Hi @StanislavKrym Yes, you’re right, this editing requires neutral language. However, the team at PAW does use reliable sources and abides by all Wikipedias rules. They do not advocate using personal opinions they cite trustworthy sources. We agree all Wikipedia editors should abide by Wikipedia’s rules
I think you have to be pretty careful. If all you’re going to be doing is “strategically editing” Wiki articles, that’s probably fine, though don’t be surprised if the edits get reverted back. On the other hand, if the goal of PAW is to “influence decisions” on Wikipedia, then that violates their rule against meatpuppetry:
High-profile disputes on Wikipedia often bring new editors to the site. Some individuals may promote their causes by bringing like-minded editors into the dispute, including enlisting assistance off-wiki. The recruited editors are sometimes referred to as meatpuppets, following a common Internet usage. While Wikipedia assumes good faith, especially for new users, actively recruiting new accounts or users on Wikipedia, or recruiting people (either on-wiki or off-wiki) to create an account or edit anonymously in order to influence decisions on Wikipedia, is prohibited.
That policy has to do with bringing new editors into a dispute among editors to shout down the other side, or to influence a vote or consensus-seeking process. It doesn’t disparage inviting new editors to join a WikiProject or similar constructive effort, even if the topic of that effort may be controversial somewhere.
I mean, I guess the real question is what do you do if some opponent of animal rights disagrees with all your changes and reverts them. Then you have a dispute among editors, so the policy I quoted is relevant. Maybe you don’t think this scenario is very likely but I think it is at least somewhat plausible,
Hi @StanislavKrym Yes, you’re right, this editing requires neutral language. However, the team at PAW does use reliable sources and abides by all Wikipedias rules. They do not advocate using personal opinions they cite trustworthy sources. We agree all Wikipedia editors should abide by Wikipedia’s rules
I think you have to be pretty careful. If all you’re going to be doing is “strategically editing” Wiki articles, that’s probably fine, though don’t be surprised if the edits get reverted back. On the other hand, if the goal of PAW is to “influence decisions” on Wikipedia, then that violates their rule against meatpuppetry:
That policy has to do with bringing new editors into a dispute among editors to shout down the other side, or to influence a vote or consensus-seeking process. It doesn’t disparage inviting new editors to join a WikiProject or similar constructive effort, even if the topic of that effort may be controversial somewhere.
I mean, I guess the real question is what do you do if some opponent of animal rights disagrees with all your changes and reverts them. Then you have a dispute among editors, so the policy I quoted is relevant. Maybe you don’t think this scenario is very likely but I think it is at least somewhat plausible,