Frank, I'm writing in a private capacity (cc the group for transparency) regarding the SRM article on Wikipedia. This is, as you're likely aware, a globally prominent resource for informing the SRM debate.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_radiation_modification For background: I've been editor on Wikipedia for 15 to 20 years, and was highly active in setting up the original pages around geoengineering. Wikipedia is a valuable public resource, and maintaining its integrity is critical for fostering informed, unbiased discussions about contentious issues like SRM. I'm writing to you today because this article appears to have been heavily and inexpertly edited, raising the prominence of the SRM non-use agreement (NUA) in an inappropriate and unbalanced fashion. These edits - and the process leading to their insertion - may violate various Wikipedia policies, which I have summarised (bottom) for your convenience. I have not checked the origin of these problematic edits, but whoever made them may conceivably have had some association with the NUA. In response to this situation, I have today made the number of improvements to the SRM article. Among other changes, this includes removing inappropriate material from the lead, and more generally removing undue weight given to the NUA. I understand that others in our field have previously done this very same task - and yet the material has been reinserted into the article. This kind of edit war behavior - especially when in support of policy-violating edits - is a significant breach of editing protocols. Should you others wish to raise the profile of the organization and its campaign on Wikipedia, an appropriate way of doing this may be to create a new page describing the organisation and its campaign, in a neutral fashion. Whether you or your supporters make a new page, or edit an existing one, please ensure that both the edits and processes follow policy. Wikipedia is not the place for partisan or promotional editing. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Policy summaries continue below. Andrew Lockley Wikipedia's Core Policies Wikipedia operates under foundational principles that ensure its content remains neutral, reliable, and reflective of the consensus of reliable sources. These include: 1. Neutral Point of View (NPOV): Wikipedia requires that all content, including the lead section, be written fairly, proportionately, and without bias. This is outlined in Wikipedia’s Neutral Point of View policy. The lead must accurately summarize the article, reflecting the breadth and balance of the content. 2. Conflict of Interest (COI): Editors with a financial, legal, or other external interest in promoting a specific viewpoint must disclose their affiliations and are strongly discouraged from editing related articles directly. 3. Verifiability: Contributions must be based on reliable, published sources, avoiding original research or unsourced claims, as outlined in Wikipedia’s Verifiability policy. Specific Requirements for the Lead Section The lead is the most visible and critical part of any Wikipedia article. According to Wikipedia’s Lead Section Guidelines, the lead must: Provide a concise summary of the most important points in the article. Reflect the article’s balance, avoiding undue emphasis on any single viewpoint or detail. Avoid introducing bias or presenting material that does not appear elsewhere in the article. Failure to adhere to these guidelines can result in disputes and administrative actions, including reverts, warnings, or protection of the article. Relevant Terms of Use and Potential Sanctions Wikipedia’s Terms of Use prohibit activities that undermine the platform’s integrity, including: Undisclosed Paid Editing: Misrepresenting an affiliation with an organization or individual is a serious violation. Intentional Bias or Misrepresentation: Adding content that skews the article’s neutrality or balance is prohibited. Sanctions for violations may include: 1. Warnings and Restrictions: Editors may be formally warned or restricted if they violate Wikipedia’s policies. 2. Account Suspension or Bans: Persistent COI editing, undisclosed paid editing, or NPOV violations can lead to account bans. 3. Article Protection: Pages subject to repeated partisan edits may be restricted, allowing only experienced editors or administrators to make changes. Steps to Engage Constructively To ensure compliance with these guidelines and foster productive collaboration, I encourage your group to: Disclose Affiliations: Clearly state affiliations on user pages or talk pages if editing topics related to your work. Engage on Talk Pages: Instead of direct edits, propose changes on article talk pages, citing reliable sources for community review and consensus. Ensure Balance in the Lead: When proposing or editing the lead section, ensure it reflects the full breadth and neutrality of the article content, avoiding undue emphasis on any single viewpoint. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAJ3C-05dfgTu%3DPHn07rAVfiE0Z4MaD5SHRoHK45t48qsv0thMw%40mail.gmail.com.
