
How gun buffs took over Wikipedia’s AR-15 page - abhi3
https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/6/17086794/ar-15-wikipedia-gun-control-parkland-mass-shooting
======
seabird
If you want the article summed up, read no further than this line;

>But those users didn’t find much information about mass shootings or
political efforts. In fact, the Colt AR-15 page made no mention of gun control
at all, instead spending over a thousand words describing the technical
details of the gun’s various parts.

The Wikipedia userbase is anal across the board when it comes to information
being in the relevant location. There are entire pages dedicated to the
politics of gun control, and the author of this article seems to think that an
article that has always been a technical description of an influential design
would be the perfect political soapbox. Although the author's complaints about
the NRA article on Wikipedia have a lot more weight, I am still under the
impression that he may be misinterpreting what was being said or done, because
he obviously seems to have some trouble understanding Wikipedia's (sometimes
absurdly) strict scope policies.

It's also worth noting that the author seems to claim that Wikipedia and its
user groups are a fairly neutral source in important political conversations.
Powerful (in the sense of editorship) far-left user groups have publicly and
genuinely suggested withholding information out of concern for the political
stance of articles shifting out of their favor. Wikipedia is _not_ "balanced,
but only when I agree with it." It is human, and not infallible.

~~~
OceanKing
Exactly. In the same way that a user coming to read the page on hamburgers
should not see a discussion of McDonalds’ production policies, if a user views
the Wikipedia article on AR-15s, he should see information about the gun, not
the politics of gun control. That topic has its own dedicated page, and it
should stay there.

------
parliament32
Why exactly should an encyclopedia article about a specific gun model include
"gun control, mass shootings, or political efforts"? I can see that sort of
content being applicable for the "Gun" or "Firearm" article, but not for a
specific model's article.

~~~
lucideer
Including general information about gun control and mass shootings would be
out of place in the article, yes.

Excluding a controversy whereby that particular product model has been a major
subject of discourse on US politics across the globe, with major news
publications writing pieces with a primary focus on the AR-15, seems...
remiss.

The attention given to this model by the public and media is a testament to
the product's notability, a metric that's a tenet of Wikipedia editorial
policy.

~~~
seabird
That's why this
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15_style_rifle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15_style_rifle)
page specifically lists all shootings involving AR-15 clones. There were no
Colt rifles used in any recent shooting. Should every shooting using an AK-47
pattern rifle be listed on the FB Tantal article, regardless of whether or not
an FB Tantal was used?

~~~
lucideer
The only hint of something that might constitute a reference to the current
media discourse is the following grossly defensively toned paragraph:

> _Although, according to CBS News, "the AR plays an oversized role in many of
> the most high-profile shootings",[41] most killings by guns in the USA
> involve handguns rather than rifles.[42][43]_

The statistic on handgun shootings is irrelevant as the paragraph is quoting
CBS on "high-profile shootings". Only a single CBS article is referenced
(there's tonnes out there), with two counter-references accompanying the
irrelevant handgun mention.

Even ignoring all that, the very fact that the paragraph starts with the word
"Although" belies its intent.

Funnily enough, the mentioning of the school shootings in which ARs were used
actually seems superfluous. A balanced, unbiased article might exclude that
section completely, but instead have a _Controversy_ heading with something
like:

 _" In 2018, following a, b, c events, this model became the subject of
widespread pubic controversy in the US and worldwide due to x, y, z. {insert
arguments espoused on both sides of media discourse}"_

~~~
seabird
I agree with you on every point. My guess is that the idea was to link to more
complete information by having direct links to the "mass shootings" article,
the Australian legislature, and the shootings involving AR-15 clones, but the
cultural relevance isn't mentioned and it all seems underdeveloped, especially
with the dismissive handgun paragraph and bizarrely specific/niche Religion
mention under it.

------
flyingfences
> In fact, the Colt AR-15 page made no mention of gun control at all, instead
> spending over a thousand words describing the technical details of the gun’s
> various parts.

As it should be. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. The whole point is to provide
information about the particular thing at hand.

~~~
tonyarkles
For curiosity sake, I looked at Brittanica:
[https://www.britannica.com/technology/M16-rifle](https://www.britannica.com/technology/M16-rifle)

No reference to gun control, just a decent description of the rifle and its
variants.

------
flyingfences
I don't think that it's particularly honest to use the term "took over" to
describe the actions of a group of people who essentially built the page to
begin with.

