Grants talk:IdeaLab/Intellectual Honesty Campaign

Questions

I like the idea of holding roundtable sessions where people discuss hot button topics with people from a wide variety of backgrounds and education. The problem, however, lies in how this will necessarily help intellectual honesty on Wikipedia. We're pretty limited on how much Wikipedia can impact how the media covers various topics and when it comes to articles, we're limited in what we can add and how we can describe things. In other words, if all we have are sources that describe an object as resembling an orange, then we're kind of forced to put in an article that an object had many of the same features as an orange. Basically, we're limited by what sourcing is available as far as justifying what has an entry and what belongs in an article.

What you're kind of asking for is for Wikipedia to take more of an aggressive role in how certain topics are covered. It's an interesting premise and I like the idea of going out and trying to get more people engaged in Wikipedia. However I'm kind of leery about Wikipedia engaging in research projects. It's not that I don't think it should happen, more that this is something that would have to be handled very, very carefully because then one could argue that Wikipedia is trying to create research that would back any prevailing bias that could exist, especially if the topic is controversial since Wikipedia tends to stay on the safe side with stuff like that.

I think that this idea has a lot of merit and goes well with some of what WikiMedia is already doing, but I would like to have some examples of intellectual dishonesty on Wikipedia and how you think that this could be helped by discussing it via panels or by research. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:45, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

• Basically, Wikipedia doesn't really set out to be a news maker or truth changer and they're less likely to take part in anything that would take a more active role in that regard. Here's how they like to operate in a nutshell:

Raising awareness of female scientists by encouraging people to find available sources and write articles on Wikipedia - OK and currently happens.

Raising awareness of the reasons for fewer female scientists by creating research or creating a bigger discussion on the topic - less likely to happen.

The reason for this is that it might actually run the risk of making things less transparent on Wikipedia, as people would question whether or not a topic is really neutrally covered on Wikipedia if the encyclopedia is creating its own research. I'm not saying that Wikipedia will never think about going in that direction, just that this is going to be a difficult area to go into because it has to be done so carefully. My recommendation is this:

Write an overview of what exactly you mean by intellectual honesty with examples of what you believe is an example of a media fed bias. Follow this up with an example of how a Wikipedia roundtable discussion could help make the content more neutral. The tricky part of this is that you must also discuss how to combat any concerns that Wikipedia is trying to affirm a pre-existing bias. Give examples of how you can bring more academics into the fray and a general overview.

The main gist is that you'll need to show examples of what you mean and how you can help lessen any concerns that may pop up. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 20:15, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

The power of Wikipedia is that anyone can contribute to it

The power of Wikipedia is that anyone can contribute to it. It is important that we do not limit contributors to those who have had the luxury to pay for years of conventional tertiary education. We should not be focused on excluding those who create false content but instead be working on making the majority of people "professionals," able to contribute meaningfully to content, regardless of their background. --AaronEJ (talk) 17:22, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

• I was concerned at that as well, but I took it to mean that he just wants more academics to come to Wikipedia, not that only academics should proofread articles. If he means something closer to what you're saying then I agree with what you wrote - Wikipedia's allure is that it's a place where anyone can edit. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 20:16, 3 February 2017 (UTC)