What control does Wikipedia have on ideological editing?

[cassiopeia]

Apologies if this is a basic question, but I'm still getting used to the protocols on Wikipedia, and I am still very naive of the unwritten internal politics which has stressed me out recently.

If I understand the guidelines correctly, Administrators and the Arbitration committee have no direct control over content, only behavioural and procedural abuses. How can this work in a 'Democratically' edited encyclopaedia. Why doesn't the content degenerate to the democratic consensus, assuming it doesn't already.

Presumably, if a group held a conspiracy theory, or conversely claimed some 'fact of the matter' was a conspiracy theory on ideological grounds, they could indefinitely hold out and refuse to shift their position. OK, so Wikipedia has safeguards against this in theory, since the sources are supposed to be reliable. However, what if they just carried on claiming the sources were unreliable, or the ones they referenced were, wouldn't the authorities refuse to intervene here as well?

If all else fails, it seems to me that content is fought by proxy, through attacking behaviour because that is the only issue which can be judged by Wikipedia authorities. Whilst Admins are not supposed to control content, they surely can indirectly influence it, by ensuring those whose opinion they are opposed to are criticised for arguing, whilst turning a blind eye to the excesses of others.

How seriously are the Wikipedia guidelines enforced? There are some cases were an administrator seems to ignore guidelines and refuses to act, but just continues to moan about the warring parties not co-operating, which of course suits one side perfectly, since one side can simply stick to their line irrespective of evidence. Is admin allowed to do this, and would Arbcom intervene against them, or is just all part of the same 'old boys club'?

[lilburne]

Wikipedia articles are ideology. In a sense that is OK as we know where we are with ideology, we can read between the lines, distil the facts, and expose the bias. The articles are the result ideological battles, whilst it is going on the articles are pulled first one way, then another, and the result is a mess. Think of it as two drug gangs fighting for the control of a prime street corner, or bar. When one side wins (holds out longest) any semblance of balance in the article goes. Yet wikipedia maintains the lie that the articles are balanced.

Actually Wikipedia articles tend to be worse than straight forward ideology, a) because the battle results in an unreadable mess, b) the winners of the battle are usually the most dedicated ideologues.

[thekohser]

How seriously are the Wikipedia guidelines enforced?

As seriously as they need to be, to enforce a given administrator's personal opinion.

[Hersch]

If all else fails, it seems to me that content is fought by proxy, through attacking behaviour because that is the only issue which can be judged by Wikipedia authorities. Whilst Admins are not supposed to control content, they surely can indirectly influence it, by ensuring those whose opinion they are opposed to are criticised for arguing, whilst turning a blind eye to the excesses of others.

How seriously are the Wikipedia guidelines enforced? There are some cases were an administrator seems to ignore guidelines and refuses to act, but just continues to moan about the warring parties not co-operating, which of course suits one side perfectly, since one side can simply stick to their line irrespective of evidence. Is admin allowed to do this, and would Arbcom intervene against them, or is just all part of the same 'old boys club'?

I would say that you have ably captured the essence of the "unwritten internal politics."

[cassiopeia]

So would it would be ludicrous to report an admin for allowing other editors to stonewall an article or treat lying flippantly?

On the Admin Noticeboard one admin attacked me for some of my comments on a talk page, although it wasn't me being reported. Another admin said the comments were more worrying for others if true. I therefore suggested we send the entire article to Arbitration where they examine all our behaviours including admins. The silence was deafening, except claims that it would be rejected there. Later one admin congratulated another on their talk page with an olive grove claiming the notice was one of the longest and difficult they had been involved in, as if he was genuinely relieved. It made me wonder if Arbitration might occasionally bring admins to some measure of accountability?

Unfortunately in this case the problem was the green light they were sending to the Wiki-hooligans by NOT doing anything, which they will have been duly noted by them, thereby exacerbating the problem.

[Randy from Boise]

Apologies if this is a basic question, but I'm still getting used to the protocols on Wikipedia, and I am still very naive of the unwritten internal politics which has stressed me out recently.

If I understand the guidelines correctly, Administrators and the Arbitration committee have no direct control over content, only behavioural and procedural abuses. How can this work in a 'Democratically' edited encyclopaedia. Why doesn't the content degenerate to the democratic consensus, assuming it doesn't already.

Presumably, if a group held a conspiracy theory, or conversely claimed some 'fact of the matter' was a conspiracy theory on ideological grounds, they could indefinitely hold out and refuse to shift their position. OK, so Wikipedia has safeguards against this in theory, since the sources are supposed to be reliable. However, what if they just carried on claiming the sources were unreliable, or the ones they referenced were, wouldn't the authorities refuse to intervene here as well?

If all else fails, it seems to me that content is fought by proxy, through attacking behaviour because that is the only issue which can be judged by Wikipedia authorities. Whilst Admins are not supposed to control content, they surely can indirectly influence it, by ensuring those whose opinion they are opposed to are criticised for arguing, whilst turning a blind eye to the excesses of others.

How seriously are the Wikipedia guidelines enforced? There are some cases were an administrator seems to ignore guidelines and refuses to act, but just continues to moan about the warring parties not co-operating, which of course suits one side perfectly, since one side can simply stick to their line irrespective of evidence. Is admin allowed to do this, and would Arbcom intervene against them, or is just all part of the same 'old boys club'?

In theory, ArbCom does not have any control over content. In practice they can control it by tossing leading POV warriors from the contested topic in front of the committee, or by banning them off the site.

This is fine with me, although it would be nice if they were willing to acknowledge this power.

Scholarly evidence is ultimately very important for deciding contentious matters. By scholarly, I means scholarly: journal articles trump the popular press.


RfB

[cassiopeia]

Boise: That seems appropriate and fair, but it still isn't clear what mechanism is in place to police the admins. own behaviours, particularly their more subtle manoeuvres such as non-action or non-acknowledgement regarding blatant infringements, even when these are clearly pointed out to them.

[roger_pearse]

Scholarly evidence is ultimately very important for deciding contentious matters. By scholarly, I means scholarly: journal articles trump the popular press.

Not actually true in practice, tho; what happens in this situation is that the POV pusher tries to create a false equivalence or allege that there is scholarly bias, or uses out-of-date scholarship to push positions no modern scholar would endorse. It is telling that even educated amateurs tend to avoid contributing to Wikipedia. This is, after all, why the Randy from Boise article exists.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

[thekohser]

By scholarly, I means scholarly...

RfB

'e means what 'e says, and 'e says what 'e means!

Welcome to the forum, Popeye!

[Hersch]

In theory, ArbCom does not have any control over content. In practice they can control it by tossing leading POV warriors from the contested topic in front of the committee, or by banning them off the site.

Very selectively, I might add. This is the process by which the "house POV" is determined.