Case studies

 

This case study focuses on three of the main controversies on Wikipedia; Biographies of a Living Person (BLP), Fringe subjects (WP: Fringe), and Paid/Agenda Editing. This study focuses on “harassment”, as defined by the Wikipedia community editing guidelines, which is referred to in this study as editor suppression.

This study focused on two well-publicized and well-known wiki wars occurring on Wikipedia, the biographical articles about Rupert Sheldrake and Deepak Chopra.

To show the distinctions between genuine editing and editor suppression, this case study solely focused on editing biographical, non-controversial information about the subjects, and neither engaged in nor initiated any editing or discussion into their “theories” or claims.

Employed, tested, and piloted was a methodology of collaborative consensus building designed to be employed in contentious environments for the purposes of achieving a resolution, expressed as a Wikipedia article.

More will be published on this methodology and platform (aiki wiki) when time permits.

This study continually grows in scope primarily because of one component of my methodology; I document and respond directly to each instance of targeting or harassment I have received over four years while I  attempt to find recourse for a resolution.

This study is still a work in progress, apologies in advance for any incompleteness.

Part One: Collaborative consensus building in a contentious editing environment.

Biography of a Living Person; Rupert Sheldrake

Editing account:Tumbleman (talk | contribs)

Biography of a Living Person; Deepak Chopra

editing account: SAS81 (talk | contribs)

Part Two: “Wiki war craft”: Editor suppression, stalking, targeting, character assassination, impersonations, email threats, and blackmail