Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2023-11-06/Recent research
 Article display preview: | This is a draft of a potential Signpost article, and should not be interpreted as a finished piece. Its content is subject to review by the editorial team and ultimately by JPxG, the editor in chief. Please do not link to this draft as it is unfinished and the URL will change upon publication. If you would like to contribute and are familiar with the requirements of a Signpost article, feel free to be bold in making improvements!
| ||||
YOUR ARTICLE'S DESCRIPTIVE TITLE HERE
A monthly overview of recent academic research about Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects, also published as the Wikimedia Research Newsletter.
"How Wikipedia Became the Last Good Place on the Internet" - by reinterpreting NPOV and driving out pro-fringe editors
A paper[1] in the American Political Science Review
[...] shows that the English Wikipedia transformed its content over time through a gradual reinterpretation of its ambiguous Neutral Point of View (NPOV) guideline, the core rule regarding content on Wikipedia. This had meaningful consequences, turning an organization that used to lend credence and false balance to pseudoscience, conspiracy theories, and extremism into a proactive debunker, fact-checker and identifier of fringe discourse. There are several steps to the transformation. First, Wikipedians disputed how to apply the NPOV rule in specific instances in various corners of the encyclopedia. Second, the earliest contentious disputes were resolved against Wikipedians who were more supportive of or lenient toward conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, and conservatism, and in favor of Wikipedians whose understandings of the NPOV guideline were decisively anti-fringe. Third, the resolutions of these disputes enhanced the institutional power of the latter Wikipedians, whereas it led to the demobilization and exit of the pro-fringe Wikipedians. A power imbalance early on deepened over time due to disproportionate exits of demotivated, unsuccessful pro-fringe Wikipedia editors. Fourth, this meant that the remaining Wikipedia editor population, freed from pushback, increasingly interpreted and implemented the NPOV guideline in an anti-fringe manner. This endogenous process led to a gradual but highly consequential reinterpretation of the NPOV guideline throughout the encyclopedia.
The author provides ample empirical evidence supporting this description.
Content changes over time
First, "to document a transformation in Wikipedia's content," the study examined 63 articles "on topics that have been linked to pseudoscience, conspiracy theories, extremism, and fringe rhetoric in public discourse", across different areas ("health, climate, gender, sexuality, race, abortion, religion, politics, international relations, and history"). Their lead sections were coded according to a 5-category scheme "reflect[ing] varying degrees of neutrality":
- "Fringe normalization" ("The fringe position/entity is normalized and legitimized. There is an absence of criticism")
- "Teach the controversy"
- "False balance"
- "Identification of the fringe view"
- "Proactive fringe busting" ("Space is only given to the anti-fringe side whose position is stated as fact in Wikipedia’s own voice")
The results of these evaluations, tracking changes over time from 2001 to 2020, are detailed in a 110-page supplement, and summarized in the paper itself for nine of the articles (Table 1) - all of which moved over time in the anti-fringe direction.
Editor population changes over time
To explain these changes in Wikipedia's content over the years, the author used a process tracing approach to show
[...] that early outcomes of disputes over rule interpretations in different corners of the encyclopedia demobilized certain types of editors (while mobilizing others) and strengthened certain understandings of Wikipedia’s ambiguous rules (while weakening others). Over time, Wikipedians who supported fringe content departed or were ousted.
Specifically, the author "classif[ied] editors into the Anti-Fringe camp (AF) and the Pro-Fringe camp (PF)". The AF camp is described as "editors who were anti-conspiracy theories, anti-pseudoscience, and liberal", whereas the PG camp consists of "Editors who were more supportive of conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, and conservatism."
To classify editors into these two camps, the paper uses a variety of data sources, including the talk pages of the 63 articles and related discussions on noticeboards such as those about the NPOV and BLP (biographies of living persons) policies, the administrator's noticeboard, and "lists of editors brought up in arbitration committee rulings." This article-specific data was augmented by "a sample of referenda where editors are implicitly asked whether they support a pro- or anti-fringe interpretation of the NPOV guideline."
(Unfortunately, the paper's replication data does not include this editor-level classification data - in contrast to the content classifications data, which, as mentioned is rather thoroughly documented in the supplementary material. One might suspect IRB concerns, but the author "affirms this research did not involve human subjects" and it was therefore presumably not subject to IRB review.)
Tracking the contribution histories of these editors, the paper finds
The key piece of evidence is that PF members disappear over time in the wake of losses, both voluntarily and involuntarily. PF members are those who vote affirmatively for policies that normalize or lend credence to fringe viewpoints, who edit such content into articles, and who vote to defend fellow members of PF when there are debates as to whether they engaged in wrongdoing. Members of AF do the opposite.
The paper states that pro-fringe editors resorted to three choices: "fight back", "withdraw" and "acquiesce" (similar to the Exit, Voice, and Loyalty framework(.
The author hypothesizes that
The causal mechanism for the gradual disappearance is that early losses demotivated members from PF or led to their sanctioning, whereas members of AF were empowered by early victories. As exits of PF members mount across the encyclopedia, the community increasingly adopts AF’s viewpoints as the way that the NPOV guideline should be understood.
To support this interpretation, the paper presents a more qualitatively analysis of the English Wikipedia's trajectory over time:
- "Step 1: Rule Ambiguity" of the NPOV policy, which initially "allowed for inclusion of lower-quality sources, so long as they were attributed"
- "Step 2: Clashes between Camps over Rule Interpretations"
- "Step 3: Formation of a Power Asymmetry"
- "Over the course of years, AF successfully shaped how to understand the practical application of Wikipedia’s NPOV guideline. These early victories gave AF an upper hand in editing disputes ..." Here, the author highlights the role of ArbCom: "Two particularly important early arbitration rulings in the early years were the arbitration committee cases on climate change (2005) and pseudoscience (2006), which largely reaffirmed some viewpoints held by AF in those specific disputes and led to sanctions that primarily
targeted prolific PF editors p [...]"
- "Step 4: Reinterpretation of Wikipedia’s Rules". Here, the author details various aspects, e.g.
- an increased ability of "experienced editors [...[ to drive disruptive 'newcomers' away from Wikipedia and instill in newcomers’ certain understandings of how rules should be interpreted." Also
- Also, "the gradual development of a sourcing hierarchy—whereby some sources were deemed reliable, and others were deemed unreliable—created advantages for AF editors." The 2017 ban of the Daily Mail is highlighted as a milestone, followed by deprecations of various other sources (Table 2).
See also a short presentation about this paper at this year's Wikimania (where Benjamin Mako Hill called it a "great example of how political scientists are increasingly learning from us [Wikipedia]")
Briefly
- See the page of the monthly Wikimedia Research Showcase for videos and slides of past presentations.
Other recent publications
Other recent publications that could not be covered in time for this issue include the items listed below. Contributions, whether reviewing or summarizing newly published research, are always welcome.
- Compiled by ...
"..."
From the abstract:
...
"..."
From the abstract:
...
"..."
From the abstract:
...
References
- ^ Steinsson, Sverrir (2023-03-09). "Rule Ambiguity, Institutional Clashes, and Population Loss: How Wikipedia Became the Last Good Place on the Internet". American Political Science Review: 1–17. doi:10.1017/S0003055423000138. ISSN 0003-0554.
- Supplementary references and notes:
This page is a draft for the next issue of the Signpost. Below is some helpful code that will help you write and format a Signpost draft. If it's blank, you can fill out a template by copy-pasting this in and pressing 'publish changes': {{subst:Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Story-preload}}
Images and Galleries
|
|---|
To put an image in your article, use the following template (link): This will create the file on the right. Keep the 300px in most cases. If writing a 'full width' article, change
Placing (link) will instead create an inline image like below [[File:|300px|center|alt=Placeholder alt text]] CAPTION
To create a gallery, use the following to create |
Quotes
| |||
|---|---|---|---|
To insert a framed quote like the one on the right, use this template (link): If writing a 'full width' article, change
To insert a pull quote like
use this template (link):
To insert a long inline quote like
use this template (link): |
Side frames
| ||
|---|---|---|
|
Side frames help put content in sidebar vignettes. For instance, this one (link): gives the frame on the right. This is useful when you want to insert non-standard images, quotes, graphs, and the like.
A caption
For example, to insert the {{Graph:Chart}} generated by in a frame, simple put the graph code in to get the framed Graph:Chart on the right. If writing a 'full width' article, change |
Two-column vs full width styles
|
|---|
|
If you keep the 'normal' preloaded draft and work from there, you will be using the two-column style. This is perfectly fine in most cases and you don't need to do anything. However, every time you have a However, you can also fine-tune which style is used at which point in an article. To switch from two-column → full width style midway in an article, insert where you want the switch to happen. To switch from full width → two-column style midway in an article, insert where you want the switch to happen. |
Links and such
|
|---|
By the way, the template that you're reading right now is {{Editnotices/Group/Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue}}. |
Discuss this story
There is another danger that some will perceive excessive Proactive fringe busting as propaganda (especially if it becomes outdated), which may have poorly predictable consequences. Of course, due to polarization (Does Wikipedia community need to choose sides?) anything can be propaganda in one narrative or another, but still, in my opinion, nonetheless should avoid moral panics.--Proeksad (talk) 11:26, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think they could also compare the entire articles with the leads to determine where the former fall on the same 5-category scheme. That way, it can also be determined how the leads reflect the information on the entire articles. Also, they could have also compare the entire articles from different times as well to see how they changed over time on the scheme. Alfa-ketosav (talk) 18:43, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]