Wikipedia and Christian Abuse of Wikipedia

Wikipedia

Wikipedia is a multilingual Web-based free-content encyclopedia. It is written collaboratively by volunteers, allowing most articles to be changed by anyone with access to a web browser and an Internet connection. Wikipedia has more than 1,000,000 English-language articles. Since its inception, Wikipedia has steadily risen in popularity. Many Google searches will return a Wikipedia article at the top of the search list. Editors are required to uphold a policy of "neutral point of view".

Perhaps surprisingly, the approach of allowing anyone to edit this encyclopedia generally produces high quality articles. Quality is assured by a community of informed and enthusiastic contributors working together to produce text which is informative, objective and up-to-date. There has however been some controversy over its reliability and accuracy. A common criticism, recognized on Wikipedia itself, is manipulation by people who have a point of view to push. Christianity is recognized as a topic that is particularly prone to vitriolic disputes over points of view.

Christian Abuse of Wikipedia.

The system is open to a form of abuse for which no provision appears to be made. If a group of like-minded people work together to represent their own biased point of view, then there is little that anyone else can do to stop them. The rules concerning what happens in cases of dispute mean that a tight-knit group will win every time, however biased their views. Entries that are in the control of just such a group of dedicated Christians are the Christianity article, Criticism of Christianity article, and other related articles notably Jesus, Christian mythology, and anything connected to Evangelism.

The DWEECs have succeeded in seeing off a large number of genuine contributors covering a wide span of beliefs or lack of beliefs. These fervent Christians belong to different denominations but share certain characteristics, namely they are all Devout, Western, Educated, Ecumenical Christians - DWEECs for short.

In Wikipedia terminology the DWEECs are accused of being POV Warriors. According to Wikipedia's own definition a POV warrior is "A wiki editor who aggressively distorts coverage of certain topics to suit his/her biases despite community norms of neutrality. An affliction that especially infests Wikipedia."

DWEEC Objectives.

DWEEC objectives appear to be to maintain text which accords with their common point of view. Presumably they believe that such text will encourage innocent readers to adopt the same point of view. It is possible that the DWEECs are such zealous believers that they are genuinely unable to distinguish between their own religious ideas and a neutral point of view, but their behaviour suggests that they know exactly what they are doing. Some common themes are concerted efforts to

• minimize factual information that devout believers are known not to like (eg mention of supposedly characteristically Christian ideas and practices that can be shown to predate Christianity)
• maximize the role of Christians as innocent victims (eg as subjects of persecution)
• minimize the role of Christians as oppressors (eg as instigators of persecution, Inquisitions, witch trials, forced conversions, genocides, anti-Semitism, censorship, misogyny, homophobia etc)
• support ecumenical ideas (for example playing down schisms within Christianity)
• minimize any consideration of denominations other than their own mainstream sects (Early factions, Ebionites, Gnostics, hermetic sects, Orthodox Churches, Coptic Church, etc

Sub groups have their own agendas. For example Catholic DWEECs try to bias pages on subjects like abortion and euthenasia. Some are keen to establish that particularly unpleasant Christians from history were not Christians at all.

DWEEC Techniques.

The favourite technique is to give genuine contributors the run around, pretending to be objective and striving to be neutral, while making a series of increasingly unsustainable demands to justify the contributor's edits (eg asking for a supporting citation, then another citation, then better citations, later citations, and so on). DWEEC contributions often descend into edit wars - which is why for example the article on Christianity has been disfigured a number of warning banners and why the page needs to be locked from time to time. Some of the more accomplished DWEECs can be identified only by reviewing their activities over a long time, as they take care to conform to the letter of the rules and to be extremely polite to their victims.

If any edit does not accord with the DWEEC's point of view they will find ways of subverting it. Depending on the circumstances they will use different techniques and it is noticeable that different DWEECs have their own personal favorites. None of these individual actions is in itself against any rule. The giveaway is finding a series of increasingly implausible reasons for refusing to accept an edit. The following techniques appear to be the most popular:

• DWEECs will ask for a citation, however little it is needed (for example however widely known or readily verifiable the point in question)
• if a citation is provided the DWEECs will question it on any vaguely plausible grounds (eg the source is too obscure, known to be partisan, not from an expert in this particular field, now out-of-date, recently discredited, and so on)
• if several points are made or if several citations are provided, DWEECs will concentrate on the one they think the most vulnerable. By purporting to refuting that one they will take the opportunity to ignore all of the others. Even if only one small point is disputed, whole paragraphs of edits that they don't like will be removed.
• DWEECs will generally stick rigidly to the letter of the rules but consistently ignore the spirit. For example they will be polite and remind the victim of the need to put the best possible interpretation on their own actions. At the same time they will take every opportunity to misinterpret what is said.
• DWEECs consistently apply a double standard - requiring impeccable citations for edits that do not accord with their views, but consistently declining to provide comparable citations themselves.
• If one member of the DWEECs sees a fellow DWEEC running out of ammunition in a discussion, they will step in to help using an entirely new technique, effectively putting the victim back to square one and having to closely argue the case again. This can happen several times until the victim gives up.
• DWEECs will attack contributions that they do not like - however neutral - as representing a Point of View.
• DWEECs will twist any rule that they can. A good example is the Wikipedia rule that states that original research should not be included. This has been used to justify the most absurd rejections of new text which cannot possibly be genuinely regarded as original research.
• Generally as a last resort, DWEECs will claim that the article is too long as it stands and that this particular contribution is too detailed or that it would fit better elsewhere

Contact

if anyone is aware of any factual inaccuracies in any of the above or has additional relevant information,
please e-mail comments & suggestions.

It has been suggested that we compile some case studies, so any contributions for those would be particularly welcomed.

We would also welcome any insights into DWEEC behaviour and techniques (many thanks to the contributor who pointed out AnnH's practice of pretending to go on Wikibreaks immediately after blocking users on bogus pretexts)