Wikipedia and Christian Abuse of Wikipedia

Some Observations on Wikipedia's weaknesses.

There are a number of weaknesses on Wikipedia. Here are some of them along with suggestions as to what might be done to eliminate them.

Special Intrest groups pushing Points of view.

As Wikipedia itself accepts this seems to happen extensively, most notably on pages dealing with religious views. The problem is essentially the same for all Asymetric Controversies

Suggestions

Take particularly contentious pages out of the public domain and ask experienced editors to rewrite and maintain them

alternatively,

Appoint a panel of such editors to monitor any proposed edits

Process against accused editors

Editors may be banned for various offences, but the process is badly flawed - roughly on a par with the Medieval Inquisition - no properly formulated charges, a presumption of guilt, no opportunity to mount a proper defence or call witnesses, acceptance of hostile witnesses, no requirement for interested parties to declare an interest.

Here are just a few of the problems.

• Despite the supposed requirement to put the best interpretation on actions and given the benefit of the doubt. Some Administrators often fail to do this - assuming guilt rather than establishing guilt.
• Admins who ban editors are not required to formulate an accusation that can be proved or refuted. Even if it is, in some cases an accusation has been refuted, but the ban has been enforced anyway. In some cases the allegation changes until one is found that cannot be refuted.
• Admins are able to ban editors with whom they are themselves in dispute. They act as prosecution, judge, jury and court of appeal - not only with a personal interest but also no obligation to declare it.
• There do not appear to be any rules of evidence. For example extraneous information is often presented - how many edits the editor has made, or what someone else has done, or what other unsubstaniated accusations have been made.
• There does not appear to be any guidance on the burden of proof - is it beyond all doubt, beyond resonable doubt, balance of probabilities, a well-founded suspicion, any suspicion, or what ?
• There is no clear process to consider the case for and against an accused editor. While a banned editor is restricted to putting his case on his own talk page, hostile Admins can, and often do, put their cases on other pages, often without even mentioning it to the accused. An accused editor often has no idea what options are available to them or what is being claimed about them or when a decision is due to be made.

Suggestions, all based on natiral law

Assume innocence rather than guilt

Make explicit the burden of proof and apply it consistency.

Require accusations to be made clearly, so that they can be either proved or disproved. Do not allow subsequent changes to the accusation.

Prohibit unsubstantiated collateral accusations (eg "associates with so-and-so", or "is though to be sockpuppet")

Prohibit administrators from banning or blocking users in cases where they have a personal interest

Require anyone commenting on a proposed ban or block to declare if they have a personal interest (eg have been involved in an edit war or earlier dispute)

Provide accused editors with a clear explanation of what is alleged against them, and what options are available to them. (this does not currently happen, when for example an editor's user page is deleted)

Require all consideration of the case to be made on a single page, clearly identified, to which the accused editor has write access.