The Signpost

Featured content

Wikipedia rivals The New Yorker: Mark Arsten

Contribute  —  
Share this
By Crisco 1492
This edition covers content promoted between 19 and 25 August 2012
This week the Signpost interviews Mark Arsten, who has written or contributed significantly to ten featured articles; most have related to new religious movements (NRMs), and some have touched on other controversial or quirky topics. Mark gives us a rundown on how he keeps neutral and what drives him to write featured content; he also gives some hints for aspiring writers.

On editing and featured content
Like most of us, I read Wikipedia articles for some time before I began editing. In my view, one of the best parts of Wikipedia is accessibility. I recall digging around the library back in college having a really hard time trying to find references for the papers I was writing. Having easy access to a quality article with a solid reference section would have made things much easier for me. I became fascinated by the unusual articles on Wikipedia, and that's what led to my registration and writing for the project. It's great to be able to read a comprehensive, well-written article on a strange topic without having to buy a copy of The New Yorker or Harper's. One example is the Museum of Bad Art, which I visited after learning about it through Wikipedia. I've been able to write some decent articles on unusual topics myself, like the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement, and it feels great to have been able to give other readers that same experience.

If I try to work on a boring topic, I'll never be able to finish the project. Take sand for example—I'd hate to do hours and hours of research on a sandy topic. To bring an article up to featured status takes a long time, so when I started attempting to bring articles to featured status I realized I'd have to find subjects that would keep my interest. I settled on NRMs, which I find very interesting. There's usually a mix of heroes, villains, and mystery in them—and in many cases the founders are morally ambiguous. In addition, several NRMs have cosmologies that make most science fiction seem unimaginative; Martin Gardner once said that The Urantia Book (whose publisher I've written about) is a work that "outrivals in fantasy the cosmology of any science-fiction work known".

On neutrality

Writing about the lynching of Jesse Washington was an occasion that required strict adherence to Wikipedia's neutrality policy, Mark says.

When writing about NRMs, you have to avoid the temptation to try to make a point about the group. With most NRMs there are some people who want to make a point that the group is an evil cult or a scam, while there are others who want to communicate that it's objectively no stranger/more evil than established religions or that it genuinely helps people. So you have to strike a balance between the Rick Ross or South Park viewpoint on one side, and the militant universalist viewpoint or the public relations people on the other.

In general, the best way to stay neutral is to use neutral sources. Ensuring that an article is well cited to clear, unbiased sources is the foundation. After that, feedback is very important. It's hard to realize all of your mistakes but somewhat easy to notice the mistakes of others. I'm always surprised by how many issues people can find in what I thought was the "perfect version" of an article. In many cases, others will notice small issues with my wording that never would have occurred to me. Also, an important consideration when working with controversial topics is whether you can achieve a sort of distance from the issue. For example, it would have been harder for me to write neutrally about Trayvon Martin than Jesse Washington, even though Washington's death was far more barbaric.

There are definitely some topics I consider to be "untouchable". The primary reason I'd avoid a topic is the involvement of other editors that would make it difficult for me. My goal is usually to improve the sourcing/comprehensiveness/prose of an article and bring it to GA or FA. There are some editors whose goal is to make sure the article exactly matches their point of view. Having dealt with some of them, I've realized that life is easier and more enjoyable when I stay away from such people. A general rule of thumb is that if an Arbcom case has been named after the article, you want to keep your distance.

On participating at FAC
The most important thing a newcomer to the featured article process should do is to get help from others. A lot of the time in the featured article candidates (FAC) forum, we see articles with issues that should have been taken care of before their nomination. These articles are time-consuming for reviewers; but more importantly, the nominator often becomes discouraged by seeing their article fail. What newcomers need to do is approach users who have experience with the FA process and ask for help. It's not fun to beg for help, but it's more fun than watching an article fail. In my experience, most people who take part in the FA process are very relaxed and good-natured, and I think some of the nicest people on the project work at FAC: a community of brilliant people who are interested in producing quality work. So I recommend you find active reviewers and writers, and harass them mercilessly until they help you—get advice on sourcing, neutrality, prose, MOS, everything. A lot of people think that the featured article standards are too difficult and don't make an effort to get involved with the FA process, but with enough help, almost any committed writer can produce a featured article.


SMS König Albert
British actor Peter Sellers
American singer Kelly Clarkson; her discography is now featured.
A European Robin
An Aporia crataegi specimen

Eight featured articles were promoted this week:

Five featured lists were promoted this week:

Three featured pictures were promoted this week:

One featured portal was promoted this week:

One featured topic was promoted this week:

An Italian Tree Frog, a new featured picture
+ Add a comment

Discuss this story

These comments are automatically transcluded from this article's talk page. To follow comments, add the page to your watchlist. If your comment has not appeared here, you can try purging the cache.
  • Quote: "A general rule of thumb is that if an Arbcom case has been named after the article, you want to keep your distance". This isn't ideal for Wikipedia, but it's a way to live on Wikipedia. You don't want to lose your time, but you want to built something nice with your time instead. Seniors with lil' free time don't accept well kid's free time vandalism wasting their voluntary effort. Maybe that's why German Wikipedia accepts pending changes and English Wikipedia with editors under 25 years old don't accept it. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 14:31, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well put. This is a serious problem, good editors being turned away from editing contentious articles. I still don't get why Pending Changes isn't used on English Wikipedia. --Chriswaterguy talk 15:01, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't get it, you haven't read the debates. Even if you disagree, to pretend that there aren't valid, well explained viewpoints on the other side is disingenuous. You could learn a bit about neutrality from the interview above. Sven Manguard Wha? 14:31, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm just thinking loudly as these facts aren't ideal, these problems might get bigger:
  • Interesting articles get many editors. Many editors generate controversies that might end up in a Arbcom.
  • I got the impression that the german speaking people on de.wikipedia are on average older than the english speaking people on en.wikipedia.
  • I got the impression that german speaking public schools might be better than english speaking public schools.
  • The economic crisis might get worse, changing the number of people online. This might change the proportion of vandals online to editors online.
All this might be improved after some thought, hopefully. Cheers --Chris.urs-o (talk) 15:16, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]



       

The Signpost · written by many · served by Sinepost V0.9 · 🄯 CC-BY-SA 4.0