Essay:How to blog for Wikipedia
|
This essay is an original work by Polly. It does not necessarily reflect the views expressed in RationalWiki's Mission Statement, but we welcome discussion of a broad range of ideas. Unless otherwise stated, this is original content, released under CC-BY-SA 3.0 or any later version. See RationalWiki:Copyrights. Feel free to make comments on the talk page, which will probably be far more interesting, and might reflect a broader range of RationalWiki editors' thoughts. |
This is a how to guide to blogging for Wikipedia, i.e. some advice as to how to write effective pieces that can be included as references in Wikipedia articles. It is particularly aimed at writing blog articles on (1) individuals who decide to make extraordinary claims without first gathering the requisite extraordinary evidence (pseudoscience promoters), and (2) the details of the claims they make. Note that some of this advice may be contrary to what you might think of as "good creative writing practice" - because of the bland Wikipedia house style, it involves using very specific technical language, and because of Wikipedia policies against original research, a lot of stating the obvious.
Background[edit]
Wikipedia is normally one of the highest hits for searches for a subject. It generally is trusted by a large portion of its readers. There are policies and guidelines that one should be familiar with:
- Policy - "Neutral point of view" policy[1]. Opinions must be stated as opinions.
- Policy - "Biographies of living persons" policy that is supposed to prevent libel against living persons[2]
- Policy - "No original research": which means that things, (even obvious ones) must be stated off-wiki first.
- Guideline - "fringe theories"[3]. With regard to neutral point of view, "mainstream" opinions should be more prominent than "fringe" opinions.
Rules for blogging[edit]
Rule 1: Be an authority[edit]
This is probably the trickiest because you need to have achieved something in your career already. If you are a professional scientist, especially if you have a Wikipedia article (by meeting the guidelines for academics [4]), then your views carry more weight, and can probably be included even if it's a blog piece (and therefore not peer reviewed).
Unfortunately, if you're not an academic, then your views will carry less weight. One way round this is to have it posted to a prominent multi-author blog such as Panda's Thumb. Another possible way around this, is to approach a prominent credentialled science blogger and ask them to be listed as a co-author or even sole author if you're happy ghost-writing it for them.
Rule 2: Speak on behalf of the scientific community[edit]
Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy sees opinions as having to be attributed to someone. While writing your down your own opinion is good, explaining the opinion of the scientific community is better. Use wording like "of course, my colleagues in the scientific community don't take such nonsense seriously", and suchlike.
There will be trolls who will claim that your opinion is not shared by the scientific community. Clarify that it is.
Rule 3: Use specific language[edit]
Language is important. Wikipedia uses internal links to link from one article to the next. Mention high value targets such as pseudoscience rather than more entertaining alternatives such as "woo". Use terminology such as "falsifiable", "testable", peer review, "consistent with accepted scientific theories", etc.
Rule 4: State the obvious[edit]
Stating the obvious is always a good idea. Even if you think it would be transparently obvious to your audience. State why something is pseudoscience (for example), and while you're doing it use specific language, and think of the high value targets (see rule 3).
Hints[edit]
The rules above still apply but now we need to get nasty. Here are a few optional ideas for including in your discussion.
Hint 1: Credentials[edit]
Ad hominem attacks are fallacious - but can be effective. Often those involved in pseudoscience lack real scientific credentials. Some such as Kent Hovind lack credentials entirely, and these are easiest to deal with. Others such as Rupert Sheldrake have PhDs in science and superficially more credentials. Even where pseudoscientists have science PhDs, due to the nature of pseudoscience, they usually do not hold academic posts with academia (they will therefore fail the "WP:PROF" criteria mentioned above[4]).
Wikipedia's preference for facts over opinions, and the fact that biographies are often written chronologically, means that credentials are listed blandly, and at the beginning of a person's biography. Ensure you've got a nice comment in there early by providing comment on the extent to which the target got down the academic career path.