Version du 28 avril 2009 à 13:55

A study in contrasts: the dilemma of the “real world” academic on Wikipedia

The fact that this article has been stable for months
suggests that other Mormons have found the evidence unassailable.
"John Foxe," responding to an LDS editor at "Three Witnesses" Wikipedia Talk Page (27 January 2009)

I often have sympathy for the practitioners of false religions,
but unlike you, I have no "deep respect" for the religions themselves.
That's because they're false. They're lies. "What communion hath light with darkness?"’’
"John Foxe," responding to an LDS editor at "Three Witnesses" Wikipedia Talk Page (28 January 2009)

In a recent (and excellent) article in the Journal of American History (June 2006), “Can History Be Open Source? Wikipedia and the Future of the Past,” the author, Roy Rosenzweig, notes how “academics and other highly-qualified people” who were initially excited by the project were “slowly worn down and driven away by having to deal with difficult people.” (140) I refuse to be worn down and driven away.
"John Foxe" 7 July 2006 (UTC) off-site

The shield of anonymity

Anonymity provides a passionate Wikipedia editor with certain advantages. A "pseudo persona" such as that created by the Bob Jones University professor who calls himself "John Foxe" ^[1] has no need to protect his academic reputation. "Foxe" has no stated academic credentials—hence, there is no reputation to maintain. This allows the pseudo persona to safely reflect the true inner thoughts of the corresponding "real world" editor without the danger of having any of these things reflect upon his or her "real world" reputation and credentials. Since "Foxe" has researched Mormonism at BYU, and has interacted with a number of Latter-day Saints, we are confident that the real-world alter ego of "John Foxe" discusses Mormonism with Latter-day Saints in a more respectful and restrained manner than his more uninhibited on-line persona does.

For example, it is difficult to imagine the real-world professor interacting with Latter-day Saints in person by boldly declaring that "Joseph not only lied, he committed serial adultery," ^[2] and claiming "I often have sympathy for the practitioners of false religions, but unlike you, I have no 'deep respect' for the religions themselves. That's because they're false. They're lies. 'What communion hath light with darkness?'" ^[3] In fact, 2 Corinthians 6:14 does quite accurately describe the online attitude of "John Foxe:"

Be not unequally yoked with unbelievers: for what fellowship have righteousness and iniquity? or what communion hath light with darkness?

"Foxe's" online boldness and sarcasm are not limited to Latter-day Saints. One cannot imagine the real-world counterpart of "John Foxe" telling someone: "Frankly, I don't care whether you're a reprobate, a pedestrian, or a Martian." ^[4] Yet, the online persona finds this type of interaction perfectly acceptable. The real-world professor, on the other hand, would find it embarrassing to have such comments attributed to him.

"Real world" academics versus wiki academics

Consider a well written article such as Dr. John Matzko’s “The Encounter of the Young Joseph Smith with Presbyterianism” which is both stylistically and substantively superior when compared to what passes for scholarship in a typical LDS Wikipedia article. It is enlightening to contrast Dr. Matzko’s approach with the approach of wiki editor "John Foxe.” Both editors are highly educated and apparently involved with teaching history at BJU. ^[5] While Dr. Matzko’s article goes through peer review in order to produce a final draft, ^[6] Wikipedia articles such as “First Vision” and “Joseph Smith, Jr.” essentially suffer through an endless and continuous “peer review.” The frustration for the “Wikipedia academic” is that many of the “peers” performing the review are not scholars. Even more frustrating for “Foxe,” many of the “peers” attempting to review an article are either passionate LDS believers or passionate critics, who wish to insert any number of potentially unsubstantiated claims. Thus, while Dr. Matzko is able to produce an intelligent and coherent article (admittedly from a non-believer’s perspective), “Foxe” is unable to keep dedicated non-scholarly believers and critics from attempting to “spin” an article in a direction that he does not wish it to go. The articles that he cares about, therefore, must be continuously maintained. In essence, "Foxe" has his finger on the "dead man's switch" of these articles. After several years of editing, he by now realizes that his choices are to either watch what he has so carefully put together be taken apart by amateurs, or spend the next 20 years of his life maintaining Wikipedia articles. The only other alternative is to bring in another like-minded editor to take over some of the workload. The frustration of an academic among amateurs becomes evident.

Thus speaketh the history professor...

I've replaced older material in this section with new, narrative content that is more concise, more readable, well-referenced, and is better focused on Joseph Smith, Jr.
I expect editing to be adequately explained.
"John Foxe," "Joseph Smith, Jr." Wikipedia Talk Page (15 September 2008)

...and the writer...

I won't argue that what I've written is of higher quality than what you are trying to preserve—though it is...
"John Foxe," "Joseph Smith, Jr." Wikipedia Talk Page (21 September 2008)

Tag team editing

After a couple years of editing, reinforcement has recently arrived in the form of another BJU affiliated editor whose job it is to compliment and support "Foxe's" perspective:

Foxe has gotten it more or less right once again—clear, to the point, and forthright.
I'm sure his edits can be improved, but further edits need to be explained paragraph by paragraph.
"Hi540," "Joseph Smith, Jr." Wikipedia Talk Page (20 September 2008)

The statements above are a good demonstration of intimidation—any less educated or newer editors are likely to simply leave the article as is rather than fight the battle to modify it. Any editor approaching this article is led to believe that they have to explain and justify every edit they make to "John Foxe" or "Hi540." This is referred to as "ownership," and it is contrary to Wikipedia policy. (See: Wikipedia:Ownership of articles) "Foxe" is often accused of "ownership" of Wikipedia articles.

I think on every LDS page to which I've contributed a Mormon has accused me of "ownership." My answer is always the same: No non-Mormon can "own" a Mormon page. The LDS community can overwhelm any individual non-believer. "John Foxe," "Three Witnesses" Wikipedia Talk Page (19 February 2007)

Normally, one assumes that multiple Wikipedia editors are not collaborating in the real world (this practice is referred to by Wikipedians as “meatpuppetry”…something that many LDS editors occasionally get accused of as a result of their similar approach to articles) In this particular case, however, it is more likely that “Hi540” and “Foxe” have the opportunity to discuss Wikipedia articles over dinner. ^[7]

Freedom of expression

Anonymity also allows editors to freely express their bias in ways that would never be included in a “real world” academic article. Again, we contrast Dr. Matzko's professionalism with the lack of such in "John Foxe.”

Dr. Matzko notes in his article:

“Especially valuable were the comments of Richard Bushman, seminar co-director, and Mark Sidwell, the author’s colleague at BJU.”

In contrast, “Wikipedia academic” "John Foxe," notes on the "Joseph Smith, Jr." Talk page:

“...the statements of Joseph and Emma are not credible. No historian of any persuasion takes them seriously. That's because both Joseph and Emma lied.”

Dr. Bushman is one of the foremost “believing” historians to have documented the life of Joseph Smith, Jr. Surely Dr. Bushman considers the statements of Joseph Smith to be credible. Dr. Matzko acknowledges that Dr. Bushman is a historian worthy of reviewing his work, since he praises Dr. Bushman’s input and review of his article draft. The anonymous academic "John Foxe,” in contrast, states that “no historian of any persuasion takes [Joseph’s statements] seriously,” thus implicitly condemning Dr. Bushman’s credentials as a historian. “Foxe” would not be able to get away with such a statement without the protection of anonymity. His “real world” credentials remain intact, while his “Wikipedia” credentials are essentially disposable.

Conclusion

Only in Wikipedia can you observe LDS believers, non-believers and critics attempting to work together to produce a coherent encyclopedia article. Sometimes "working together" is in reality an edit war between believers and critics, with the "winner" being the person who can outlast the others without blatantly violating Wikipedia editing guidelines.

Endnotes

1. [retour] The pseudonym "John Foxe" is not the editor's real name—it is taken from the author of "Foxe's Book of Martyrs."
2. [retour]  off-site
3. [retour]  off-site
4. [retour]  off-site
5. [retour]  Dr. Matzko is a history teacher and department head at Bob Jones University. "John Foxe" states: "Once or twice a year I have occasion to mention the thalidomide case in the course of my work." link Since "Foxe" is affiliated with BJU, and the "course of [his] work" requires him to address the same subject once or twice each year, we assume that there is a high likelihood that "Foxe" is a history professor at the same school.
6. [retour] Dr. Matzko's article thanks “participants in the 2005 NEH Seminar on ‘Joseph Smith and the Origins of Mormonism’ for criticism of an earlier draft. Especially valuable were the comments of Richard Bushman, seminar co-director, and Mark Sidwell, the author’s colleague at BJU."
7. [retour] Editors "John Foxe" and "Hi540" are affiliated with Bob Jones University. "Hi540" actually does have an interesting BJU association: He uploaded a photograph to Wikimedia commons LakeSanteetlah(lake).jpg whose copyright is owned by none other than BJU history professor John Matzko.