Ethical Management of the English Language Wikipedia/BLP, Ottava Rima's investigation

From Wikiversity

This is related to the general topic of ethics concerning BLPs, or Biographies of Living People, at the English Wikipedia. Within such a field, there are legal and ethical concerns that must be addressed.

In particularly, this study project will examine and review the identification of an individual as aligned with a philosophical group. To narrow this down, we shall narrow this further to an examination of scientists or researchers with the "Intelligent Design" movement and the possible negative implications and/or prejudice that can result from this.

As an example, we shall focus on the Rosalind Picard case as an instance of an individual who has not openly identified themselves within the movement, but have been described as part of it by others who are critical overall of the Intelligent Design movement.

This section is for research by Ottava Rima [edit]

BLP and group membership [edit]

A BLP, or Biography of a Living Person, tends to contain personal information that describes various view points. These may range from any topic, and could be based on primary sourcing, independent sourcing, or from "general knowledge". Information that could be deemed as "controversial", or disagreed upon, is not allowed to exist within a BLP if it is from "general knowledge".

However, sometimes controversial knowledge, when sourced, could encourage readers to view that individual as having a "black mark". Some users wish to highlight it so that all coming to the page could potentially see that black mark. This can be further compounded by emphasis on the negative connotations of that information, or giving "undue weight" to the topic in order to make it appear as if the subject of the biography is known for the topic or that the topic has a strong importance in their life.

Study Questions

• 1. What are the ethical concerns in regards to "marking" a biography with something that is viewed by a set of individuals as a negative?
• 2. Does Wikipedia have the right to "out" individuals as members of various political, philosophical, or theological movements and would this "outting" be considered original research?
• 3. How much involvement does the subject of the BLP deserve in regards to adding/removing/discussing group membership?

Intelligent Design as a black mark [edit]

A scientist is an individual who is supposed to research into the universe to try and find answers. They are supposed to be objective and they are supposed to rely on evidence. However, some view that faith could lack any empirical evidence, and is unscientific. Still further, some scientists take this to mean that anything but utter atheism could be viewed as prejudicial and unscientific.

Advocates and proponents of this belief tend to believe that it is an "us versus them" situation in which they are threatened by the existence of faith. They believe that faith could either be used to discriminate against them (the defensive response), or that their scientific atheism cannot tolerate the existence of faith within science (the offensive response). Thus, they use faith as a black mark.

The idea of creationism, meaning practically anything by its vague use and lack of a substantial definition, but primarily defined as an Evangelical Christian belief that the Bible is literally true including the amount of days passing since creation, has been seen as a negative within the overarching scientific community. Although creationists can easily rationalize any evidence, such as dinosaurs or evolutionary forces, as being within God's power to create instantaneously, it has boiled down into an "us versus them" situation of God versus atheism, with neither side wanting to "lose".

A later branch defined as an off-spring of creationism, by those opponents of creationism, is intelligent design. This term is more vague than creationism, and any hint that there is a maker could be easily lumped in as such. Thus, anyone who could be connected to intelligent design is then made out to connect to creationism, and then made out to be the opponent of science. Although it is only a tiny part of science, such an affront on one part of science is seen as an affront on all science, and this is seen as an affront against "logic" and "reason", two components claimed by science in the modern era while ignoring their origins within philosophy and theology. By claiming that believers of intelligent design are unable to accept logic and reason, they then cast doubts on the individual proponents of intelligent design as being able to be effective scientists or researchers.

Thus, intelligent design is used as a black mark to disparage potential proponents of the oppositional belief structure.

Study Questions

• 1. Can a situation truly be boiled down to "us versus them" or is doing this creating two false extremes that deny the human reality of a "gray" area?
• 2. Does boiling down of individuals into polar opposites negate the ability to analysis their true beliefs objectively?
• 3. Is it Wikipedia's responsibility to describe an individual belief in the nuances that the individual feels is necessary, or is it appropriate to instead generalize about their belief into simpler categories in which outsiders can easily identify them with a larger group that they may or may not actually belong to?

Rosalind Picard [edit]

The Rosalind Picard BLP involves a computer researcher who studies the way robots "think". She is award winning researcher and a notable professor. She has spent her whole life trying to figure out how knowledge operates and how our ability to assess emotions play into our ability to understand of others.

However, she signed a petition that was later used by proponents of Intelligent Design to say that scientists were against "Darwin". Darwin, i.e. the originator of modern evolutionary theory (Charles, not his grandfather Erasmus Darwin who propagated a similar belief that paralleled biological evolution with the evolutionary changes of religion and society), is set up as being attacked. Opponents of Intelligent Design feel that Darwin represents the best way to say that there is no God, as "natural" forces could be set up without a "Creator", in a sort of self-contained infinite loop that would not necessitate any form of higher power. Thus, Darwin becomes the central front of the "us versus them" battle ground.

In order to ensure that Intelligent Design is appropriately "blackmarked", Picard, with all others on the list, were given a place within the category "Intelligent Design movement" and included within the Intelligent Design wikiproject, a project created to establish that Intelligent Design is not "scientific". Thus, one signature becomes the origin of her notability.

Before the page was expanded, her only information provided was over that one signature. Some felt that she was not notable if that signature information was removed, thus establishing the belief that the signature makes the individual notable within a community that they are philosophically opposed.

After the page was expanded, there was problems over wording. One instance involved the statement of her signature on the petition further aligning the signature with the Intelligent Design movement. That sentence reads as follows:

Picard is one of the signatories of the Discovery Institute's A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism, a controversial petition which the intelligent design movement uses to promote intelligent design by attempting to cast doubt on evolution.

Thus, we have "Picard", "signature", "controversial", and "promote intelligent design". This can easily be read as "Picard promotes intelligent design". Further words, such as "attempting to" ensures that "intelligent design" is seen as a failing movement, which makes it seem that Picard's promotion failed. Not only has Picard gained a black mark, she has failed at her objective, an objective that appears to a casual observer as nefarious. Picard, however, has never stated that she supported the Intelligent Design movement, nor does she feel that being labeled in such a way is true.

Study Question

• 1. When does emphasis change how a reader views a BLP and does it affect how one percieves the individual as a whole?
• 2. Is it appropriate to link individuals to a group based on a related but not direct connections?
• 3. Does the individual in question's statement trump evidence provided and what level of evidence is necessary in order to overcome the individual's profession of the opposite?

Other editors comments here [edit]

Comments by Moulton [edit]

Proposed revisions to the intial three paragraphs of Rosalind Picard, above:

The Rosalind Picard BLP involves a researcher who studies "Affective Computing" — computing that relates to, arises from, or deliberately influences emotion and other affective phenomena. She has devoted her academic career trying to figure out how good reasoning processes operate and how the ability to recognize, assess, interpret and respond to emotions plays into our ability to understand and relate to others.

However, she signed a statement that was later used by some proponents of Intelligent Design to claim that many scientists were against the ideas of Charles Darwin, the originator of modern evolutionary theory. Opponents of Intelligent Design feel that Darwin represents the best way to say that there is no God, as "natural" forces could be set up without a "Creator", in a sort of self-contained infinite loop that would not necessitate any form of higher power. Thus, to support or oppose Darwin becomes the central front of the "us versus them" battleground.

In order to ensure that Intelligent Design is sufficiently denigrated, Picard, with all others who signed the same statement, was classified within the category "Intelligent Design movement" and included within the scope of the Intelligent Design WikiProject, a project created to establish that Intelligent Design is not "scientific." Thus, one signature becomes the origin of her notability.

Let us turn next to this sentence in Picard's BLP:

The above sentence, which was laboriously synthesized by Guettarda (Ian Ramjohn), has two problems with it that applies not just to Picard, but to 103 scientists, academics, and researchers all of whom signed the same statement in 2001, prior to its first publication in the national press. To review the problem, please see this blog article from May 19, 2008: What Is the Name Of This Problem?.

Moulton 20:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Ottava Rima's Nine Questions [edit]

• 1. What are the ethical concerns in regards to "marking" a biography with something that is viewed by a set of individuals as a negative?

It is libelous to cast an identifiable person in a negative light by knowingly publishing false and defamatory statements. The allied editors of the WikiProject on Intelligent Design were informed time and again, on multiple occasions, over a period of more than two years, that their claims about Picard were in error and unsupported by reliable evidence or sound reasoning. They willfully ignored and disregarded this information and advice, which came initially from the subject of the BLP herself, and then from me, and ultimately from a number of otherwise impartial observers. Among the stubborn editors who insisted on publishing false and defamatory claims about Picard and dozens of other academics, scholars, and researchers are two who have identified themselves in the pages of Wikipedia as working in academia in scientific disciplines. At least one such editor has a Ph.D. in Ecology and is on the faculty of a major American university in the Department of Botany and Microbiology. While many of the allied editors in the WikiProject on Intelligent Design can be excused for not being trained in the Scientific Method, those who have advanced degrees in scientific fields have no excuse for both a lamentable lapse of ethics and a shocking disregard for adherence to the protocols of the Scientific Method.

• 2. Does Wikipedia have the right to "out" individuals as members of various political, philosophical, or theological movements and would this "outing" be considered original research?

The publication of haphazard theories of mind purporting to reveal an individual's otherwise unpublished desires, beliefs, intentions, or pretensions of knowledge, is an especially problematic practice among some Wikipedians. This unethical practice is especially infuriating when done in a manner that contradicts published statements by the subject, forthrightly articulating their desires, beliefs, intentions, or pretensions of knowledge.

• 3. How much involvement does the subject of the BLP deserve in regards to adding/removing/discussing group membership?

When one of the erratic editors, hiding behind a pseudonymous screen name, privately contacts the subject of the BLP and then denies receiving a response from her contradicting his public statements on Wikipedia, and also seeks to quash and redact the publication of the incontrovertible evidence of his embarrassing error, one is left wondering what kind of leadership would permit such an egregious lapse of professionalism at the Internet's seventh most visited website (which advertises itself as an authentic online encyclopedia, operating as a tax exempt educational enterprise publishing the "sum of all knowledge").

• 4. Can a situation truly be boiled down to "us versus them" or is doing this creating two false extremes that deny the human reality of a "gray" area?

The subject of the BLP herself, in a journalistic interview cited in the BLP, has noted the disservice of such false dichotomies. There is overwhelming evidence (most dramatically offered by Nathan Salthe, David Berlinski, and James Tour) that one can sign the statement in question whilst being skeptical of any and all theories (and even sneeringly dismissive of Intelligent Design as lacking in both explanatory and predictive power).

• 5. Does boiling down of individuals into polar opposites negate the ability to analyze their true beliefs objectively?

Before one can even examine someone's true beliefs for correspondence with the ground truth, one must accurately apprehend their true beliefs. The allied editors of the WikiProject on Intelligent Design demonstrated time and again their astonishing failure to become informed of the true beliefs of the subjects whom they were writing about.

• 6. Is it Wikipedia's responsibility to describe an individual belief in the nuances that the individual feels is necessary, or is it appropriate to instead generalize about their belief into simpler categories in which outsiders can easily identify them with a larger group that they may or may not actually belong to?

When beliefs about controversial ideas carry as much political gravitas as they do in the case at hand, the editors have an ethical duty to invite the subject to present their nuanced beliefs in their own carefully crafted words, so as to avoid any possibility of mischaracterizing the subject in such a devastating manner.

• 7. When does emphasis change how a reader views a BLP and does it affect how one perceives the individual as a whole?

The emphasis of the allied editors of the WikiProject on Intelligent Design is unmitigated character assassination, unsupported by reliable evidence or sound reasoning, and utterly devoid of normative journalistic ethics.

• 8. Is it appropriate to link individuals to a group based on related but not direct connections?

Associating individuals who make similar sounding statements in otherwise unrelated contexts is the stuff comedic drama, such as that popularized by Shakespeare and Molière.

• 9. Does the individual in question's statement trump evidence provided and what level of evidence is necessary in order to overcome the individual's profession of the opposite?

There wasn't a shred of credible evidence from a single reliable source to support the false and defamatory content in Picard's BLP, full stop.

Moulton 01:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments by JWSchmidt [edit]

• 1. What are the ethical concerns in regards to "marking" a biography with something that is viewed by a set of individuals as a negative?

In the Picard case, the article was created by someone who had adopted the unwarranted assumption that since Picard had agreed with a two sentence statement that, "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged," and her name was used by the discovery institute's "dissent from Darwin" publicity campaign, she should be marked in Wikipedia with the label "Intelligent Design Support". Clearly, a scientist who agrees with this two sentence statement does not automatically deserve the label "Intelligent Design Support" on their Wikipedia biography page. A team of Wikipedia editors has persistently insisted on their right to make this false assumption, even when others have explained their error. Rather than listen to and learn from other editors who have pointed out their error, this misguided team of Wikipedia editors has accused those who seek to correct the error of trying to "white wash" the Picard article. The ethical concerns raised by this case are several. Teams of poorly informed and abusive editors can claim ownership of Wikipedia articles and use them as platforms to push their agenda and biased points of view, effectively blocking out other good-faith editors who try to correct the errors that the team has introduced into Wikipedia, all in explicit violation to Wikipedia policy. The raises the larger issue of the over all management of Wikipedia....is Wikipedia mismanaged and out of control?

• 2. Does Wikipedia have the right to "out" individuals as members of various political, philosophical, or theological movements and would this "outting" be considered original research?

The standards should be high. When there is no previously published, professionally researched and edited biography on the subject, Wikipedia editors are in danger of performing erroneous original research and giving undue weight to a particular part of the subject's life, as in the Picard case. This problem is already addressed in Wikipedia policy. The problem in this case came when a team of editors took ownership of the article and prevented other editors from correcting the error.

• 3. How much involvement does the subject of the BLP deserve in regards to adding/removing/discussing group membership?

Wikipedia policy gives subjects of biographies the right to remove false claims from their biographies. The problem in this case came when a team of editors took ownership of the article and prevented the subject of the biography from correcting the error.

• 4. Can a situation truly be boiled down to "us versus them" or is doing this creating two false extremes that deny the human reality of a "gray" area?

In this case the polarized "science vs non-science" warrior mentality adopted by the team of Wikipedia editors who claimed ownership of the article was a symptom of their POV-warrior approach to editing. Rather than follow policy, this team of editors has relentlessly pushed their misguided POV in violation of Wikipedia policy.

• 5. Does boiling down of individuals into polar opposites negate the ability to analysis their true beliefs objectively?

In this case the team of Wikipedia editors who claimed ownership of the article was unable to doubt their own mis-guided assumptions and uninterested in doing the research required to make the Picard biography balanced. All they wanted to do was label Picard as with negative labels such as "anti-science". My reading of the edit history suggests to me that this was done (by some members of the the team of Wikipedia editors who claimed ownership of the article) with apparent malice and destructive intent aimed at having an impact on her career as a scientist.

• 6. Is it Wikipedia's responsibility to describe an individual belief in the nuances that the individual feels is necessary, or is it appropriate to instead generalize about their belief into simpler categories in which outsiders can easily identify them with a larger group that they may or may not actually belong to?

Wikipedia policy is explicit on this point. Editors of BLP articles are clearly warned to use the highest degree of care to get things absolutely correct when dealing with negative information. In this case the team of Wikipedia editors who claimed ownership of the article has demonstrated over a prolonged period of time a complete lack of interest in creating a carefully balanced and accurate article. Rather, they have systematically disrupted and blocked the efforts of other editors to fix the problems in the article.

• 7. When does emphasis change how a reader views a BLP and does it affect how one percieves the individual as a whole?

One need only spend a short time looking at the orchestrated effort to misrepresent Picard's beliefs that has -and continues to this day- been exerted by the team of Wikipedia editors who claimed ownership of the article. This team knows they have "a weak case" against Picard, so they never fail to make new efforts to shadow her comments and place her views in a negative light....its a classic case of relentless POV-pushing. Yes, it certainly had negtive consequences both for the subject of the Wikipedia biography and also for the reputation of Wikipedia.

• 8. Is it appropriate to link individuals to a group based on a related but not direct connections?

If the link is meaningfully related to the subjects notability and can be done by citing multiple sources then it can be appropriate. In controversial cases with potential negative impact on the subject, such links should probably have been discussed previously in biographical works published by multiple reputable biographical sources.

• 9. Does the individual in question's statement trump evidence provided and what level of evidence is necessary in order to overcome the individual's profession of the opposite?

For relatively unknown subjects who have not been previously researched and published in reputable professional biographies, I think there should be an "opt-out" process by which they can prevent Wikipedia from having a biographical article about them when it can be shown that Wikipedia has, in the past, failed to produce an accurate biography. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a scandal sheet. Also, I think that editors who work on BLPs should take responsibility, and be held responsible, for the errors and biases that they introduce into Wikipedia (see discussion of proposals).