Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2024-01-10/WikiProject report

Readers should feel free to submit your own questions in the comments section below, as well as boldly add more background context or notable AfD examples.

The

This report touches upon the editorial processes, challenges and differences behind the WikiProjects WP:Israel and WP:Palestine in covering the most politically contentious content on English Wikipedia. Despite many editors being active in topics covered by both projects, it appears the vast majority of editors don't have a strong identification with either project.

Everything from content disputes, to

One of the earliest AfD discussions (back then known as Votes for Deletion) was for

Statistics for the mentioned AfDs was found via SQL query: Quarry 79511 (courtesy of JPxG).

Are you affiliated with either WP:Israel, WP:Palestine or both? How did you decide which project to affiliate with?

• Abo Yemen: Nope. But if I had to join one of them, it is going to be WP:Palestine as there is a shortage of Palestinian and in general, Arab-related viewpoints in these types of topics (that is what most Arabs think is the issue with English Wikipedia and why they think it is unreliable).
• Coretheapple: No, it never occurred to me. I might join both.
• Alaexis: I watch both projects' talk pages but I am not formally affiliated with either one.

What is your favorite relevant example of collaboration that neutrally weaves and identifies different viewpoints?

• current war on Gaza
  is a very good example of Wikipedian collaboration and neutrality.
• Coretheapple: Lamentably I have not encountered any in this topic area.

It is challenging for many to edit without

• Assuming good faith
  is the easiest way to make sure that my editing complies with the five pillars.
• single-purpose account
  (SPA). If you have no other interests, if you are editing purely because you want to "fix" the articles on the Gaza conflict and I/P generally, there is a good chance that you are too emotionally involved to contribute constructively, whether you intend to be constructive or not. And when I say "other interests" I mean real interests, not stuff you do so that you don't look like an SPA. Ideally editors in this area should not be editing I/P as their primary subject area, SPA or not.
• Alaexis: No one is unbiased and recognising your own biases is important. Also, I think that the beauty of a collaborative project like Wikipedia is that different editors have different biases, but as long as they are following other policies, such as assuming good faith, being civil and using reliable sources, the outcome is often quite good.

What advice would you give to editors to help them keep their

• ASSUME. GOOD. FAITH.
• Coretheapple: See my response above. Also try not to get involved in endless, circular arguments. Remember that you are not obliged to respond to every single remark addressed to you in a talk page discussion. If you believe that the articles are a subject of improper editor behavior or perhaps skewed by systemic bias, the talk pages of the articles are not a good place to give vent to your feelings.
• Alaexis: What I would add is understanding the limitations of Wikipedia, as they say, the "serenity to accept what they cannot help". Our sources have biases (also in terms of how much coverage this conflict gets compared to other ones) so at times it can feel completely unfair, but then you can either work within these limits or try to bend the rules - and the latter usually doesn't end well.
• ScottishFinnishRadish: The advice given above is pretty good. I would add that a willingness to step away from an article, or the topic as whole, if you find yourself losing your cool is an excellent trait.

Admins are not supposed to be

• Coretheapple: Not an admin, but my two cents is that I would emphasize that knowledge of the topic area is completely unnecessary, and may even be a detriment if it means forming opinions and points of view. Please help the administrators who are there now.
• WP:NOTHERE
  editors as I can. My belief is that if our processes are going to work the atmosphere has to be as calm as possible in such a contentious topic. I do spot-check sources being used from time to time, but only for the most obvious issues. Poor interpretation of sources is not the same as misrepresentation and source reliability is the province of the community, not an administrator.

The premise of Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Do you see the

• Coretheapple: Not only compatible but essential. Without them the I/P articles would be even worse than they currently are. And that's pretty bad.
• User:Alaexis: I can't see it working without some kind of mechanism limiting the activity of users who are not here to build an encyclopaedia. Without such mechanism, they would dominate the articles about controversial current events, so it's either instituting editing restrictions or not covering such events.
• WP:PAGS
  do more harm than good. The bar of 500 edits and 30 days isn't so high as to prevent good faith contributors from taking part and is essential to the functioning of our processes in this topic area.

• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Series/WikiProject reports archive