at another site can be very helpful.

Luckily, my library takes care of backups! We keep backups in three different places for our digital content and regularly check that they are faithful to the original copy.

[Rachel Helps]

Sorry for writing so much! I have been thinking about this a lot and I definitely want to brain dump. As for the future of my position, I have several thoughts.

I don't have the brain for politics to see the issues of the perception problems that Midsize Joke mentioned. But now that they mentioned them, those seems like interesting points that hurt my brain. My joy is to do research and summarize what other people have put on Wikipedia. It makes the most sense for my position to work on pages that are related to collections in the BYU Library, which admittedly include many non-LDS topics. The most popular page we've ever worked on was for the actor Jimmy Stewart, whose collection we own in our special collections. We also have the papers of Howard Hawks. We could definitely spend a year working on pages for his films.

My options:
1. redefine my position to completely exclude Wikipedia and promote library collections in other ways
2. edit pages unrelated to BYU or Latter-day Saints (as mentioned in the above paragraph)
3. FIGHT for the RIGHT to edit Book of Mormon projects

I think #3 would be a dumb thing for me to do. The main temptation there is that exegesis, or reading scriptures with the intent to figure out what the text actually means, is woefully unknown in my religion. JPS complained that we were turning BoM pages into Sunday School--no, we were turning them into what I wish Sunday School were like. If you look at the LDS Church's Come, Follow Me lesson manual, there are some hints that things like genre and context are important to understand the scriptures. But most of the "takeaways" are from looking at individual verses or small groups of them in isolation. I spent four years in high school going to early-morning seminary and another four attending religion classes at BYU, and it was rare that we discussed things like: who is speaking in this passage? What genre is it? What are the author's biases? We are trained in the LDS church to take all scripture on equal value. But as a believer in like, textual criticism, I find this extremely offensive (also, you may notice, it may be a problem of my own scrupulosity)!

So I am becoming aware of my own, personal conflict of interest when it comes to the interpretation of the BoM. I am to the point where if there is consensus that literary criticism of the BoM doesn't belong on Wikipedia, I would try to find a new home for it and tell my students to remove it from Wikipedia and put it somewhere else (if permitted)! But I think it's unfair to say that literary criticism of sacred writ doesn't belong on Wikipedia (have you looked at the pages for chapters of the Quran?). Why is it okay to have literary criticism of authors of creative fiction and non-fiction, but not for sacred writ?

I'm also okay if Wikipedians decide that literary criticism of sacred writ is okay for Wikipedia, but that I personally shouldn't be the one to add it as part of my job. I'm lucky that I have these options with my job. I think that it could be possible to write rules for WiR editing that help other editors be more comfortable with it... am I being to idealistic?

One last thing, thank you to those of you who have responded with honesty and compassion. It is a great relief from how some other editors on Wikipedia have been discussing me personally (!) and my edits.

[Sennalen]

I'm also okay if Wikipedians decide that literary criticism of sacred writ is okay for Wikipedia, but that I personally shouldn't be the one to add it as part of my job. I'm lucky that I have these options with my job. I think that it could be possible to write rules for WiR editing that help other editors be more comfortable with it... am I being to idealistic?

Literary criticism of scripture is perfectly fine. WP policy is explicit about not treating religious texts as too sacred or immune to picking apart. As someone employed by an institution of any kind, you should not edit pages about that institution. Treating "Mormonism" broadly construed as your institution is too broad in my opinion, but some editors will see it that way. You could discuss the content and make suggestions on article talk pages. You could make draft content in your user space, as long as its generally following the rules, and you aren't promoting it to outside readers as a kind of shadow article. Wikipedia:Edit_requests (T-H-L) is also an option.

[Sennalen]

Do not treat the Book of Mormon and other religious texts as literature. That is not how people outside of Mormonism see it. Treat it like the Bible or Quran, i.e. a religious text that makes claims of fact. If these claims of fact contradict mainstream science, e.g. archaeology point it out. E.g. when writing about the Nephites always point out that mainstream archaeology unequivocally rejects the claim that the Nephites ever existed. Write like a disinterested atheist.

That's not a good reading of Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Religion (T-H-L) and Wikipedia:Fringe_theories#Evaluating_and_describing_claims (T-H-L). It's totally appropriate to treat scripture as literature on Wikipedia. It's only if it the article starts sounding like its saying something supernatural or ahistorical was an actual fact, then the secular academic literature has to come down on it like a ton of bricks.

[Kelly Martin]

Wikipedia is definitely not the place for original literary criticism of any literary work, whether or not the work in question is viewed as sacred by a larger or smaller group of people. There is nothing wrong with literary criticism of works of authorship, but Wikipedia is not the place to publish such.

As a (purported) encyclopedia, Wikipedia should limit itself to summarizing previously existing literary analyses already published, reviewed, and accepted as legitimate by a significant subset of persons with sufficient expertise as to be able to express an informed opinion. If there is a paucity of such analyses for a particular text, then Wikipedia should either say that the text has yet to be analyzed in this manner, or simply remain silent on the matter. It is not the place for Wikipedia, or of Wikipedia's editors, to establish a canonical body of literary analysis for a text where no such body of work already exists.

[Rachel Helps]

Wikipedia is definitely not the place for original literary criticism of any literary work, whether or not the work in question is viewed as sacred by a larger or smaller group of people. There is nothing wrong with literary criticism of works of authorship, but Wikipedia is not the place to publish such.

As a (purported) encyclopedia, Wikipedia should limit itself to summarizing previously existing literary analyses already published, reviewed, and accepted as legitimate by a significant subset of persons with sufficient expertise as to be able to express an informed opinion. If there is a paucity of such analyses for a particular text, then Wikipedia should either say that the text has yet to be analyzed in this manner, or simply remain silent on the matter. It is not the place for Wikipedia, or of Wikipedia's editors, to establish a canonical body of literary analysis for a text where no such body of work already exists.

Yes, we've been adding literary criticism of the BoM from sources that I believe pass WP:RS ever since last September. Sources that I've asked about on RSNB and Wikiproject Christianity, where it seemed like the majority of editors thought it was okay. But with the recent discussion, mostly spurred on by JPS over on the talk page for Ammonihah (T-H-L) and a few other places, the reliability of many of these sources is coming into question. But the way jps was talking about sources last week, I was puzzled about his criteria for when a source on the BoM is a RS or not. ARE some of these sources fringe? I made my own sourcing guidelines to help my students tell if a source is scholarly or not (there are many devotional sources that must be adequately explained or maybe not used). But apparently they weren't stringent enough.

[rnu]

I by no means wanted to suggest that literary criticism of religious texts is not legitimate. Of course it is. Just as literary criticism of works of historiography is a valid field, literary criticism of religious texts is a legitimate field. But there is a difference between applying literary criticism to religious/historiographic texts and treating religious/historiographic texts as literature. There is no reason to point out that there is no archeological evidence for the existence of Hobbits and the events of Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit. But there is a reason to point out that there is no archeological evidence for the existence of Nephites.

[iii]

I think that these days, the OCR on archive.org is good enough that I don't need to try to upload our scans to Wikisource as well and ask volunteers to do it.

Redundancy in these things is always good to have, I have found. If archive.org were to go down for whatever reason, having a backup at another site can be very helpful.

Luckily, my library takes care of backups! We keep backups in three different places for our digital content and regularly check that they are faithful to the original copy.

Yeah, but what happens if BYU shuts down? Giving other stakeholders a chance to have these archives is what I'm talking about.

[iii]

I was puzzled about his criteria for when a source on the BoM is a RS or not. ARE some of these sources fringe? I made my own sourcing guidelines to help my students tell if a source is scholarly or not (there are many devotional sources that must be adequately explained or maybe not used). But apparently they weren't stringent enough.

The idea that there is a binary bifurcation between a "reliable" source and an "unreliable" source is a distraction, as far as I am concerned. It's how the sources are used that determines whether there is a problem. As it is, the pages were leaning heavily into a "take all this on its own terms" approach which was often befuddling. I mean, the Book of Mormon is interpreted by Mormons to say that there were Christian churches (by which they typically mean churches that look almost entirely like Mormon Churches) in the New World prior to 1 AD. That's a wild claim on its face. How do you describe this so that people understand (a) that's what most Mormons believe and (b) it is so ridiculous that it's hard to take seriously unless you are taking it on blind faith? You don't hit people over the head with its absurdity, but at the same time you can't just ignore it as though it isn't really what matters. Literary treatments of the Book of Mormon sidestep this sort of question on purpose and lend to an article that takes as given some things that are totally unaccounted for by, say, people who actually study the history of the claimed timeframe. The problem really is that the Book of Mormon is not a fiction book. That is not the right genre (though, of course, one can read it like that and, apparently, that's a popular way to approach the subject in certain English classes in Vermont, it seems).

You pointed out that this would equally apply to other religious claims as well, to which I say, absolutely. In spite of most "orthodox" Muslims believing that Muhammad physically traveled Jerusalem during his night journey and ascension, we can say that there is no evidence for this happening and it beggars belief that one would claim such a thing.