Hacker News Reader

Comment by notahacker | Hacker News Reader

I suspect the system for scoring "toxic" comments is less likely to flag the bureaucratic "I have reverted your edit for a second time because it does not meet WP:NPOV or WP:NOR. Please be aware of WP:3RR and be prepared to discuss any further changes on the talk page" comments about reversion and more likely to flag the sort of very angry and personal comments that come up when the page being edited is related to the culture war or actual longstanding war. Whether the recipient of the angry messages was previously a constructive contributor to that topic is an open question, of course.

View on HN

The system almost certainly doesn't address the primary problem, which is that a small group of people consider a page or topic to be their personal fiefdom and they're experts at snowballing people with the most obscure wikipedia policies.

A shining example of this would be the page for Alcoholics Anonymous, which has a small legion of accounts 'defending' it. The accounts espouse, vocally, a victimhood complex - that AA is targeted by people "harassing" and "discrediting" the program.

The page is brutally censored of any negative information - such as their problems with predation ('thirteenth stepping') and sexual assault, the fact that the program has no basis in science and is repeatedly demonstrated to be amongst the worst options for addiction treatment. The result is a page which is wildly not NPOV - it contains only material positive about the founder, program and organization.

Someone tried to add mention of a documentary and the prick editor claimed the film did not meet notability guidelines because it hadn't been screened in the right kind of film festivals and thus its existence could not be mentioned.

They have a section on "thirteenth stepping" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcoholics_Anonymous#Criticism

Could you point me to any sources that discuss how the program "has no basis in science"? They have a section on effectiveness citing a few studies and the Cochrane review. I'm not well-equipped to determine if that's conclusive, of course. Is there overwhelming evidence to the contrary? As someone else pointed out, there is a section on thirteenth stepping. Do you find it insufficient, or is it a recent addition..?

I am not invested either way, I am just curious. If what you're saying is accurate, it's a stark reminder that Wikipedia articles may _look_ well-researched and still ignore or hide enough evidence to fundamentally change the story.

This is something I have a hard time coping with: that no matter how many sources are cited, there is no way of knowing how many are missing... in some cases a few minutes of research can uncover obvious lies (and it's already a titanic effort to cursorily check most of your beliefs), but in others it takes actual expertise in the topic to know.

Edit: After a better look at the Criticism section, the article seems less-than-neutral in listing critical sources. "In the past, some critics have criticized 12-step programs as pseudoscientific". I would object to the use of "In the past" here: the sources cited are from 2015 and 2010 (although both of them are prior to the 2020 Cochrane review, which the Wikipedia page seems to consider conclusive. Still, unclear wording which spins the opinions as outdated). Similarly, two sources of criticism are listed under the "Popular press" section. Perhaps a better wording would be "Non peer-reviewed". If you believe that AA _is_ ineffective, then this wording is certainly a misdirection. If you believe that the sources in its favor are conclusive, then it's adequate. Neutrality is tricky, and while it's extremely important in some topics, it should not be entertained in others (should the article on Earth be "neutral" and faithfully cite flat-earthers as a reasonable side?) Again, I don't know which way this should go, as I don't have any degree of certainty either way, because I know absolutely nothing about the subject.

> Could you point me to any sources that discuss how the program "has no basis in science"?

Do you know anything about it? The primary source I'd cite would be their own literature. It doesn't claim to be based in science. Sobriety is only possible by giving up your ego and embracing a higher power.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com