Misplaced Pages

:Tendentious editing: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 20:17, 10 January 2013 editMaurice Carbonaro (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users11,590 editsm →Righting Great Wrongs: Hyperlinked "(...) mainstream journals (...)" with the " mainstream media" article.← Previous edit Latest revision as of 16:13, 29 October 2024 edit undoAdolphus79 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers35,327 edits →"Banning" otherwise constructive editors from your talk page: nvm, re-word to avoid confusion... 
(343 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|Explanatory essay about disruptive editing}}
{{essay|WP:TE|WP:TEND|WP:TEDIOUS}}
{{For|the behavioral guideline|Misplaced Pages:Disruptive editing}} {{For|the behavioral guideline|Misplaced Pages:Disruptive editing}}
{{redirect|WP:TE|the template editor user right|WP:TPE}}
] editing is a manner of editing which is partisan, biased or skewed taken as a whole. It does not conform to the ], and fails to do so at a level more general than an isolated comment that was badly thought out. On Misplaced Pages, the term also carries the connotation of repetitive attempts to insert or delete content or behavior that tends to frustrate proper editorial processes and discussions.
{{Supplement|interprets=Misplaced Pages:Disruptive editing|WP:TE|WP:TEND|WP:TIMESINK|WP:TENDENTIOUS}}
{{nutshell|How to recognize and avoid various problematic and disruptive patterns of editing.}}


] editing is a pattern of editing that is partisan, biased, skewed, and does not maintain an editorially ]. It may also involve repeated attempts to insert or delete content in the face of the objections of several other editors, or behavior that tends to frustrate proper editorial processes and discussions. This is more than just an isolated edit or comment that was badly thought out.
This article is about how to recognise such editing, how to avoid it, and how not to be accused of it.


This essay is about how to recognise such editing, how to avoid it, and how not to be accused of it.
Other policies and guidelines covering tendentious behaviors include:

:* How content is edited - ], ]
Other policies, guidelines, and essays covering tendentious behaviors include:
:* Common tendentious behaviors - ], ], ], ], ], ], ]
:* Editor intentions - ], ] * How content is edited – ], ]
* Common tendentious behaviors – ], ], ], ], ]
* Editor intentions – ], ].


== What is tendentious editing? == == What is tendentious editing? ==
] ]? Try the ], not Misplaced Pages. If you do want to advocate for a cause, consider starting your own blog.]]
{{clearleft}} {{clearleft}}
Tendentious editing is editing with a sustained bias, or with a clear viewpoint contrary to neutral point of view. Just as some articles are likely to receive more counter-NPOV edits than others, some writers are more likely to make them. Tendentious editing is what these writers do. Thus a single edit is unlikely to be a problem, but a pattern of edits displaying a bias is more likely to be an issue, and repeated biased edits to a single article or group of articles will be very unwelcome indeed. This last behavior is generally characterized as ''POV pushing'' and is a common cause of ]. It is usually an indication of ]. Tendentious editing is editing with a sustained editorial bias, or with a clear editorial viewpoint contrary to Misplaced Pages's ] policy. A single edit is unlikely to be a real problem, but a pattern of edits displaying an editor's bias is more likely to be an issue, and repeated biased edits of a single article or group of articles will be very unwelcome indeed. This last behavior is generally characterized as ''POV pushing'' and is a common cause of ]. It is usually an indication of ].


Editors who engage in this behavior generally fall into two categories: those who come to realize the problem their edits cause, recognise their own bias, and work productively with editors with opposing views to build a better encyclopedia – and the rest. The rest often end up indefinitely blocked or, if they are otherwise productive editors with a blind spot on one particular area, they might be banned from certain articles or become subject to probation. Editors who engage in this behavior generally fall into two categories: those who come to realize the problem their edits cause, recognise their own bias, and work productively with editors with opposing views to build a better encyclopedia – and the rest. The rest often end up indefinitely blocked or, if they are otherwise productive editors with a blind spot on one particular area, they may be ] or become subject to ].


It is important to recognize that '''everybody has bias'''. Whether it is the systemic bias of demographics or a political opinion, few people will edit subjects in which they have no interest. Bias is not in and of itself a problem in ''editors'', only in ''articles''. Problems arise when editors see their own bias as neutral, and especially when they assume that any resistance to their edits is founded in bias towards an opposing point of view. The perception that “he who is not for me is against me” is contrary to Misplaced Pages’s ] guideline: always allow for the possibility that you are indeed wrong, and remember that attributing motives to fellow editors is ]. It is important to recognize that '''everybody has bias'''. Few people will edit subjects in which they have no interest. Bias is not in and of itself a problem in ''editors'', only in ''articles''. Problems arise when editors see their own bias as neutral, and especially when they assume that any resistance to their edits is founded in bias towards an opposing point of view. The perception that "he who is not for me is against me" is contrary to Misplaced Pages's ] guideline: always allow for the possibility that you are indeed wrong, and remember that attributing motives to fellow editors is ].


Remember: ''']'''. Articles, and particularly their titles, must conform to policy regarding ] and the ]. Remember: ''']'''. Articles, including their titles, must conform to policy regarding the ] and ]. Content within articles must be based on ] and thus be verifiable; article content must not include ].


==Characteristics of problem editors== ==Characteristics of problem editors==
Here are some hints to help you recognise if you or someone else has become a problem editor: Here are some hints to help you recognise if you or someone else has become a problem editor:


===Not learning from a block for edit-warring===
===One who is blocked for violating the three revert rule more than once===
You have been blocked more than once for violating the ] (3RR); you argue about whether you in fact reverted four times or only three, or whether 3RR applies to a calendar day or a 24-hour period. You have been blocked more than once for edit-warring. Or argue about whether you actually reverted four times or only three, or whether the ] (3RR) applies to a calendar day or to any 24-hour period.
:: 3RR exists to prevent edit wars. ] about the precise details is unproductive and probably means that you have missed the point: '''edit warring is bad''', and even ''one'' revert can be disruptive. If your edits are reverted or rejected, you should take the dispute to the ], remembering to ], and if that fails you should try one of the various ] processes.
===One who repeats the penalised edit===
On returning from a block, your first action is to head right back to the article and repeat the edit.
:: A contentious fact does not become uncontentious by virtue of ]. On ] and web forums you can get away with repeating something until nobody cares enough to contradict you any more; on Misplaced Pages, that is unacceptable.


3RR exists to prevent edit wars. ] about the precise details is unproductive and probably means that you have missed the point: '''edit warring is bad''', and even ''one'' revert can be disruptive.
===One who wrongly accuses others of vandalism===

Even a slow-motion edit war, perhaps involving one revert per day, is still an edit war. 3RR draws a "bright line", but meeting its minimal requirements ultimately does not shield one from the consequences of edit-warring. If your edits are reverted or rejected, you can take the dispute to the article's ], remembering to ]. If that fails, but you still feel that you are right, consider options for ].

===Repeating a penalised edit===
On returning from a block, your first action is to head right back to the article and repeat the edit. A contentious fact does not become uncontentious by virtue of ]. Elsewhere on the internet you can get away with repeating something until nobody cares enough to contradict you anymore; on Misplaced Pages, that is unacceptable.

A variant of returning to the same edit is returning to the same talk page to make the same arguments. On returning from a block, if you go to the talk page of the article you were penalized for, do not repeat the same arguments that led to the block. Instead, try to find different arguments, different policy rationales, and better sources. Repeating the exact arguments you made before your block may be viewed as ].

As well, you may wish to compromise on the position you are arguing for, in the interests of proposing an idea which is more likely to get a consensus.

For example: If your earlier attempts to add the phrase "Film XYZ is widely viewed as the worst film in the genre" did not lead to consensus, you may want to propose more defensible wording, like this: "While Film XYZ was widely praised by critics, critic Sue Smith of the ''New York Times'' called it 'the poorest example of the genre in 2015'." This one at least has a ], which is not ''you.''

===Wrongly accusing others of vandalism===
You repeatedly undo the "]" of others. You repeatedly undo the "]" of others.
:: Content disputes are ''not'' vandalism. Misplaced Pages defines vandalism very carefully to exclude good-faith contributions. Accusing other editors of vandalism is ] unless there is genuine vandalism, that is, a deliberate attempt to degrade the encyclopedia, not a simple difference of opinion. There are numerous ] and ] to meet; the wheels of Wikijustice may grind exceedingly slow, but they grind fine.


Content disputes are ''not'' vandalism. Misplaced Pages defines vandalism very carefully to exclude good-faith contributions. Accusing other editors of vandalism is ] unless there is genuine vandalism, that is, a deliberate attempt to degrade the encyclopedia, not a simple difference of opinion. There are numerous ] and ] to meet; the wheels of Wikijustice may grind exceeding slow, but they ''do'' grind (apologies to ]).
===One to whom others don't give the benefit of doubt===

===Asking for the benefit of doubt===
You find that nobody will ], no matter how often you remind them. You find that nobody will ], no matter how often you remind them.
:: Warning others to assume good faith is something which should be ]—to accuse them of failing to do so may be regarded as uncivil, and if you are perceived as failing to assume good faith yourself, then it could be seen as ].


Warning others to assume good faith is something which should be ] – to accuse them of failing to do so may be regarded as uncivil, and if you are perceived as failing to assume good faith yourself, then it could be seen as ].
===One who accuses others of malice===

You often find yourself accusing or suspecting other editors of "suppressing information", "censorship" or "denying facts".
===Accusing others of malice===
:: This is '']'' evidence of your failure to ]. Never attribute to malice that which may be adequately explained by a simple difference of opinion. And in the case of ] it is vitally important ''always'' to err on the side of caution. If the information you want to add is self-evidently valid and important to the subject, it should be trivial to provide multiple ] from ] which agree that it is both true and significant. Take this evidence to the talk page in the first instance.
{{Shortcut|WP:ACCUSATIONOFMALICE}}
You often find yourself accusing or suspecting other editors of "]", "censorship", or "denying facts".

This is '']'' evidence of your failure to ]. ] that which may be adequately explained by a simple difference of opinion. And in the case of ], it is vitally important ''always'' to err on the side of caution. If the information you want to add is self-evidently valid and important to the subject, it should be trivial to provide multiple ] from ] which agree that it is both true and significant. Take this evidence to the talk page in the first instance.


===One who disputes the reliability of apparently good sources=== ===Disputing the reliability of apparently good sources===
{{Shortcut|WP:SOURCEGOODFAITH}}
You find yourself engaging in discussions about the reliability of sources that substantially meet the criteria for reliable sources. You find yourself engaging in discussions about the reliability of sources that substantially meet the criteria for reliable sources.
:: There is nothing wrong with questioning the reliability of sources, to a point. But there is a limit to how far one may reasonably go in an effort to discredit the validity of what most other contributors consider to be ], especially when multiple sources are being questioned in this manner. This may take the form of arguing about the number or validity of the sources cited by the sources. The danger here is in judging the reliability of sources by how well they support the desired viewpoint.


There is nothing wrong with questioning the reliability of sources, to a point. But there is a limit to how far one may reasonably go in an effort to discredit the validity of what most other contributors consider to be ], especially when multiple sources are being questioned in this manner. This may take the form of arguing about the number of or validity of the information cited by the sources. The danger here is in judging the reliability of sources by how well they support the desired viewpoint.
===One who demands that others find sources for his/her own statements===
You demand that other editors search for sources to support text that you added
:: ] is quite clear here: the responsibility for sourcing content rests firmly and entirely with the editor seeking to include it. This applies most especially to ], where uncited or poorly cited controversial material ''must'' be removed immediately from both the article and the talk page, and by extension any related Project pages.


===Expecting others to find sources for your own statements===
===One whose citations are inadequate, ambiguous or not sufficiently explicit===
{{Shortcut|WP:FINDSOURCESFORME}}
You demand that other editors search for sources to support text that you added, or ].

] is quite clear here: the responsibility for sourcing content rests firmly and entirely with the editor seeking to include it. This applies most especially to ], where uncited or poorly cited controversial or negative material ''must'' be removed immediately from both the article and the talk page, and by extension any related Project pages.

===Adding citations that are inadequate, ambiguous or not sufficiently explicit===
{{Shortcut|WP:INADEQUATECITE}}
Your citations back some of the facts you are adding, but do not explicitly support your interpretation or the inferences you draw. Your citations back some of the facts you are adding, but do not explicitly support your interpretation or the inferences you draw.
:: The policy on ] expressly forbids novel ] of other sources.


The policy against adding ] to Misplaced Pages expressly forbids novel ] of other sources. A simple example of synthesis is when an editor takes cited fact A and cited fact B, and then uses these two facts to arrive at newly thought-up – and unsourced – interpretation C.
===One who repeats the same argument without convincing people===

===Repeating the same argument without convincing people===
{{Shortcut|WP:REHASH}} {{Shortcut|WP:REHASH}}
You find yourself repeating the same argument over and over again, without persuading people. You find yourself repeating the same argument over and over again, without persuading people.
:: If your arguments are rejected, ''bring better arguments'', don’t simply repeat the same ones. And most importantly, ''examine your argument carefully'', in light of what others have said. It is true that people will only be convinced if they want to be, regardless of how good your argument may be, but that is ''not'' grounds for believing that your argument ''must'' be true. ''You must be willing to concede you may have been wrong''. Take a good, long hard look at your argument from as detached and objective a point of view as you can possibly muster, and see if there really is a problem with it. If there isn't, it's best to leave the situation alone: they're not going to want to see it and you cannot force them to. If there ''is'' a problem, however, then you should revise the argument, your case, or both.


If your arguments are rejected, ''bring better arguments'', don't simply repeat the same ones. And most importantly, ''examine your argument carefully'', in light of what others have said. It is true that people will only be convinced if they want to be, regardless of how good your argument may be, but that is ''not'' grounds for believing that your argument ''must'' be true. ''You must be willing to concede you may have been wrong''. Take a long, hard look at your argument from as detached and objective a point of view as you can possibly muster, and see if there is a problem with it. If there isn't, it's best to leave the situation alone: they're not going to want to see it and you cannot force them to. If there ''is'' a problem, however, then you should revise the argument, your case, or both.
===One who deletes the cited additions of others===

===Deleting the pertinent cited additions of others===
{{see also|Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources}}
{{shortcut|WP:REMOVECITE|WP:REFREMOVAL}}
You delete the cited additions of others with the complaint that they did not discuss their edits first. You delete the cited additions of others with the complaint that they did not discuss their edits first.
:: There is no rule on Misplaced Pages that someone has to get permission from you before they put cited information in an article. Such a rule would clearly contradict ]. <span id="removecite"> </span>There is guidance from ] that removal of statements that are pertinent, sourced reliably, and written in a neutral style constitutes disruption.<ref>]</ref> Instead of removing cited work, you should be questioning uncited information.


There is no rule on Misplaced Pages that someone has to get permission from you before they put cited information in an article. Such a rule would clearly contradict ]. <span id="removecite"> </span>There is guidance from ] that removal of statements that are pertinent, sourced reliably, and written in a neutral style constitutes disruption.<ref>]</ref> Instead of removing cited work, you should be questioning ''uncited'' information. Instead of removing pertinent, referenced statements, you should remove ] statements and ]. If the sentence(s) referencing the cited work are not an accurate summary of the cited work, that the source is reliable and discusses the topic of the article, try to improve the sentences in a manner that retains the source and improves the accuracy of the statement.
===One who ignores or refuses to answer good faith questions from other editors===

===Ignoring or refusing to answer good faith questions from other editors===
{{shortcut|WP:IGNOREYOU}}
You ignore or refuse to answer good faith questions from other editors. You ignore or refuse to answer good faith questions from other editors.
:: No editor should ever be expected to do "homework" for another editor, but ''simple, clarifying'' questions from others should not be ignored. (e. g. "You say the quote you want to incorporate can be found in this 300 page pdf, but I've looked and I can't find it. Exactly what page is it on?") Failure to cooperate with such simple requests may be interpreted as evidence of a bad faith effort to exasperate or waste the time of other editors.


No editor should ever be expected to do "homework" for another editor, but ''simple, clarifying'' questions from others should not be ignored. (e. g. "You say the quote you want to incorporate can be found in this 300-page pdf, but I've looked and I can't find it. Exactly what page is it on?") Failure to cooperate with such simple requests may be interpreted as evidence of a ] effort to exasperate or waste the time of other editors.
===One who fails to appropriately thread their posts on talk pages===

You neglect to ] on talk pages.
===Assigning undue importance to a single aspect of a subject===
:: Seemingly an unrelated style issue, tendentious editors often do not indent their talk page comments. While ] discussions (by indenting your replies to others' posts) is not strictly required, it is standard practice and ] since it makes discussions easier to follow. Failing to do so may be interpreted as inexperience with Misplaced Pages conventions at best, and as inconsiderateness or arrogance at worst.
{{See also|Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view#Balancing aspects}}
A particular problem is to assign ] to a single aspect of a subject. For example, you might know that there is some controversy surrounding a particular politician's behaviour with regard to a property dispute. You may be very interested in that dispute, and be keen to document the politician's role in it. So you would create an article on the politician which goes into detail about that, but includes little or no other data. This is unacceptable because it gives undue weight to the controversy. If there is already an existing article about the politician, you may seek to add information about the property dispute to the politician's article. However, even though the politician's involvement in a property dispute may be ] in ], other editors may revert the addition of a paragraph about the property dispute on the grounds that it places undue weight on a relatively minor aspect of the subject's personal life.

Similarly, if a single author says that a particular country is a state supporter of terrorism, then adding that country to the article ] would be to place undue weight on that one author's view. It is very important to place all critical material in the proper context, and ensure that an overall balanced view is provided. A balanced view does not need to be a sympathetic view – our article on ] does not portray him as a sensitive and misunderstood individual who was kind to his mother – but it does need to reflect the balance of opinion among ].

===Not accepting independent input===
{{shortcut|WP:NORFC}}
Some editors may find that independent input through a ] or ] is always biased against their sources, wording or point of view. The purpose of independent input is to resolve disputes between editors by a neutral third party. That doesn't mean the neutral third party will make everyone happy, will choose a side, or in particular, will side with whoever claims there is a dispute (despite no other editors agreeing). If, no matter how many times a neutral third party intervenes, you never seem to get your way, that suggests that your goals may be at odds with Misplaced Pages's ], ] and ].

Similarly, such editors may resist the ''initiation'' of a request for comment. If someone argues at great length over a content dispute, but then suddenly gets cold feet when others suggest seeking wider input, it is often a sign that the editor recognizes that a wider consensus is unlikely to go their way.

==="Banning" otherwise constructive editors from your talk page===
{{shortcut|WP:SOMTP}}
]
Some editors routinely tell other editors with whom they disagree to "Stay off my talk page." The editors who do this tend to have long lists of folks that have been "banned". Talk pages are the fundamental medium used for editors to interact. Except in specific and clear cases of ], such "banning" is highly problematic and an indication that the banning editor is having serious problems cooperating with others.


{{clear}}
===One who assigns undue importance to a single aspect of a subject===
A particular problem is to assign ] to a single aspect of a subject. For example, you might know that there is some controversy surrounding a particular politician’s behaviour with regard to a property dispute. You may be very interested in that dispute, and be keen to document the politician’s role in it. So you would create an article on the politician which goes into detail about that, but includes little or no other data. This is unacceptable because it gives undue weight to the controversy.
Similarly, if one single person says that a particular country is a state supporter of terrorism, then adding that country to the article ] would be undue weight. It is very important to place all critical material in the proper context, and ensure that an overall balanced view is provided. A balanced view does not need to be a sympathetic view—our article on ] does not portray him as a sensitive and misunderstood individual who was kind to his mother—but it does need to reflect the balance of opinion among ].


===Threatening to quit Misplaced Pages===
===One who never accepts independent input===
{{Shortcut|WP:DOORKNOB}}
Some editors may find that any external input through a ] or ] is always biased against their sources, wording or point of view. The purpose of independent input is to resolve disputes between editors by a neutral third party. That doesn't mean the neutral third party will make everyone happy, will choose a side, or in particular, will side with whoever claims there is a dispute (despite no other editors agreeing). If, no matter how many times a neutral third party intervenes, you never seem to get your way, that suggests that your goals may be at odds with Misplaced Pages's ], ] and ].
{{See also|Misplaced Pages:You are not irreplaceable}}
{{Quote box|Just think how much you're going to be missing. You won't have Nixon to kick around anymore.|align=center|width=80%|source={{emdash}}US politician ], as reported in the ''New York Times''<ref name="Liberman 2009">{{cite web |last1=Liberman |first1=Mark |title=Last (and first) things |url=http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1578 |website=Language Log |publisher=University of Pennsylvania; Institute for Research in Cognitive Science |access-date=13 October 2023 |date=15 Jul 2009}}</ref>}}
{{Quote box|]|align=center|width=80%|source={{emdash}}African-American vernacular saying}}
Most editors occasionally wonder why they're investing so much blood, sweat, and tears into Misplaced Pages. However, it is inappropriate to use ''threats'' of leaving as ], in order to try to win in a dispute. Doing so demands an excessive amount of ] from other editors, and is never a valid rationale for ] in a dispute. ], especially when habitual, are a poor substitute for reasoned and collaborative discussion.


On the other hand, editors can also be genuinely troubled about ways they have been treated by others, and such sincere soul-searching should be treated with kindness. An editor who worries out loud about whether or not continuing to edit is worth it, particularly when not made conditional on a demand and not a repeated habit, should not be dismissed as ] or subjected to ]. Such criticism can do more harm than good when the editor has been acting in good faith.
== Righting Great Wrongs ==
{{shortcut||WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS|WP:GREATWRONGS|WP:RGW}}
{{seealso|Misplaced Pages:Advocacy}}


===<span class="anchor" id="Righting Great Wrongs"></span>Righting great wrongs===
Misplaced Pages is a popular site and appears high in the search engine rankings. You might think that it is a ''great'' place to set the record straight and Right Great Wrongs, but that’s not the case. We can ''record'' the righting of great wrongs, but we can’t ride the crest of the wave because we can only report that which is verifiable from reliable secondary sources, giving appropriate weight to the balance of informed opinion: what matters is not truth but verifiability. So, if you want to
{{shortcut|WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS|WP:RGW}}
{{seealso|Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not#Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox or means of promotion|Misplaced Pages:Advocacy|Misplaced Pages:Activist|Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, not truth}}


Misplaced Pages is a popular site, and its articles often appear high in search engine rankings. You might think that Misplaced Pages is a ''great'' place to set the record straight and right great wrongs, but that is absolutely not the case. While we can ''record'' the righting of great wrongs, we can't actually "ride the crest of the wave" ourselves. We are, by design, supposed to be "behind the curve". This is because we only ''report'' information that is ] using ] sources, and we base articles on ] and ] sources, giving appropriate ] to the balance of informed opinion. Even if you're ''sure'' something is true, it must be ''verifiable'' before you can add it. So, if you want to:
* Expose a popular artist as a child molester, or * Expose a popular artist as a child molester, or
* Vindicate a murder convict you believe to be innocent, or * Vindicate a convicted murderer you believe to be innocent, or
* ] of a current or historical political, religious, or moral issue, or
* Spread the word about a theory/hypothesis/belief/cure-all herb that has been unfairly neglected and suppressed by the scholarly community
* Spread the word about a theory/hypothesis/belief/cure-all herb that has been unfairly neglected or suppressed by the scholarly community
{{Shortcut|WP:NOTLEAD}} ...you'll have to wait until it's been reported by ] or published in books from reputable publishing houses. Misplaced Pages ] or ]. Misplaced Pages doesn't lead; ]. Let reliable sources make the novel connections and statements. Finding ] ways of presenting them is what we do.


If, however, the wrong that you want to address has already been sorted in the real world, and if you have the reliable sources to support it, then <em>please do</em> update the articles. Remember that you can reach out to ] or the ] if you need help.
'''''On Misplaced Pages''''', you’ll have to wait until it’s been picked up in ], or get that to happen first. ] or ]. "Misplaced Pages is behind the ball - that is we don't lead, we follow - let reliable sources make the novel connections and statements and find NPOV ways of presenting them if needed."<ref></ref>


===Seeing editing as being about taking sides===
== How to pull back from the brink ==
{{shortcut||WP:USTHEM}}
If you regard editing as being something where you and some other editors are the "good guys", whose mission is to combat other editors who are the "bad guys", where everything is us-against-them, you may not be as much of a good guy as you think you are.

It's true that some editors are ] whereas others are valuable contributors, and it's perfectly reasonable to consider some editors to be your wiki-friends, but when there is a dispute about content, no one should see themselves as being on a team. Doing so tends to make every edit, and every talk page comment, appear to be something personal. Comment on the content, ]. To see one's role as being to show up at every discussion to say that your friend is right and another editor is creating a problem, before even knowing what the issues in the discussion are, just gets in the way of productive editing.

Often, the best way to make progress in a content dispute is to try to see it from both sides of the dispute, and to look for a resolution that makes use of both sides' ideas.

==How to pull back from the brink==
{{shortcut|WP:BRINK}} {{shortcut|WP:BRINK}}
First and foremost, however bad you believe the faults of your accusers are, think long and hard about your own behaviour. Critique it in your mind with the same vigor you critique theirs. Is there not at least a germ of truth in what they say? Have you perhaps been less civil than you might have been? Have you provided high quality citations from reliable ]s to back your edits? In addition, it may be a good idea to scrutinize ''all'' your behavior this way, even if you are ''not'' presently involved in a dispute, so that such disputes may not arise in the first place.


First and foremost, however bad you believe the faults of your accusers are, think long and hard about your own behavior. Critique it in your mind with the same vigour with which you critique theirs. Is there not at least a germ of truth in what they say? Have you perhaps been less civil than you should have been? Have you provided high-quality citations from reliable ]s to back your edits? Are you trying to place undue weight on a certain viewpoint or issue? In addition, it may be a good idea to scrutinize ''all'' your behavior this way, even if you are ''not'' presently involved in a dispute, so that such disputes may not arise in the first place.
Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia – a tertiary source. If what you want to say is genuinely verifiable, then it should be possible to find at least one reputable and respected authority who says the same thing in pretty much the same words. It’s fine to ] the arguments of other authorities, but it’s not acceptable to editorialise or interpret them. If only one authority says something then to include it might constitute ], or it might be acceptable by agreement with other editors to state the opinion duly attributed to the named authority.

Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia – a tertiary source. If what you want to say is genuinely verifiable, then it should be possible to find at least one reputable and respected authority who says the same thing in pretty much the same words. It's fine to summarize the arguments of other authorities, but it's not acceptable to editorialise or interpret them. If only one authority says something then to include it might constitute ], or it might be acceptable by agreement with other editors to state the opinion duly attributed to the named authority.


A good way to find out what people find problematic about your edits is to ''ask'', in an open and non-confrontational way. If an edit is rejected, try something along the lines of: A good way to find out what people find problematic about your edits is to ''ask'', in an open and non-confrontational way. If an edit is rejected, try something along the lines of:
<blockquote>According to {citation of source}, the following is the case: {statement from source}. You have disputed its addition. How do you think we should express this assertion?</blockquote> <blockquote>According to {citation of source}, the following is the case: {statement from source}. You have disputed its addition. How do you think we should express this assertion?</blockquote>
It may become clear that the problem is simply one of ambiguity of phrasing, or it may be that you have a hill to climb and will need to work ''with'' other editors to find a compromise. Once you have done that, however, the compromise text will be defended by all parties and is far less likely to be skewed by future edits. It may become clear that the problem is simply one of ambiguity of phrasing, or it may be that you have a hill to climb and will need to work ''with'' other editors to find a compromise wording. This may take a great deal of patient, civil discussion on the talk page. Once you have done that, however, and hammered out a consensus-supported wording, this text will be defended by all parties and is far less likely to be skewed by future edits.

If you feel that you are "on the brink" of becoming a tendentious editor on a certain article, it can often help to take a break. Don't edit or even look at the article for a day – or even a week. It will still be there when you get back. After all, there are {{#expr:{{NUMBEROFARTICLES:R}} / 1000000 - .05 round 1}} million other articles to edit, and countless articles which still need to be written. With a bit of time off from a contested, disputed article, you might see things from a new perspective when you return.


===Accusing others of tendentious editing=== ===Accusing others of tendentious editing===
{{Shortcut|WP:AOTE}} {{Shortcut|WP:AOTE}}
Making accusations of tendentious editing can be ] and hence these accusations may not be helpful in a dispute. It can be seen as a ] if tendentious editing is alleged without clear evidence that the other's action meets the criteria set forth on this page, and unfounded accusations may constitute ] if done repeatedly. See also: ]. Making accusations of tendentious editing can be ] and hence these accusations may not be helpful in a dispute. It can be seen as a ] if tendentious editing is alleged without clear evidence that the other's action meets the criteria set forth on this page, and unfounded accusations may constitute ] if done repeatedly. Rather than accuse another editor of tendentious editing, it may be wiser to point out behaviours which are contrary to Misplaced Pages policies such as ], ], ], and the ] rule. See also: ] and ].


== See also == == See also ==
* ]

* ]
* ]
* ] * ]
* ] * ]
* ] * ]
* ] * ]
* ] * ]
* ]
* ] * ]
* ]
* ] * ]
* ]
* ] * ]
* ] * ]
* ]


== References ==
{{DEFAULTSORT:Tendentious editing}}
{{Reflist}}


{{Misplaced Pages essays|building}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Tendentious editing}}
] ]
] ]
] ]
] ]

== References ==
{{Reflist}}

Latest revision as of 16:13, 29 October 2024

Explanatory essay about disruptive editing For the behavioral guideline, see Misplaced Pages:Disruptive editing. "WP:TE" redirects here. For the template editor user right, see WP:TPE.
This is an explanatory essay about Misplaced Pages:Disruptive editing.
This page provides additional information about concepts in the page(s) it supplements. This page is not one of Misplaced Pages's policies or guidelines as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community.		Shortcuts
Explanatory essay about Misplaced Pages:Disruptive editing
This page in a nutshell: How to recognize and avoid various problematic and disruptive patterns of editing.

Tendentious editing is a pattern of editing that is partisan, biased, skewed, and does not maintain an editorially neutral point of view. It may also involve repeated attempts to insert or delete content in the face of the objections of several other editors, or behavior that tends to frustrate proper editorial processes and discussions. This is more than just an isolated edit or comment that was badly thought out.

This essay is about how to recognise such editing, how to avoid it, and how not to be accused of it.

Other policies, guidelines, and essays covering tendentious behaviors include:

What is tendentious editing?

Got an ax to grind? Try the hardware store, not Misplaced Pages. If you do want to advocate for a cause, consider starting your own blog.

Tendentious editing is editing with a sustained editorial bias, or with a clear editorial viewpoint contrary to Misplaced Pages's neutral point of view policy. A single edit is unlikely to be a real problem, but a pattern of edits displaying an editor's bias is more likely to be an issue, and repeated biased edits of a single article or group of articles will be very unwelcome indeed. This last behavior is generally characterized as POV pushing and is a common cause of blocking. It is usually an indication of strong opinions.

Editors who engage in this behavior generally fall into two categories: those who come to realize the problem their edits cause, recognise their own bias, and work productively with editors with opposing views to build a better encyclopedia – and the rest. The rest often end up indefinitely blocked or, if they are otherwise productive editors with a blind spot on one particular area, they may be banned from certain articles or topics or become subject to probation.

It is important to recognize that everybody has bias. Few people will edit subjects in which they have no interest. Bias is not in and of itself a problem in editors, only in articles. Problems arise when editors see their own bias as neutral, and especially when they assume that any resistance to their edits is founded in bias towards an opposing point of view. The perception that "he who is not for me is against me" is contrary to Misplaced Pages's assume good faith guideline: always allow for the possibility that you are indeed wrong, and remember that attributing motives to fellow editors is inconsiderate.

Remember: Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox. Articles, including their titles, must conform to policy regarding the neutral point of view and verifiability. Content within articles must be based on reliable sources and thus be verifiable; article content must not include editors' own personal opinions or theories.

Characteristics of problem editors

Here are some hints to help you recognise if you or someone else has become a problem editor:

Not learning from a block for edit-warring

You have been blocked more than once for edit-warring. Or argue about whether you actually reverted four times or only three, or whether the three revert rule (3RR) applies to a calendar day or to any 24-hour period.

3RR exists to prevent edit wars. Wikilawyering about the precise details is unproductive and probably means that you have missed the point: edit warring is bad, and even one revert can be disruptive.

Even a slow-motion edit war, perhaps involving one revert per day, is still an edit war. 3RR draws a "bright line", but meeting its minimal requirements ultimately does not shield one from the consequences of edit-warring. If your edits are reverted or rejected, you can take the dispute to the article's talk page, remembering to cite your sources. If that fails, but you still feel that you are right, consider options for dispute resolution.

Repeating a penalised edit

On returning from a block, your first action is to head right back to the article and repeat the edit. A contentious fact does not become uncontentious by virtue of repetition. Elsewhere on the internet you can get away with repeating something until nobody cares enough to contradict you anymore; on Misplaced Pages, that is unacceptable.

A variant of returning to the same edit is returning to the same talk page to make the same arguments. On returning from a block, if you go to the talk page of the article you were penalized for, do not repeat the same arguments that led to the block. Instead, try to find different arguments, different policy rationales, and better sources. Repeating the exact arguments you made before your block may be viewed as disruptive.

As well, you may wish to compromise on the position you are arguing for, in the interests of proposing an idea which is more likely to get a consensus.

For example: If your earlier attempts to add the phrase "Film XYZ is widely viewed as the worst film in the genre" did not lead to consensus, you may want to propose more defensible wording, like this: "While Film XYZ was widely praised by critics, critic Sue Smith of the New York Times called it 'the poorest example of the genre in 2015'." This one at least has a WP:Reliable source, which is not you.

Wrongly accusing others of vandalism

You repeatedly undo the "vandalism" of others.

Content disputes are not vandalism. Misplaced Pages defines vandalism very carefully to exclude good-faith contributions. Accusing other editors of vandalism is uncivil unless there is genuine vandalism, that is, a deliberate attempt to degrade the encyclopedia, not a simple difference of opinion. There are numerous dispute resolution processes and there is no deadline to meet; the wheels of Wikijustice may grind exceeding slow, but they do grind (apologies to Sun Tzu).

Asking for the benefit of doubt

You find that nobody will assume good faith, no matter how often you remind them.

Warning others to assume good faith is something which should be done with great care, if at all – to accuse them of failing to do so may be regarded as uncivil, and if you are perceived as failing to assume good faith yourself, then it could be seen as being a jerk.

Accusing others of malice

Shortcut

You often find yourself accusing or suspecting other editors of "suppressing information", "censorship", or "denying facts".

This is prima facie evidence of your failure to assume good faith. Never attribute to malice that which may be adequately explained by a simple difference of opinion. And in the case of biographies of living individuals, it is vitally important always to err on the side of caution. If the information you want to add is self-evidently valid and important to the subject, it should be trivial to provide multiple citations from reliable sources which agree that it is both true and significant. Take this evidence to the talk page in the first instance.

Disputing the reliability of apparently good sources

Shortcut

You find yourself engaging in discussions about the reliability of sources that substantially meet the criteria for reliable sources.

There is nothing wrong with questioning the reliability of sources, to a point. But there is a limit to how far one may reasonably go in an effort to discredit the validity of what most other contributors consider to be reliable sources, especially when multiple sources are being questioned in this manner. This may take the form of arguing about the number of or validity of the information cited by the sources. The danger here is in judging the reliability of sources by how well they support the desired viewpoint.

Expecting others to find sources for your own statements

Shortcut

You demand that other editors search for sources to support text that you added, or you challenge them to find a source that disproves your unsourced claim.

Misplaced Pages policy is quite clear here: the responsibility for sourcing content rests firmly and entirely with the editor seeking to include it. This applies most especially to biographies of living individuals, where uncited or poorly cited controversial or negative material must be removed immediately from both the article and the talk page, and by extension any related Project pages.

Adding citations that are inadequate, ambiguous or not sufficiently explicit

Shortcut

Your citations back some of the facts you are adding, but do not explicitly support your interpretation or the inferences you draw.

The policy against adding original research to Misplaced Pages expressly forbids novel syntheses of other sources. A simple example of synthesis is when an editor takes cited fact A and cited fact B, and then uses these two facts to arrive at newly thought-up – and unsourced – interpretation C.

Repeating the same argument without convincing people

Shortcut

You find yourself repeating the same argument over and over again, without persuading people.

If your arguments are rejected, bring better arguments, don't simply repeat the same ones. And most importantly, examine your argument carefully, in light of what others have said. It is true that people will only be convinced if they want to be, regardless of how good your argument may be, but that is not grounds for believing that your argument must be true. You must be willing to concede you may have been wrong. Take a long, hard look at your argument from as detached and objective a point of view as you can possibly muster, and see if there is a problem with it. If there isn't, it's best to leave the situation alone: they're not going to want to see it and you cannot force them to. If there is a problem, however, then you should revise the argument, your case, or both.

Deleting the pertinent cited additions of others

See also: Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources Shortcuts

You delete the cited additions of others with the complaint that they did not discuss their edits first.

There is no rule on Misplaced Pages that someone has to get permission from you before they put cited information in an article. Such a rule would clearly contradict Misplaced Pages:Be bold. There is guidance from ArbCom that removal of statements that are pertinent, sourced reliably, and written in a neutral style constitutes disruption. Instead of removing cited work, you should be questioning uncited information. Instead of removing pertinent, referenced statements, you should remove off-topic statements and original research. If the sentence(s) referencing the cited work are not an accurate summary of the cited work, that the source is reliable and discusses the topic of the article, try to improve the sentences in a manner that retains the source and improves the accuracy of the statement.

Ignoring or refusing to answer good faith questions from other editors

Shortcut

You ignore or refuse to answer good faith questions from other editors.

No editor should ever be expected to do "homework" for another editor, but simple, clarifying questions from others should not be ignored. (e. g. "You say the quote you want to incorporate can be found in this 300-page pdf, but I've looked and I can't find it. Exactly what page is it on?") Failure to cooperate with such simple requests may be interpreted as evidence of a bad faith effort to exasperate or waste the time of other editors.

Assigning undue importance to a single aspect of a subject

See also: Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view § Balancing aspects

A particular problem is to assign undue weight to a single aspect of a subject. For example, you might know that there is some controversy surrounding a particular politician's behaviour with regard to a property dispute. You may be very interested in that dispute, and be keen to document the politician's role in it. So you would create an article on the politician which goes into detail about that, but includes little or no other data. This is unacceptable because it gives undue weight to the controversy. If there is already an existing article about the politician, you may seek to add information about the property dispute to the politician's article. However, even though the politician's involvement in a property dispute may be verifiable in reliable sources, other editors may revert the addition of a paragraph about the property dispute on the grounds that it places undue weight on a relatively minor aspect of the subject's personal life.

Similarly, if a single author says that a particular country is a state supporter of terrorism, then adding that country to the article state-sponsored terrorism would be to place undue weight on that one author's view. It is very important to place all critical material in the proper context, and ensure that an overall balanced view is provided. A balanced view does not need to be a sympathetic view – our article on Adolf Hitler does not portray him as a sensitive and misunderstood individual who was kind to his mother – but it does need to reflect the balance of opinion among reputable authorities.

Not accepting independent input

Shortcut

Some editors may find that independent input through a third opinion or request for comment is always biased against their sources, wording or point of view. The purpose of independent input is to resolve disputes between editors by a neutral third party. That doesn't mean the neutral third party will make everyone happy, will choose a side, or in particular, will side with whoever claims there is a dispute (despite no other editors agreeing). If, no matter how many times a neutral third party intervenes, you never seem to get your way, that suggests that your goals may be at odds with Misplaced Pages's policies, guidelines, community and purpose.

Similarly, such editors may resist the initiation of a request for comment. If someone argues at great length over a content dispute, but then suddenly gets cold feet when others suggest seeking wider input, it is often a sign that the editor recognizes that a wider consensus is unlikely to go their way.

"Banning" otherwise constructive editors from your talk page

Shortcut
This is no way to treat your fellow editor!

Some editors routinely tell other editors with whom they disagree to "Stay off my talk page." The editors who do this tend to have long lists of folks that have been "banned". Talk pages are the fundamental medium used for editors to interact. Except in specific and clear cases of WP:WIKIHOUNDING, such "banning" is highly problematic and an indication that the banning editor is having serious problems cooperating with others.

Threatening to quit Misplaced Pages

Shortcut See also: Misplaced Pages:You are not irreplaceable

Just think how much you're going to be missing. You won't have Nixon to kick around anymore.

—US politician Richard Nixon in 1962, as reported in the New York Times

Don't let the door(knob) hit you where the good Lord split you!

—African-American vernacular saying

Most editors occasionally wonder why they're investing so much blood, sweat, and tears into Misplaced Pages. However, it is inappropriate to use threats of leaving as emotional blackmail, in order to try to win in a dispute. Doing so demands an excessive amount of emotional labor from other editors, and is never a valid rationale for consensus in a dispute. Emotional outbursts, especially when habitual, are a poor substitute for reasoned and collaborative discussion.

On the other hand, editors can also be genuinely troubled about ways they have been treated by others, and such sincere soul-searching should be treated with kindness. An editor who worries out loud about whether or not continuing to edit is worth it, particularly when not made conditional on a demand and not a repeated habit, should not be dismissed as high maintenance or subjected to gravedancing. Such criticism can do more harm than good when the editor has been acting in good faith.

Righting great wrongs

Shortcuts See also: Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not § Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox or means of promotion; Misplaced Pages:Advocacy; Misplaced Pages:Activist; and Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, not truth

Misplaced Pages is a popular site, and its articles often appear high in search engine rankings. You might think that Misplaced Pages is a great place to set the record straight and right great wrongs, but that is absolutely not the case. While we can record the righting of great wrongs, we can't actually "ride the crest of the wave" ourselves. We are, by design, supposed to be "behind the curve". This is because we only report information that is verifiable using reliable sources, and we base articles on secondary and independent sources, giving appropriate weight to the balance of informed opinion. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. So, if you want to:

  • Expose a popular artist as a child molester, or
  • Vindicate a convicted murderer you believe to be innocent, or
  • Explain what you are sure is the truth of a current or historical political, religious, or moral issue, or
  • Spread the word about a theory/hypothesis/belief/cure-all herb that has been unfairly neglected or suppressed by the scholarly community
Shortcut

...you'll have to wait until it's been reported by reliable sources or published in books from reputable publishing houses. Misplaced Pages is not a publisher of original thought or original research. Misplaced Pages doesn't lead; we follow. Let reliable sources make the novel connections and statements. Finding neutral ways of presenting them is what we do.

If, however, the wrong that you want to address has already been sorted in the real world, and if you have the reliable sources to support it, then please do update the articles. Remember that you can reach out to a relevant WikiProject or the neutral point of view noticeboard if you need help.

Seeing editing as being about taking sides

Shortcut

If you regard editing as being something where you and some other editors are the "good guys", whose mission is to combat other editors who are the "bad guys", where everything is us-against-them, you may not be as much of a good guy as you think you are.

It's true that some editors are simply disruptive whereas others are valuable contributors, and it's perfectly reasonable to consider some editors to be your wiki-friends, but when there is a dispute about content, no one should see themselves as being on a team. Doing so tends to make every edit, and every talk page comment, appear to be something personal. Comment on the content, not on the contributor. To see one's role as being to show up at every discussion to say that your friend is right and another editor is creating a problem, before even knowing what the issues in the discussion are, just gets in the way of productive editing.

Often, the best way to make progress in a content dispute is to try to see it from both sides of the dispute, and to look for a resolution that makes use of both sides' ideas.

How to pull back from the brink

Shortcut

First and foremost, however bad you believe the faults of your accusers are, think long and hard about your own behavior. Critique it in your mind with the same vigour with which you critique theirs. Is there not at least a germ of truth in what they say? Have you perhaps been less civil than you should have been? Have you provided high-quality citations from reliable secondary sources to back your edits? Are you trying to place undue weight on a certain viewpoint or issue? In addition, it may be a good idea to scrutinize all your behavior this way, even if you are not presently involved in a dispute, so that such disputes may not arise in the first place.

Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia – a tertiary source. If what you want to say is genuinely verifiable, then it should be possible to find at least one reputable and respected authority who says the same thing in pretty much the same words. It's fine to summarize the arguments of other authorities, but it's not acceptable to editorialise or interpret them. If only one authority says something then to include it might constitute undue weight, or it might be acceptable by agreement with other editors to state the opinion duly attributed to the named authority.

A good way to find out what people find problematic about your edits is to ask, in an open and non-confrontational way. If an edit is rejected, try something along the lines of:

According to {citation of source}, the following is the case: {statement from source}. You have disputed its addition. How do you think we should express this assertion?

It may become clear that the problem is simply one of ambiguity of phrasing, or it may be that you have a hill to climb and will need to work with other editors to find a compromise wording. This may take a great deal of patient, civil discussion on the talk page. Once you have done that, however, and hammered out a consensus-supported wording, this text will be defended by all parties and is far less likely to be skewed by future edits.

If you feel that you are "on the brink" of becoming a tendentious editor on a certain article, it can often help to take a break. Don't edit or even look at the article for a day – or even a week. It will still be there when you get back. After all, there are 6.9 million other articles to edit, and countless articles which still need to be written. With a bit of time off from a contested, disputed article, you might see things from a new perspective when you return.

Accusing others of tendentious editing

Shortcut

Making accusations of tendentious editing can be inflammatory and hence these accusations may not be helpful in a dispute. It can be seen as a personal attack if tendentious editing is alleged without clear evidence that the other's action meets the criteria set forth on this page, and unfounded accusations may constitute harassment if done repeatedly. Rather than accuse another editor of tendentious editing, it may be wiser to point out behaviours which are contrary to Misplaced Pages policies such as WP:NOR, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and the 3RR rule. See also: WP:AOHA and WP:ASPERSIONS.

See also

References

  1. Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar#Removal of sourced edits made in a neutral narrative is disruptive
  2. Liberman, Mark (15 Jul 2009). "Last (and first) things". Language Log. University of Pennsylvania; Institute for Research in Cognitive Science. Retrieved 13 October 2023.
Misplaced Pages essays (?)
Essays on building, editing, and deleting content
Philosophy
Article construction
Writing article content
Removing or
deleting content
Essays on civility
The basics
Philosophy
Dos
Don'ts
WikiRelations
Essays on notability
Humorous essays
About essays
About essays
Policies and guidelines
Categories: