This article contains a video that you can see also here. To support more videos like this, head over to patreon.com/rebecca!
Thanks to a recent issue of Wikipedia’s Signpost newsletter, I heard about a really interesting study on Wikipedia itself. I often talk about how social media and other websites fail to moderate users, leading to a proliferation of sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, or other hateful content. Reddit, for example, has an upvote/downvote system that rewards “edgy” humor and bland, toxic thoughts from an average 12-year-old, unless the subreddit is moderated by serious people about their work. Their… unpaid jobs.
So it’s interesting that while Reddit, Twitter, and Facebook continue to bleed into their inevitable descent into the sewers, Wikipedia only seems to be getting better. It’s also entirely written and edited by random internet users, so why doesn’t it end up looking like Nazi graffiti on dive bar toilets?
GOOD, in March, a political scientist decided to answer this question. Well, in a way, that’s the question I’m interested in, but as a political scientist, Sverrir Steinsson wanted to challenge an existing political maxim that stable institutions only change radically due to external factors. He demonstrated that Wikipedia, in contrast, evolved over the years due almost entirely to internal changes: namely, users who left because they didn’t get what they wanted.
So first, how does Wikipedia work? You may know that any anonymous user can create an account and edit an article, and other users can then undo that edit. But Wikipedia prevents this from creating an eternal edit war over every “controversial” page through the use of several dispute resolution mechanisms: First, there are three main “rules” that can determine which edit is preferred. The content should not be original research but supported by previous research, it should be verifiable so readers can always check the sources of everything, and it should be presented from a “neutral point of view”, which will be important later. If the dispute persists, users can appeal to a larger group of editors to intervene, or escalate it to a smaller group of elected administrators on the “Administrators Noticeboard” or to arbitrators within the “Arbitration Committee”. These higher-level users can make the final decisions, and this is where we see positive changes on Wikipedia.
Steinsson focuses on the “neutral point of view” rule, because it is quite vague and causes the most controversy: it means “to represent fairly, proportionately and, to the extent possible, without editorial bias, all significant opinions which have been published. by reliable sources on a subject. But let’s take homeopathy: does a neutral point of view mean that some people think it’s real medicine and others don’t? This is neutral, but it is also misleading, because no serious researcher or doctor in the world thinks that homeopathy is real medicine. A more accurate statement would be “homeopathy is a pseudoscience”, but proponents of homeopathy would say that it is not “neutral”.
And by the way, the last time I mentioned homeopathy in a video, I got a few requests for an overview video, so if you’re wondering what’s the deal with homeopathy, I did a complete video on this subject that you can watch directly. NOW!
The Homeopathy Wiki page happens to be one of 63 articles reviewed by Steinsson because of their focus on “pseudoscience, conspiracy theories, extremism, and fringe rhetoric in public discourse.”
He carefully examined the history of each article over time, and at the end of each year he evaluated each article on how they approached the idea of neutrality when it came to fringe positions:
Category 1 was “Marginal normalization: the marginal position/entity is normalized and legitimized.” There is an absence of criticism.
2. Teach controversy: the marginal position/entity is presented as a subject of active scientific or political controversy (A says X, B says Y).
3. False balance: The manager emphasizes the expertise, credibility, evidence and arguments of the anti-marginal side (e.g., “some scientists say”, “some medical organizations say”), but the pro-marginal always gets space to rebut.
4. Identification of the marginal point of view: the leader emphasizes the legitimacy and overwhelming number of people who make up the anti-marginal side (e.g., the “scientific consensus,” “the scientific community”), but a Place is always given to the pro- fringe side.
5. Proactive fight against fringes: Space is only given to the anti-fringe camp whose position is stated as fact by Wikipedia’s own voice. Evidence supporting the anti-marginal position is presented, while the flaws of the pro-marginal perspective are highlighted.
So here’s an example of what happened to the homeopathy page over time: it was created in 2001, and from then until 2006 it was described as a “controversial system of alternative medicine”, which Steinsson categorizes as “teaching controversy.”
In 2006, context was added to say that there was “a lack of convincing scientific evidence supporting its effectiveness”, that it was “considered pseudoscience” and, in the words of a 1998 medical journal , it is “placebo therapy at best and quackery at worst.” worse.” It’s a “false balance.” Better, but not great.
In 2013, it was amended to read “the scientific community considers homeopathy a sham” and “homeopathy is considered a pseudoscience.” So close ! They identified the marginal view as marginal.
Eventually, in 2015, it was amended to read “Homeopathy is a pseudoscience.” The proactive fight against fringes is declared as fact by Wikipedia’s own voice.
There have been similar developments for pages such as vaccine hesitancy, conversion therapy, race and intelligence, and the “Lost Cause of the Confederacy,” the white supremacist myth that Civil War wasn’t really about slavery.
To understand why this happened, Steinsson looked at the editors who were making the changes. He categorized them as pro-marginal or anti-marginal, then followed them to see what happened to them over time and whether they continued to be active on the site long-term. What he discovered was that in Wikipedia’s early years, conflicts between pro-marginal and anti-marginal users tended to resolve in favor of antis, which caused a ripple effect in which pro-marginal editors got frustrated and either left the site. voluntarily or gave rise to their sanction.
Over the years, this led to an imbalance of power in favor of anti-marginal publishers, who stuck around and used their longer publishing experience to be elected trustees. They were then able to institute new guidelines including requiring better sources for topics like medicine, thereby establishing a hierarchy of sources that worked even further against the pro-marginal camp.
Again, he explains all this in terms of political institutions, but it initially interested me as a critical thinker who supported other critical thinkers who prioritized editing pro-content. marginal on Wikipedia since the early 2000s. And second, it interests me as a case study for how other sites might prevent the proliferation of extremists. The bad news is that in this case, success is due to immediate and early action that tips the scales in favor of rationality. So it’s probably too late for Reddit or Facebook. It’s definitely too late for Twitter, I mean my god.
But maybe other sites, like Blue Sky and Mastodon and everything that comes after that, could learn from this. It reminds me this story by Michael B. Tageroriginally posted on Twitter where he no longer posts because of, well, the Nazis:
One time I was at a shitty crustpunk bar having a beer after work. One of those shitholes where the bartenders clearly hate you. So the bartender and I were ignoring each other when someone sat down next to me and he immediately said, “No.” to go out.”
And the guy next to me says, “Hey, I’m not doing anything, I’m a paying customer.” and the bartender looks for a bat or something under the counter and says, “Out.” now.” and the guy walks away, screaming. And he was dressed in a punk uniform, I noticed
Anyway, I asked what it was and the bartender said, “You didn’t see his vest but it was some Nazi shit.” Iron crosses and all that. You manage to recognize them.
And I was like, ohok and he continues.
“We need to nip it in the bud immediately. These guys come in and it’s always nice and polite. And you serve them because you don’t want to cause a scandal. And then they become regulars and after a while they bring a friend. And this guy is cool too.
And then THEY bring friends and friends bring friends and they stop being cool and then you realize, oh shit, it’s a Nazi bar now. And it’s too late because they’re entrenched and if you try to kick them out, they’re a PROBLEM. They must therefore be closed. »
Good on Wikipedia for immediately expelling the Nazis, conspiracy theorists and pseudoscientists and silencing them. Hopefully future websites will take note.
