Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin

Requests for clarification and amendment

Clarification request: Waldorf education/Review

Initiated by hgilbert (talk) at 19:52, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:


Statement by hgilbert

The original arbitration indicated that "Information may be included in articles if they can be verified by reference to reliable sources. As applied to this matter, except with respect to information which is not controversial, material published in Anthroposophy related publications, especially by persons deeply involved in the movement such as teachers or theoreticians, are considered self published and thus not reliable sources."

There are frequently sources proposed that are from peer reviewed presses or journals, but whose authors have a strong or weak connection to Waldorf education or anthroposophy. Some editors of this article argue that these sources are to be considered reliable due to the peer-reviewed publishing process. Other editors argue that any connection of an author to Waldorf/anthroposophy makes all publications by that author unreliable sources for an article on Waldorf education, independently of how they were published.

It seems to me that the latter stance would be in flagrant violation of NPOV. My understanding is that any publication that would satisfy RS (e.g. peer reviewed journals and academic presses) would be a RS for this article, independently of the author's institutional affiliation or world-view. In addition, though anthroposophic presses and journals would be completely excluded as sources for any controversial or disputed material, they should be available as sources about factual information regarding their own institution (e.g. numbers of schools, content of the curriculum, etc.), in line with ABOUTSELF.

A currently disputed source, as a concrete example, is:

  • Carlo Willmann, Waldorfpädogogik, Kölner Veröffentlichungen zur Religionsgeschichte, v. 27. Böhlau Verlag, ISBN 3-412-16700-2. The press is a highly regarded academic press, the book volume 27 of a highly regarded series on the history of religion. The author is a Catholic theologian who has been connected with Waldorf schools in various ways.

NPOV

If anyone glances at the article as it now stands, I suspect that they will find that the article, though surely imperfect in many ways, is quite neutral in tone. Discussions I have been involved in recently have been over such issues as

  • Whether to implement the recommendations for wording and sources made by an outside editor at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Other_sources (I have wanted to implement these, Alexbrn has not).
  • Whether the following quote, introduced by me, is NPOV: "A UK Department for Education and Skills report noted significant differences in curriculum and pedagogical approach between Waldorf/Steiner and mainstream schools and suggested that each type of school could learn from the other type's strengths: in particular, that state schools could benefit from Waldorf education's early introduction and approach to modern foreign languages; combination of block (class) and subject teaching for younger children; development of speaking and listening through an emphasis on oral work; good pacing of lessons through an emphasis on rhythm; emphasis on child development guiding the curriculum and examinations; approach to art and creativity; attention given to teachers’ reflective activity and heightened awareness (in collective child study for example); and collegial structure of leadership and management, including collegial study. Aspects of mainstream practice which could inform good practice in Waldorf schools included: management skills and ways of improving organizational and administrative efficiency; classroom management; work with secondary-school age children; and assessment and record keeping."
  • Whether to include the many studies done of Waldorf education (Alexbrn removed every one of these to a subarticle, I believe they are important here and have tried to bring these back).

Frankly, I don't see how my role in any of these can be seen as POV-pushing or evidence of COI. hgilbert (talk) 03:46, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • On the other hand, Alexbrn has seriously proposed the content of an anonymous anti-Waldorf website as a critical response to a Karlstad University professor of education's research report published by the Karlstad University Studies series. This reflects a extremely unbalanced view and use of RS.hgilbert (talk) 09:09, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Alexbrn

I have been editing the Waldorf education article for several weeks now, and I am personally not convinced the issue at hand is contested for most editors. As I have written on the talk page there, I use the following rough rules of thumb for evaluating sources in the light of the Arbcom ruling:

  • Peer-reviewed nearly always okay; University Presses nearly always okay; mainstream news media nearly always okay for reportage.
  • Of the remainder:
  • Authored by somebody "involved in Waldorf", or from an Anthroposophical source: generally bad.
  • Dissertations, general books, conference papers, research reports etc.: assess on the basis of whether there is evidence of editorial oversight, whether they are cited by good RS publications, and how "heavy" the claim they are making is.
  • Normal WP caution to apply to web sites, self-published, primary, etc.

I don't think any editor is contending that peer-reviewed sources by Waldorf-involved people should be automatically out-of-bounds – and indeed we do include such sources: e.g. Robert A. McDermott is a leading anthroposophist and Waldorf advocate yet his work is frequently cited by us when it appears in peer-reviewed journal articles.

Any difficulty has arisen for statements which are maybe controversial and/or maybe written by a Waldorf-involved-author and/or from a source which may be of high quality. This is the case for the Willmann source that hgilbert mentioned. Willmann is senior academic at a university teaching Waldorf education but appears to be published in a reasonable (but not peer-reviewed) book. Because this case is unclear, I tagged this source {{rs}} rather than remove it, and was expecting some Talk page discussion.

In such cases as these, my view is that if the statement being sourced is truly uncontroversial, and notable enough for WP, then a neutral non-Waldorf source will exist for it that can be used. This was indeed the case for Willmann, where hgilbert graciously changed the source to a better one: a peer-reviewed journal article by Heiner Ullrich. The problem was solved, and solved well.

I would be reassured if the committee could re-affirm the original ruling and its intepretation as evidenced by the current Waldorf education article. Furthermore, it would be good to know if the current selection of sources used there meets its approval in the light of its request that editors "remove all original research and other unverifiable information, including all controversial information sourced in Anthroposophy related publications" – something I have been striving to do. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 14:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by a13ean

I agree with several comments here that in these articles sources can generally be dealt with using the current WP:RS guidelines. I think we're generally all on the same page regarding treating sources closely related to WE as WP:SELFPUB.

However, there's a few cases where I think the original ruling is still important and could use some clarification. In particular, WP:SCHOLARSHIP states in part that materials published "well-regarded academic presses" are reliable sources, but this is not a very well defined category, and longer works can end up being used to cite blips of information that are only peripherally related to the thrust of the work. Similarly, Ph.D. dissertations are WP:RS under certain conditions, but there is some confusion about when the condition "they have entered mainstream academic discourse" is satisfied as regarding WE publications. (For example, a dissertation from a distance-learning "university" is currently being used to source this, and as far as I know it has not been cited except in WE related literature).

I also have some lingering concerns about cherry-picking of sources in many of the articles related to Steiner's work, but this was not addressed in the original arbitration, and I don't know any way it can be addressed except by the very dedicated on a case-by-case basis. a13ean (talk) 00:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would expand my original comment to note that I believe civil POV-pushing is still a problem at WE and related pages. a13ean (talk) 17:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by EdJohnston

Though few of us who are currently active remember the Waldorf case, it was serious enough to be handled by Arbcom twice before, once in 2006 at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education and again in 2007 at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education/Review. An editor named in the original case, User:Pete K has been continuing to sock very recently, as documented in WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Pete K. At least one editor named in the case (hgilbert) is currently active and is vigorously presenting his views in the article and on the talk page. Due to the possibility of civil POV pushing and COI editing, it would be helpful to have at least a remnant of the original remedies available for use. At present, article probation remains on the books, but in a special form that requires Committee review of any violations. It is not enforceable by regular admins. I suggest that if any remedies are kept, they should be in the form of discretionary sanctions. If Arbcom agrees that the original concerns that led to the filing of the case haven't completely gone away, I hope they would consider vacating the probation and authorizing discretionary sanctions. It is plausible that WP:RS/N could handle some of the issues that only the Committee could deal with in 2007, but even the RSN board sometimes can't reach a consensus and its verdict may or may not be accepted by the people who ought to be listening. There should be some way that admins can take action on this problem if it recurs again without having to spin up an entire new consensus at ANI. Also, complete abolition of the remedies would mean that no review of any future problems would be possible at WP:AE. Everything requiring any joint action by admins would have to go through ANI. EdJohnston (talk) 01:04, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there is one admin-enforceable sanction in the Remedies of the original case: there is a link to the standard definition of article probation. This allows admins to ban someone from the probationary article if necessary. If the Committee wants to modernize this case in the simplest way possible, and get themselves out of the business of approving sources, they might consider passing a motion that shortens the Remedies to include only its first sentence, and removes the rest. The first sentence is:

Waldorf education, Rudolf Steiner, Anthroposophy and the extended family of related articles such as Social Threefolding are placed on article probation.

If that change were made, editors would no longer be obliged to remove "all controversial information sourced in Anthroposophy related publications" as the Remedy currently provides. Instead they would be expected to follow normal consensus processes when finding sources for these articles (including WP:RS/N if needed), and if they would not do so, they could be restricted from those articles by any admin. EdJohnston (talk) 03:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Binksternet

I do not have time for an extensive comment, but I have observed that biased pro-Steiner sources have crept back into the article since the 2006 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education, an ArbCom final decision. Hgilbert especially seems to push for pro-Steiner sources, in violation of the ArbCom ruling, and he works against negative material. Binksternet (talk) 13:11, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Since nobody has commented on this request so far, in order not to give the impression that we are ignoring you, I'll start by saying that I'm awaiting further statements before expressing my opinion (also, I need to familiarise myself with the original case, which was quite before my time). Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:46, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not persuaded we should modify the previous committee's decision regarding the reliability of sources; following the standard they set appears to have protected the article from bias and, considering that what works should not be changed without a compelling reason, I am inclined to decline this request for amendment. That said, regarding article probation, on the other hand, I agree that it should be updated to the standard set of discretionary sanctions, as DSs allow for more leeway: admins may impose a wider array of remedies, including article-level restrictions. Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:11, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The principles passed in the decision reflect the interpretation of the 2006-2007 committee of the policies and guidelines as they existed at the time of the decision. Our policies and guidelines governing reliable sources and self-published sources have undoubtedly evolved in five years, and the sources should be judged under our current standards instead of the one interpreted five years ago. The question whether any particular source is a reliable source is a content matter for WP:RS/N, and outside the jurisdiction of this committee. T. Canens (talk) 14:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • We would be remiss to assume that because the community was unable to regulate this topic in 2006, it is unable to do so today. The Wikipedia community has expanded its capacity to resolve disputes over contentious topics, and for that reason I am minded to vacate (by motion) the article probation remedy that was passed in 2006 and confirmed in 2007. AGK [•] 15:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that, even if the committee felt the need to retain jurisdiction over that particular matter, we would need to reevaluate the situation according the current context and not the situation as it was over six years ago (which is an eternity in Wikipedia terms). I'm open to arguments that there remains a problem needing Committee intervention, but it seems clear to me that the original ruling has long been overtaken by our evolving policies on reliable sourcing. — Coren (talk) 16:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wouldn't mind revising this to discretionary sanctions given that the situation seems more under control and that the additional flexibility is desirable. — Coren (talk) 19:33, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • After reviewing the case and reading Alexbrn's comments, it appears that care is needed to keep these articles from drifting toward inappropriate bias, and the sanctions have been working. The words quoted above: "Information may be included in articles...." are from a findings of fact in the case, and while they informed the decision, are not a formal part of the sanctions, which are that Waldorf education and related articles are placed on probation (and later that Pete K is banned indefinitely from those articles). ArbCom article probation asks that editors are especially mindful of content policies, such as WP:NPOV, and that seems a sensible precaution to keep in place for articles which have suffered from POV problems in the past. The ArbCom ruling did not forbid using Anthroposophy related publications, but found in 2006 that for controversial statements those publications were unreliable. As my colleagues have indicated above, actual discussion on which sources are suitable today can be dealt with by discussion on the talkpage of the articles or by raising the matter at appropriate noticeboards, such as WP:RS/N. SilkTork ✔Tea time 22:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As regards Alexbrn's question regarding this line in the remedy: "Editors of these articles are expected to remove all original research and other unverifiable information, including all controversial information sourced in Anthroposophy related publications." I think Alexbrn's own comment, "if the statement being sourced is truly uncontroversial, and notable enough for WP, then a neutral non-Waldorf source will exist for it that can be used" matches that in WP:SELFPUBLISH which says: "if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so". As for the actual sources used in the Waldorf education article - that is a matter for contributors to discuss, not for ArbCom. SilkTork ✔Tea time 22:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with EdJohnston that the main points are made in the first sentence of the remedy. And it does seem that Wikipedia:Discretionary sanctions appears to do the same as Wikipedia:Article probation. Though wording does differ in some places, it appears as though the intent and effect is the same. Is it worth us looking at Article probation, and which articles are affected by that remedy, and perhaps updating that remedy to be replaced in its entirety with Discretionary sanctions? SilkTork ✔Tea time 18:16, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I note that last year Prem Rawat was updated from probation to Discretionary sanctions. SilkTork ✔Tea time 18:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with the arbitrator comments made so far, especially those emphasising that the reliable sources noticeboard is the best place to attempt to resolve such disputes, though a summary to point to about how sources in this particular area are handled may help. EdJohnston's suggestion to replace or modify the existing case to include discretionary sanctions is worth considering. I'll wait for more comments from my colleagues and others, especially as to what level of problems is needed for discretionary sanctions and when other (more specific) remedies work better. Carcharoth (talk) 22:03, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Motion: Waldorf education discretionary sanctions

For this motion there are 14 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Proposed:

By motion, the committee resolves that:

  1. Standard Discretionary sanctions are authorised with immediate effect for all pages relating to Waldorf education, broadly construed. This supersedes the existing Article Probation remedy set down in Waldorf education, remedy 1 and re-affirmed in the Waldorf education review, remedy 2.

This motion does not affect any actions presently in effect that were taken in enforcement of the old article probation remedy.

Support
  1. Proposed. Adapted from a previous motion regarding the similar article probation remedies passed in Prem Rawat. AGK [•] 19:15, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Note though that the principles about the removal of original research and unverified information still are applicable. NW (Talk) 19:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. As I've noted above, this seems like the reasonable next step. — Coren (talk) 19:51, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Risker (talk) 20:08, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Courcelles 20:15, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Although we wouldn't be adopting this motion without reason to believe there is some ongoing controversy on this series of articles, it should be clear that we haven't closely scrutinized the recent editing in this area, and that the motion isn't targeted at any particular editor or group of editors. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Carcharoth (talk) 02:03, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8. SilkTork ✔Tea time 08:47, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Abstain
Comments
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=535661809

Leave a Reply