New look: So long, lighthouse

Sorry if the new look of this blog confuses any readers. I finally found the kind of layout template that I was looking for. I think this one better suits my long posts. It should mean less scrolling for readers. No more generic lighthouse image in the upper left-hand corner.

Weather Underground follies: Murtagh bombing

Over at the [[Weather (organization)]] article talk page, the follies have been going on for some time (more on that later). User:Wikidemon, announced that, well, the Weather Underground's setting of a bomb outside the home of a judge that the terrorist organization didn't like was just not adequately sourced. ("Based on reading the sources, I see the only thing we have have connecting the Weathermen to the Murtagh bombing is speculation from Murtagh's son, who was 9 years old at the time." [diff] Uh huh.)

Well, Wikidemon didn't do his research (no suprise to me -- I've dealt with Wikidemon for some time now, and I can't remember when he did research to help settle a disagreement, which is a bad sign). One of my instant, new heroes, User:Ajschorschiii, does that thing that I like to do: goes to the freakin' sources and actually finds information, then brings it to Wikipedia: "The reference to the Murtagh bombing to a particular Weather cell has a scholarly source. See--Jacobs, R. (1997). The way the wind blew : a history of the Weather Underground. London; New York: Verso, pg. 98" [see the diff and follow the link]. He's right, of course. The reliable sources do show that Weatherman set off a bomb to terrorize the judge. The judge's son, now a Yonkers City Council member, and a responsible adult who can be relied upon to write an article that reflects well-sourced facts about the bombing that terrorized him as a young child, has written an article about the terrorist incident.

But Ajschorschiii's point doesn't go unchallenged: User:Barbiero says it must be "unreliable" because it's only a sentence "in passing" about that particular bombing (diff).

Because the source does not provide a reliable assertion of that. It is a single sentence, in passing, during discussion of a different topic not directly related to the Murtagh Bombing, and Jacobs provides no follow on or evidence for that statement.

We should not repeat rumours as facts, or give undue weight to statement of rumours as fact, which is what your addition did.

Let's just call this objection rather difficult to swallow. Wikipedia doesn't have a policy saying that "sources that only mention something in passing are unreliable". Ron Jacobs, a Weatherman sympathizer, concedes that Weatherman did the bombing. So does former Weatherman member [[Cathy Wilkerson]], one of the two survivors of the [[Greenwich Village townhouse explosion]], which occurred when the same terrorist cell essentially blew itself up:

The group, Terry [Robbins] explained briefly, had done an action already, a firebomb that had been thrown at the home of Judge Murtagh, then presiding over the trial of the Panther 21. Judge Murtagh seemed to be following in the belligerent steps of Chicago's Judge Hoffman, who had physically gagged defendant and Panther member Bobby Seale during the Chicago 8 trial in October. In the New York Panther 21 case, Murtagh seemed to take pleasure in summarily dismissing the normal rules of evidence to allow the police to introduce anything they wanted, while repeatedly denying defense motions. He had set up the courtroom with armed police, implying to the jury that he expected n armed attack at any moment. It was, Terry said, a way to prejudice jurors and make them frightened ofthe defendants, none of whom had ever engaged in armed political action.

I assumed the group's firebombing had been done after consultation with and approval by those Panthers that remained out of jail, although I now wonder. The Panthers themselves never did comment on the action publicly. The firebomging had been dangerous because Judge Murtagh's house was guarded by several New York City policemen twenty-four hours a day. The bottle filled with gasoline had broken against the front steps, burned, and gone out. At least the throwers had gotten away.

By then, of course, I was hardly shocked at this action. I had assumed for
weeks that many small groups were being set up to do this kind of action.

[...] Terry continued to update me: The New York collective was now planning to follow their first action with several simultaneous ones.

-- Wilkerson, Cathy, Flying Close to the Sun, Seven Stories Press, 2007, pp 324-325

Hey Barbiero, how's that for extended treatment? Robbins himself can't testify: He died when the next bomb he tried to make blew up. Wilkerson survived that explosion to tell the tale.

Ajschorschiii then gives a smart reply (diff):

Your bias may have begun to show, in that you have stated that the claim is exceptional, thereby revealing a pre-conceived notion on your part. Exceptional in relation to what? Please state specifically why such a claim is exceptional, and what the "rule" is that this claim "excepts." I think we owe our readers the knowledge that another author--of one of the few books on Weather where former Weather participants were interviewed, and a sympathetic author to Weather, I might add--also has written that the Murtagh bombing was done by Weather, and contains three sentences consistent with that statement. I don't see you enforcing a similar standard to other citations in this article. We need a real and substantial reason to keep this statement out of the article, other than, "It stays out of the article." Or, are you running out of reasons?

If Wikipedia edits depended upon who had the better sourcing, bias problems would have an obvious, direct, simple solution -- provide better sourcing! Unfortunately, it's not that simple: Wikipedia edits actually depend upon whether or not editors will adhere to the best sourcing, even if the best sourcing directs editors away from their personal point of view. So if Ajschorschiii's better sourcing is ever going to actually be reflected in the article, as opposed to Wikidemon's bias, editors involved in the discussion will need to support the NPOV position. Wikipedia needs enough editors who care about NPOV to make NPOV actually work as a policy.

ADDED NOTE: It's important to try to maintain civility in these discussions, something incredibly difficult to do the more you realize that you're dealing with an editor who's bringing bias to the table, and even harder to do when you realize that an editor constantly brings bias to the table and that you are unlikely to deter that editor from doing so no matter what you do or say. Because I expect this post will be read by participants in the discussion, I've rewritten it a bit to try to remove some creeping impoliteness (something not as bad as incivility, but even impoliteness can hurt a discussion). Ajschorschiii's near perfect response to Barbiero and Wikidemon has just a little scratch in it, a slight nick, a tiny imperfection in stating to Barbiero, "your bias may have begun to show". The perfect response would have been something like: "Do you think you might be displaying bias by ..." That amounts to something like a very polite invitation to drop possible bias. If this is one of several discussions involving bias that Ajschorschiii has had with Barbiero, and if it were already clear that Barbiero was biased, then there isn't even a slight imperfection in mentioning possible bias. Overall, it's better to avoid mentioning another party's bias unless it is blatant or evident after you've repeatedly seen it. This kind of patience is something I myself need to work on more (which is why I redacted parts of this blog post).

'NOTHER UPDATE: Wikidemon's taken a step back, and agreeing that Ron Jacobs (Weatherman sympathizer that Jacobs is) is an OK source, although he's waivering, Barbiero is setting up conditions that exist nowhere else in Wikipedia for accepting Ajschorschiii's source, Ajschorschiii is patiently, calmly, devastatingly answering objections.

The acid test of political bias

The acid test for political bias is simple: Does the passage in question reflect what the reliable sources say? Does it reflect a consensus among the reliable sources? Does it reflect a very significant minority of the reliable sources?

If it does, the assumption should be that the passage should go into the article. There will be complications: Wikipedia Biographies of Living Persons policy may still nix inclusion of the passage in Wikipedia. Other policies may put roadblocks in the way. But overall, in most disputes, bias is shown when editors are advocating (or have added to an article) information that does not reflect what the reliable sources say.

Even [[WP:BLP]] policy, when dealing with [[WP:WELLKNOWN]] public figures, depends on reliable sources: If reliable sources criticize a WP:WELLKNOWN person, the information should be included in an article on that person or, depending on relevance, on the subject.

Three goups of venues for current political conflicts on Wikipedia

As of this point, I know of three major subject areas where bias conflicts are not just the simple disagreement between a small number of Wikipedians, but often involve ongoing disputes between a rather large number of editors from at least two different sides of an issue who go from article to article, taking their conflict war with them to a new battlefield. The most longstanding one is the [[Barack Obama]]-related articles, the [[Sarah Palin]]-related articles probably involve even more editors, and articles related to [[Weatherman (organization)]], which are like a subcontinent of the overall Obama continent, with many editors overlapping from the Obama articles, me being one of them.

This is how you address smaller bias disputes

This minor dispute involving bias was just addressed in the past few days over at the talk page for [[Dreams from my Father]], the article about Barack Obama's first book. (I say "minor" because it involves one editor trying to add information and several editors opposing it. I'd call a dispute with numerous editors on both sides a "major" one.)

I give a lengthy description of the discussion here because his is nearly a perfect model for how Wikipedia editors should deal with bias (or most other disputes). [[User:Josiah Rowe]], up until possibly his most recent post in the discussion, is civil toward the other editor, refers the editor to policy and gives clear explanations. It helps Rowe enormously that there are only two editors who want to make the addition to the article, and that there are other editors to back up Rowe's position. This is the way Wikipedia should work, and Wikipedia's policies are adequate for this kind of situation.

The case involves an article on The American Thinker website by an academic who contends that Obama's first book was actually ghost-written by Bill Ayers, the unrepentant former terrorist who Obama associated with in Chicago. The academic (he has a Ph.D, and I think he's an academic), Jack Cashill, has no proof, but contends that there are telling similarities in certain phrasing in books by the two authors, and similarities are also shown by some rudimentary technical analysis involving such things as the average number of words in particular sentences. The article is well-written, makes its case with evidence and some logic, and does show some minor similarities. At the end, Cashill concludes, "None of this, of course, proves Ayers' authorship conclusively, but the evidence makes him a much more likely candidate than Obama to have written the best parts of Dreams."

Personally, I think it's poppycock -- but that's actually irrelevant to whether the American Thinker's article's thesis should be mentioned in Wikipedia.

[[User:Kauffner]] added a mention of the AS article, Josiah Rowe removed it and the matter went to the talk page, just as it should. Before I go on, it's important to add something here: That Kauffner happened to be wrong in this particular edit doesn't make Kauffner some smear merchant or horrible person or bad editor, it just means he happened to be incorrect in this particular case. Not every case of political bias involves a "POV pusher". Good editors (and I have no reason not to assume Kauffner is one) can make mistakes. That simple fact gets lost in the more contentious discussions, but it's important to remember -- not just because it makes Wikipedia a nicer place to edit (although that's important, too), but because it also helps to resolve the dispute quicker and easier. [[WP:AGF]] isn't just a nice idea, it's a good, practical tool for avoiding trouble. I'll come back to this later.

When the discussion started, Rowe immediately referred Kauffner to specific policies ( [[WP:RS]] , to begin with) and clearly stated how the proposed edit didn't meet specific parts of policies ([[WP:QS]] section of [[Wikipedia:Verifiability]] ) :

See our article on The American Thinker for why it's not a reliable source. See also Questionable sources, which this definitely is. Reverting. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:09, 10 October

In a dispute involving a political subject, it's particularly useful -- even important -- to back up your claims by referring to policies and guidelines that have nothing to do with politics. It's a way of getting broader agreement with people from across the political spectrum. And it's better for Rowe to try to convince Kauffner than simply to get a supermajority consensus and overwhelm Kauffner. (It's often not possible to convince the other side, but the attempt should be made.)

Kauffner, also more than capable of presenting a clear, reasonable argument, countered that The American Thinker was, in fact a reliable source, but Rowe replied:

If you want, we can bring this to WP:RS/N to see what a wider group of editors think about whether this source is reliable. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 09:54, 10 October

Within minutes, Rowe did bring it to the Wikipedia: Reliable sources Noticeboard. That was another very good move: Bring in a wider group of editors in a political bias dispute. The more editors, the less likely that anyone's particular POV will skew the article. After posting a description of the disagreement, the next day (or at least quite a few hours later) Rowe posted this on the noticeboard:

Kauffner seems unwilling or unable to accept that this view reflects Wikipedia
policy. Any interested parties are welcome to join the discussion at Talk:Dreams from My Father. [Rowe: 05:48, 11 Oct]

I think the "seems unwilling or unable to accept" is language that's too strong for the situation. It implies that Kauffner is unreasonable, when in fact Kauffner was making attempts to fit the passage in by rewriting to conform with policy. A more diplomatic approach tends to work better.

As the discussion on the article talk page continued, Rowe very reasonably pointed out that there are circumstances in which the matter could be included in the Wikipedia article. ("Only if a more reliable, mainstream source picks up Cashill's allegation."-- article talk page, 18:46, 10 Oct) That's important: Rowe is positioning himself squarely on a Wikipedia policy and demonstrating that his objection is not simply POV pushing but defending Wikipedia principles. Implicitly, he's inviting Kauffner to join him -- something Kauffner can then do while still believing the American Thinker article has merit, even though it may not now have the necessary exposure from what Wikipedia identifies as reliable sources (publications that meet Wikipedia's criteria as laid out in WP:V, WP:RS and elsewhere). Rowe's stance is important for another reason: He acknowledges that if mainstream sources pick up the charge that Ayers wrote the book, Rowe's objection could be countered. When you're position is that Wikipedia policies should be followed, and you indicate that your position could change if the facts change, you're demonstrating that you yourself are not POV pushing. You've just added enormous credibility to your argument -- and yourself.

Kauffman continued to argue that other media outlets, including the widely listened to Rush Limbaugh, had picked up the story (Limbaugh has something like 10 million listeners). Rowe countered (accurately) that Limbaugh and the other outlets didn't meet WP:RS requirements. And Rowe then made another important point that removed the argument from a simple left-right conflict, again making a consensus potentially easier to achieve:

It's not about liberal versus conservative. A similar claim about a conservative
figure that came from Huffington Post or DailyKos would be equally unacceptable.
—Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:46, 11 Oct

Rowe is clearly attempting not just to win the argument but to win over Kauffman to Rowe's side.

Two other editors now join the discussion, one on each side. They aren't as diplomatic as Rowe. User:Mikedelsol makes various points defending the reliability of the source and User:Loonymonkey then lowers the tone of the discussion. It's interesting to see just how Loonymonkey does that and how Mikedelsol goes down to the same level. Both editors make mistakes here:

It's just that, opinion, and including it here would violate the standards
of wikipedia. You can edit-war until you get blocked, but we're not going to
include bizarre fringe theories in this article. --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:21, 11
October 2008 (UTC)

Deleted the Klein comment applying your principle. This is nto a
fringe theory, and if anybody is going to be blocked, it is the Obamanauts. Are
you guys paid? You should be--Mikedelsol (talk) 17:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Rather than cite specific policy, much less specific parts of policies, Loonymonkey vaguely states "including it here would violate the standards of wikipedia". This sets up Kauffner, and now Mikedelsol, as some kind of standards violators, and Loonymonkey drives the nail down farther with another two whacks: "You can edit war till you get blocked" and "we're not going to include bizarre fringe theories". So now other editors are disparaged in three separate ways in just a few lines. If edit warring is going on at the article page, that problem can be addressed in a polite way on the talk page -- certainly it can be addressed that way initially. Barging in with guns blazing, the way Loonymonkey does, just invites return fire. Mikedelsol accepts the invitation, and says he's deleted another part of the article (in retaliation for Looneymonkey's post? that seems to be the implication). He meets Loonymonkey's reference to being blocked with one of his own and adds the disparaging "Obamanauts". This is the kind of thing you save for when you're at your wits' end, at the end of your rope, at the end of a discussion where you are so frustrated that it would have been better just to get away from the keyboard. In the second post you make to a discussion, you should be capable of ignoring the gauntlet that's been thrown down.

Rowe then cites [[WP:AGF]] and brings the discussion back up to the level of logic, policy and facts, refocusing it back to the edits rather than the editors.(20:19, 11 Oct). Kauffner still disagrees and makes a good point: "You can source opinions on both sides on both and get NPOV" (01:27, 12 Oct) Rowe counters with better points: Cahill, the source from The American Thinker, admits he can't prove his case, and policy cautions against using sources that do that kind of thing, and Rowe cites a specific section of BLP policy to counter the citation of NPOV policy. Both editors address each others' arguments, for the most part, instead of talking past each other.

At this point, two other editors join in to agree with Rowe and Loonymonkey. User:Arkhilleus and User:priyanath both say that the matter should receive coverage in reliable sources before going into the article, and priyanath cites a specific section of WP:RS policy and even quotes it. At this point, it would take quite a lot of editors to overcome the objections of the four opponents. But most of those opponents stand on policy and show that they could be convinced otherwise if the facts change.

A fifth opponent then joins in and makes some of the same mistakes as Loonymonkey and Mikedelsol. User:Adelphoi En Kardia Dios Bous basically expresses his outrage that the proposed passage would repeat "plainly and simply, a political smear, from a website that has engaged in such activity in the past." (12:45, 13 Oct). Now, I happen to agree with almost every single point that Adelphoi makes. I do think it's close to smear, but (based on the article's language) I think that the AS article's author, Cahill, probably doesn't view it that way. Cahill seems to think he's conducting a responsible investigation. But it isn't responsible, Cahill doesn't make his case and the article shouldn't have been published without much better proof. Since I think it's reasonable to be concerned about Obama's association with Bill Ayers, I don't have Adelphoi's sense of outrage about this. I think Adelphoi makes a good point in bringing up the context of the matter so that editors who later read the discussion but who don't know anything about that context can get up to speed about why the WP:BLP concerns could matter so much. Adelphoi's language could have been more diplomatic, but it wasn't as unhelpful as Loonymonkey's or Mikedelsol's. (I've certainly expressed my own outrage in these situations, and done it in much worse ways than any of these three editors.)

Kauffner's and Rowe's last two comments are a little snarky. Neither of these had to be made:

I gather that Time magazine and the book itself can't be used either. Kauffner (talk) 04:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

That's a helpful attitude. [link to WP:SARCASM] —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs)
04:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

As of now, this is where the discussion stands, and it's unlikely to change.

Incidentally, I looked into coverage of Cahill's article in other sources. No mainstream ones have picked up on it, although that's not impossible -- today's New York Times has a front page article on a man who has been smearing Obama as a secret Muslim, so it's possible for these subjects to be picked up. Andy McCarthy, a former prosecutor in the first World Trade Center bombing case and now a writer at National Review Online, has mentioned the Cahill piece approvingly (and been criticized for it by another NRO writer in "The Corner" blog at that website). Law professor and blogger Ann Althouse has also blogged about Cahill's piece (not approvingly). It's all silly, I think, but if it becomes a significant feature of reliable sources on the subject, it deserves to go in, certainly with the caveat from the inevitable reliable source mentioning that it's unreliable, irresponsible speculation.

Again, this is a good example of how opposing bias is supposed to work, with lessons in it on what types of responses work and what doesn't. I think if Rowe had responded badly, other editors might not have shown up in force to back up his position. If he hadn't set such a good example, the response by other editors might have been worse. Kauffner isn't to be blamed for not knowing policy as well as Rowe, or even for not backing down quickly (that can be difficult to do in an argument), and he had good points to make himself. (I've been in both Rowe's and Kauffner's shoes in the past; I think most longstanding editors have.)

My POV

My own point of view is basic American conservatism. It's roughly what you'd find in National Review or The Weekly Standard, two of my favorite magazines, or on the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal. I also consider myself open-minded. Neutrality is often in the eye of the beholder, so I try to ignore minor differences of opinion on small points. I've made it a point to edit in positive information on subjects that I'm not sympathetic to and to include negative information even on subjects that I love.

What this blog is about

I also get the same impression from the groups of editors who camp out on
other articles that they feel threatened by anyone who doesn't completely agree
with them. Groups of editors like this are really a significant threat to the
idea that Wikipedia could ever be considered even somewhat as a neutral,
complete, and credible encyclopedia. It surprises me that more isn't done to
correct this problem [...] Citizendium's administration, in
contrast, from what I've observed, is very active in ensuring that this kind of
nonsense doesn't go on.

-- Cla68, posting at Wikipedia Review

Cla68's observation is rather common among people who have been around Wikipedia for a while and see the ongoing problems of the website. Bias occurs regularly, which wouldn't be too bad if it could be easily changed in all articles by editors dedicated to removing it. But there's the rub: there are too few editors doing that and the bias is protected by tendentious users who want to see their point of view represented as The Truth. In too many cases, there is a group of editors who support the bias and fight any efforts to make an article more neutral. It isn't necessarily a "cabal" perpetrating the bias (Cla68 was specifically referring to the "ID cabal" [ID refers to "Intelligent Design", a concept used by some pro-religion people to give an alternate explanation to evolution], but as he points out, this happens on numerous Wikipedia articles by various groups of editors). Once a group of editors gets ahold of a page, they [[WP:OWN]] it unless some larger group can be rounded up to establish a new consensus that overwhelms the old one. Since consensus takes more than a majority, that's difficult to do.

I've started this blog to make it easier for editors to overcome political bias on Wikipedia. I hope to comment on various aspects of political bias in the 'pedia, discuss some past controversies and report on current problems. Political bias is only one form of bias, but the overall problem is too broad for me to cover, and my interest lies with bias of the political stripe. I may comment on controversies that are marginal to politics -- perhaps the "ID cabal", for instance. Comments from other Wikipedia editors are welcome.

What I don't intend to be doing is launching personal attacks on editors, although criticism is to be expected. I am not interested in asking people outside Wikipedia to flood some AfD or other discussion with their support or opposition for some particular point of view. I hope Wikipedians who are concerned about bias (or, in Wikispeak, "POV" -- "point of view", as opposed to "NPOV" or "Neutral Point of View") can use this blog to find out about problematic areas and perhaps flood them with a new, better consensus that favors neutrality and fairness to all points of view.

Rootology, another Wikipedia editor who posts at Wikipedia Review, made this comment in the same thread, and it reflects my own hopes:

Until the wider community slaps down these groups--whether they're noble, or
not, good, or not, or anything but neutral, it will happen again and again.
[...] [I]f a group is locking the articles down, the only fix is
to permanently and constantly flush the pipes out with lots and lots and lots of
new editors. The center will straighten itself out, because the small group will
be irrelevant then in the flow of all the other voices.Consensus is clogged in
the tubes? Flush out the tubes with even more water and make sure the water
doesn't stop flowing.

I agree with that, too. I think that's the best solution Wikipedia has, given the current state of the website's policies and guidelines. Here's something else I agree with, posted by Cla68:

But others, without mentioning any names, because we know who they all are,
have figured out ways to game the system in order to get their content to stick,
mainly by forming cabals. As Rootology points out, their influence and ability
to keep pushing POV is weakening over time, but in the meantime they're still
driving away new editors and ruining the chance for some important articles to
be made neutral and truly informative, in the process contributing to the
destruction of whatever chance Wikipedia might have to be considered as a
credible and reliable source of information. Moreover, Wikipedia is so chaotic
and uneven in its enforcement of the rules, that this is also driving away
casual editors who apparently don't want to participate in something so
anarchic.

Truer words were never spoken. Cla68 said his response, in part, was to take a closer look at Citizendium. This blog is meant to try to help fix the problem at Wikipedia, which (so far, at least) I haven't given up on.

In that same thread, The Joy wrote: But the crazies drive away the sane people and the sane people have a tendency to go crazy themselves after a while.

That's the danger. I don't know about you, but sometimes I feel a little crazy, myself. I'm hoping this blog may help keep me and some other Wikipedians a bit saner. And -- who knows? -- maybe Wikipedia a bit saner as well.

-- Edited to remove inaccuracy about Cla68 moving over to Citizendium. He's still at Wikipedia.