Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:10, 7 October 2011

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Conservatism

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Conservatism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

WikiProject Conservatism is at its root undesirable because its scope is undefinable. The terms "conservative" and "conservatism" have been used to describe people and concepts which have flip-flopped over time between liberal and conservative. For instance, the concept of a free market, free of government restraint, was once a liberal idea but now it is part of Reagan- and Thatcher-style conservatism. Binksternet (talk) 18:49, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

• Delete. This an unusual step for a WikiProject, but it is a step that should be taken. The Project is undesirable because it cannot be defined and because it causes divisiveness rather than cooperation. Binksternet (talk) 18:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

How duplicitous you are Binksternet. You constantly troll the talkpage badgering, baiting and inciting members and then you come here and cite "divisiveness"? The only divisiveness is the disruption you constantly generate.– Lionel 20:08, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

• Speedy keep. Get back to me after you delete all other pages dealing with fashions or using titles whose meaning differs over time. The only thing divisive here is the POV nomination for deletion. The usefulness of this project is based on the needs of its self-identified users. μηδείς (talk) 18:56, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
• Delete I agree that the topic is ambiguous and therefore the scope is unclear. However, since the vast majority of articles edited by members of the project relate to modern American conservatism, I suggest that the project be re-named with that limited scope. TFD (talk) 19:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

  Then wouldn't that be a "Move" rather than a delete? KillerChihuahuaAdvice 19:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

• WikiProjects don't need a clearly defined scope. They don't have any official jurisdiction, so precisely what they claim as their domain is not really important. If there's actual evidence that the project "causes divisiveness rather than cooperation" then that needs to be presented very clearly presented in the nomination. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 19:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
• Keep The area is certainly broad enough for a WikiProject, and appears to have a range of members. Including TFD (who !votes to Delete, of all things.) Any project with over fifty members is presumably one of interest to Wikipedians. And there are a great many "broad" WikiProjects - including ones on Anarchism, LGBT, Philosophy, History, Political Culture, Bacon and many more -- this is actually one of the more limited topics as a matter of fact. In short - no reason to delete, and by convention at MfD, default to Keep. If TFD wants to rename it, then the proper place is on the WikiProject talk page, not by a !vote to delete. Note that I am not a member of any political projects at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
• You've-got-to-be-effing-kidding-me-keep - Some people are just scared of a WP that improves conservatism-related articles, I guess. Killing a WP that covers 3000+ pages helps nobody. Toa Nidhiki05 19:34, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

  Ok, Toa, why is the Cold War a conservatism-related article? How about the Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:49, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

  Any editor can tag any article for any project. Only when that article is discussed on the talk page can a determination be made whether or not it should be included. This applies to every wikiproject, not just Conservatism.– Lionel 20:40, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

• Delete or Move to WikiProject:American social conservatism. The scope of this project is unclear. Almost every article can be tagged with this project: United States Constitution (???) Cold War (??????). I don't know what is the purpose of this project, except perhaps mass canvassing? For example, for months there is a message on the top of the project and project talk page: "Southern Strategy is really biased against the Republican Party". So, I wonder, is this project dedicated to conservatism or to the Republican party and social conservatism in the United States? If you need more canvassing examples, see thread on AN/I about Militant Atheism. To conclude, this project from the start is not about conservatism (and i don't think that such project is possible because the topic is too ambiguous.--В и к и T 19:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Mass canvassing? The project has been up for 8 months and those are the 2 best examples you can come up with? Since when is a poorly worded POV check mass canvassing? And after all these months did any canvassing occurr? No.

Militant Atheism? What a lame example. A nonmember tagged the article, and a nonmenber put the notice on the wikiproject talkpage. And a member quickly deleted it. What is the problem? – Lionel 20:18, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Um, no. I am a bisexual atheist. What possible interest do I have in American social conservatism? Next you'll be saying Cain is a racist, no?μηδείς (talk) 20:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

• Keep Proposer's rationale has no foundation in policy. The scope doesn't define a project, the members do.

  The WikiProject Guideline states,

  A WikiProject is the people, not the articles or the pages that help the people work together

  The scope is fine. Certainly a Wikiproject should not be deleted because of it's scope. The Guide places far less importance on the scope than the proposer. The WikiProject Guide states:

  The statement of scope need not be elaborate or detailed...

  The only real requirement for the existence of a Wikiproject is that enough editors want it. From WP:WPPRP:

  If you already have enough interested editors willing to help with your new project, or if your project gains support from 6–12 active Wikipedians

  This project has about 55 members which is more than enough to justify existence.– Lionel 20:02, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

  Dear Lionelt, can you please explain is there some criteria for tagging articles, like here? Will you tag whole wikipedia?--В и к и T 20:15, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Since policy does not require a detailed scope, the final decision about article inclusion is determined by consensus of the members on the talk page per guideline:

A WikiProject's members have the exclusive right ... defining an article as being outside the scope of the project

• Keep This is an odd nomination, I don't see any evidence presented here that this project is causing harm to Misplaced Pages. If members of the project are misbehaving they should be sanctioned, but even if they are that's no reason to delete the project itself. Conservatism is a very broad category, so a project specifically focused on American Conservatism may make sense. However, that's an issue for the talk page, not MfD. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

The project currently has only 3410 articles. To split off American conservatism would leave behind 2 projects which would be too small to be viable. Burkean conservatism and American conservatism can both reside in the same project. – Lionel 20:46, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

• Keep No good purpose would be served by deletion. It would merely serve to tick off those who have been working to improve articles on conservatism. I would like to see the scope better defined, but until it is, there is no basis for moving to a new name. JRSpriggs (talk) 21:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
• Comment This is an active project with a number of initiatives. What will happen to the departments and resources of this project? For example this project has a portal, an incubator, and a newsletter. There is also a branch of this project on commons: WPConservatism on Commons! Should all of those be deleted too? – Lionel 21:05, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
• Comment: While I haven't signed in as a member, I've been more active in the project than most "members". I think that there is a significant problem with trying to define "conservatism" across multiple political traditions and eras. (In Russia today, the 'conservatives' are the ones who want to go back to Communism.) Some of that conflict is being discussed right now on the project talk page. I cannot support delete, because I don't think active projects should be deleted unless there are exceptional circumstances. But I do think that the scope of the project is fundamentally flawed. I endorse proposals to move, rename, or otherwise turn the bulk of the project into a "U.S. conservatism" project or task force, or something similar.   Will Beback  talk  21:38, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Currently if there's a question about an article being within scope we discuss it on the talk page: just like every other project. It's been working fine. There are several members who are interested in British conservatism. If they want to work with editors interested in American conservatism, and the American editors welcome them, what's the problem? Afterall a project is a function of it's members, not it's scope. – Lionel 21:49, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore the scope cannot be changed at MfD. There is no authority granted to this venue for that. The scope is the exclusive purview of the members. – Lionel 21:52, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

From the WProj Guide:

WikiProjects have sole and absolute authority to define their scopes

• Lengthy comment: I don't see a problem with scope. Or rather, the scope is poorly defined, but I don't see that as a reason to delete the WikiProject. There are other projects with vaguely defined or amorphous scopes - WikiProject Medicine comes to mind as I'm a member there.

  My larger concern - and the reason I've considered MfD'ing this WikiProject myself in the past - is related to the inherent problem of a WikiProject organized along the lines of a political ideology. Particularly early in its life, this WikiProject has acted less to improve the quality of encyclopedic coverage, and more as a coordinating point for people whose edits advocate a conservative political and social agenda. If you look at the most active members of the project, you'll find them more often than not heavily involved in advancing a U.S.-conservative viewpoint on culture-war topics like abortion and gay marriage. I think, but cannot prove, that the project's AfD and RfC noticeboards have led to instances where members of the project turn up as a group and influence Misplaced Pages's processes in service of a political agenda.

  It's instructive to look at some of the reasons cited by project members for joining (), for example:

  • "Enlightening conservative people & topics in a world darkening with liberalism."
  • "The Misplaced Pages is full of Fabian gradualists and Alinskyite confrontationalists, so when they push left, it is good to be among editors who push right back."
  • "Focused on revealing leftists in the American and international sociopolitical scenes."
  • "... interested in improving Australian conservatism-related articles and clearing up policially correct and leftist-dominated claims and analyses."
  • "I am a conservative interested in conservative heroes such as Ronald Reagan and Andrew Breitbart a conservative pioneer in citizen journalism on the Internet."
  • "I am a Republican Precinct Committeeman in Maricopa County, AZ and webmaster for the Maricopa County Republican Committee."
  • "I am most certainly Conservative, and I'm willing to help with whatever I can do."
  • "I'm an across-the-board conservative Republican living in Blue State Connecticut. For now, I'm just interested in getting involved with the WikiProject in general." (since removed)

In other words, a sizable number of project members seem to view it as a means to promote conservative ideology - or worse, as a staging ground to combat the "liberal bias" that they perceive themselves surrounded by. As a result, I think that this project contributes substantially to the use of Misplaced Pages as a ideological battleground. As examples, the project seems prone to canvassing on culture-war topics (e.g. ) and to threads that bemoan the dominance of the "liberal media" (because reliable sources don't say what project members wish they said).

In the end, it needs to be clear that this project is dedicated to improving encyclopedic coverage of conservatism, rather than promoting and advocating a conservative social and political agenda. I think thus far the project has come uncomfortably close to the latter objective. It's interesting to note that Misplaced Pages:Conservative notice board was deleted by a landslide as a "vote-stacking engine". I'm concerned that here we have essentially the same proposition, but with a bit more window dressing.

Arguing against deletion of the project are the huge amounts of work invested by Lionelt (talk · contribs) in its creation, and the increasing level of participation by less partisan editors. MastCell  22:01, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

It is one thing to express a personal bias, which we all have, and a completely different thing to canvass and votestack. This project has been up for 8 months. There has been no canvassing. There has been no votestacking. Every project is a group of editors interested in a particular topic. By your reasoning evey project is a potential canvassing platform. This is why we have WP:AGF:assume good faith. We should not act upon this group of editors until they canvass or votestack. To do otherwise violates our fundamental policy AGF.– Lionel 22:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

But there are already instances of using the project to inappropriately canvass. I presented one above (), and I don't think it's unique. I think you probably understand why this project is different from, say, the Mathematics WikiProject in its potential for abuse. By coordinating editors on the basis of their political ideology, there is a serious potential for abuse - a potential which the project leaders have yet to even acknowledge, much less deal with proactively. MastCell  22:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

The post was completely appropriate, the sarcasm not so much. One example, with 3000+ articles, and 50+ members, and an 8 month history, does not a vote stacking operation make. Partisanship has never been a problem, and never will be a problem. The membership is too diverse for that, and too many eyes watching who are not conservative. – Lionel 22:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that you'd likely find similar 'bias' in WikiProject U2, WikiProject Britney Spears, or WikiProject The Beatles. You likely would find similar 'bias' in those WikiProjects. Toa Nidhiki05 22:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

For a point of comparison, the religious wikiprojects also share the same potential for votestacking and canvassing, perhaps even moreso. To my knowledge those projects operate without incident. So has WPConservatism in the past and so it will into the future. And let me be clear: WikiProject Conservatsm has been operating for 8 months without incident. – Lionel 22:57, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I thank you for your concerns MastCell, you have given the members much to think about. At this point, until a pattern of improper behavior is firmly established, and based on an exemplary 8 month record, I have to state that these issues fall under WP:AGF. We cannot punish and sanction an entire group of editors for something that may or may not happen. It is contrary to the our fundamental policy assume good faith. – Lionel 23:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

• Keep. MfD is the wrong way to go about this. There is clearly an encyclopedic topic area covered by this project, and there are clearly editors who want to improve content in the topic area. And plenty of those editors are acting entirely in good faith. So keep, full stop. But I agree that there is reason to be concerned that this project has become a club for civil POV pushing. I've been watching closely since the project was created, and I urge other editors to watch it also. In time, there will probably be dispute resolution examining some of the most active project members, and, I'll wager, an arbitration case. But Misplaced Pages benefits from letting a wide swath of the public edit, and we should not be looking for shortcuts to get rid of people who piss us off, lest someone pissed off with us try to get rid of us. In the mean time, I strongly urge the editors who participate in the project to edit, always, as though their edits are being closely scrutinized. Because they probably are. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:03, 7 October 2011 (UTC)