Behind the Wikipedia wars: what happened when Bradley Manning became Chelsea

Abigail Brady, who edits the site as Morwen, explains the polite notes and not-votes behind the scenes.

Shortly after Chelsea Manning's statement regarding her transition was made public, the Wikipedia page for Bradley Manning was redirected. The article now consistently refers to Chelsea by her chosen name and pronoun, showing more understanding of the issues at hand than many more traditional news sources. But the move wasn't without friction. A glance at the articles talk page, where editors discuss changes, shows an argument in full flow. "This PC-driven move lowers wikipedia's credibility even further", writes one opposing the change."A person's gender identity is their choice to make," says another, supporting the move.

Abigail Brady, who is on the site under the name Morwen, was the admin who first made the move. I spoke to her about Manning, wikipedia, and edit wars in general.

How long have you been a Wikipedia editor? What drew you to the site?

I recently celebrated the 10th anniversary of my first registered edit to Wikipedia. I started an article about the old East German Parliament, oddly enough – this was back when Wikipedia was rapidly ascending in the search rankings for lots of hits, and it was often hard to find good factual stuff on other sites. Adding things to Wikipedia that I knew about – and there was a lot of UK geography and politics that was not covered at all – was a massively exciting task. I got made an admin pretty quickly – it was a much less paranoid process back then.

Have you had experiences beforehand which prepared you for a debate this ferocious?

To some extent yes. I have stayed out of trans issues on Wikipedia for ages, but you should see the arguments we had about Star Trek ranks!

Do you get involved with trans issues on the site more generally, or is it just for this case?

My memory is a bit fuzzy, but, for example, I started the article on April Ashley, and took a relatively hard line against people mucking around with it and other such articles. I think I can claim some credit for the current "use identity" thing being the style guide. More recently, I was involved in a dispute other whether the article "cisgender" should exist.

Was your first thought upon reading Chelsea's statement to move the page? How much time passed between you finding out and you making the edit?

There's an essay on the site called WP:RECENT which cautions about being too quick to update. We are, after all, building an encyclopaedia not a news source. But as I read the statement I saw how completely unambiguous it was. There had been discussions about this before, which I was aware of but did not participate in (in fact, it was an FAQ on the talk page before yesterday). So I posted on the talk page, saw that someone else was making the same suggestion that I did, held off for a little while and a small consensus emerged, and then pressed the button. I thought I was giving it plenty of time, given how clear that release was!

Is there a culture on the site of trying to be the first to update pieces with news? Did that motivate you?

There is a bit of a friendly rivalry about being the first to update, but it's not taken too seriously, and I'd never consider putting stuff in there against my editorial judgement, such as it is, just to claim credit. I created the articles about the 7/7 bombings back in the day and, bizarrely, got a radio interview off it (I predicted twitter's role in grassroots news gathering!). I'm fairly inactive now but also took a role updating the article about the Leveson report, when that came out, and dealing with the page about a Baron McAlpine. So I came out of the woodwork, because I don't mind stepping on the landmines. Mixed metaphor there, sorry.

What's Wikipedia's policy on people transitioning? Who sets that policy?

Wikipedia's policy according to MOS:IDENTITY, and long-established practice, is to use preferred name and pronouns for the entirety of a life. I like that policy. Policies emerge through a kind of consensus-building process which would probably horrify you if you looked at it in too much detail, but generally seem to end up pretty well.

What happened immediately after you made the move?

Someone reverted it back, pretty quickly. But I left them a polite note, asking if they'd actually read the reference I'd given, and it turns out they hadn't, and they apologised. So I put it back. I've made it a policy never to actively get involved in an "edit war", after several annoying experiences in the past. So I've stayed off the page proper since then, and confined myself to talk.

After that short squabble, discussion moved to the talk page. How did that go?

Someone said I never should have done the move in the first place. We have a policy of "being bold", but they said this didn't apply here and I should have done a "requested move" first, which is a consensus-gathering approach. (Wikipedia policies are great in the same way standards are – there's one for every occasion and line of argument). So now we are having a "not vote", as we call it, where people say whether they support or oppose the move (that is, the move back), and outline their reasoning.

It seems the page is full of the professionally outraged. Do you think they really are aiming at making the best encyclopaedia possible?

I honestly don't know. Many of them are raising the same old points, over and over again, like they are novel. Yes, there's a background of transphobia to a lot of this, but I think a lot is people driving by and insisting on having their opinion on the raging topic of the day. Someone has come forward already and volunteered to look at the argument and try and determine some kind of consensus from it (hah), and they're going to have their work cut out for them, but they're supposed to look at the actual debate, rather than just weigh the number of randoms who have expressed their opinions, bigoted or not.

The page firstly got "semi-protected", then "protected". What does that mean? Will it end?

Protected means that technically nobody can edit the page apart from an admin. However, that doesn't mean admins are allowed to edit freely, they are only allowed to make clearly good edits (like typos) or ones that have requested and consented to by general users on the talk page. Semi-protection is when we lock down new accounts and people who aren't logged in from editing. Both things are done as a temporary measure while things cool down – and the few incidents where the "temporary" becomes basically permanent are considered regrettable. The traditional description of admin powers on Wikipedia is that it is a janitorial function. It doesn't give you any authority in itself, it just shows that the community has trusted you a bit more to use the software responsibly. Obviously, there's an extent to which that is an ambition rather than an absolute description of reality, and the admins do have certain amount of de facto power, but people who misuse it can and have been removed.

Chelsea Manning's Wikipedia page.

Alex Hern is a technology reporter for the Guardian. He was formerly staff writer at the New Statesman. You should follow Alex on Twitter.

Getty
Show Hide image

Did your personality determine whether you voted for Brexit? Research suggests so

The Online Privacy Foundation found Leave voters were significantly more likely to be authoritarian and conscientious. 

"Before referendum day, I said the winners would be those who told the most convincing lies," Paul Flynn, a Labour MP, wrote in these pages. "Leave did." The idea that those who voted for Brexit were somehow manipulated is widely accepted by the Remain camp. The Leave campaign, so the argument goes, played on voters' fears and exploited their low numeracy. And new research from the Online Privacy Foundation suggests this argument may, in part at least, be right. 

Over the last 18 months the organisation have researched differences in personality traits, levels of authoritarianism, numeracy, thinking styles and cognitive biases between EU referendum voters. The organisation conducted a series of studies, capturing over 11,000 responses to self-report psychology questionnaires and controlled experiments, with the final results scheduled to be presented at the International Conference on Political Psychology in Copenhagen in October 2017.

The researchers questioned voters using the "Five Factor Model" which consists of five broad personality traits - Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness and Neuroticism. They also considered the disposition of authoritarianism (it is not considered a personality trait). Authoritarians have a more black and white view of the world around them, are more concerned with the upkeep of established societal traditions and have a tendency to be less accepting of outsiders. 

So what did they uncover? Participants expressing an intent to vote to leave the EU reported significantly higher levels of authoritarianism and conscientiousness, and lower levels of openness and neuroticism than voters expressing an intent to vote to remain. (Conscientiousness is associated with dependability, dutifulness, focus and adherence to societal norms in contrast to disorganisation, carelessness and impulsivity.)

Immigration in particular seems to have affected voting. While authoritarians were much more likely to vote Leave to begin with, those who were less authoritarian became increasingly likely to vote Leave if they expressed high levels of concern over immigration. These findings chime with research by the Professors Marc Hetherington and Elizabeth Suhay, which found that Americans became susceptible to "authoritarian thinking" when they perceived a grave threat to their safety. 

Then there's what you might call the £350m question - did Leave voters know what they were voting for? When the Online Privacy Foundation researchers compared Leave voters with Remain voters, they displayed significantly lower levels of numeracy, reasoning and appeared more impulsive. In all three areas, older voters performed significantly worse than young voters intending to vote the same way.

Even when voters were able to interpret statistics, their ability to do so could be overcome by partisanship. In one striking study, when voters were asked to interpret statistics about whether a skin cream increases or decreases a rash, they were able to interpret them correctly roughly 57 per cent of the time. But when voters were asked to interpret the same set of statistics, but told they were about whether immigration increases or decreases crime, something disturbing happened. 

If the statistics didn't support a voter's view, their ability to correctly interpret the numbers dropped, in some cases, by almost a half. 

Before Remoaners start to crow, this study is not an affirmation that "I'm smart, you're dumb". Further research could be done, for example, on the role of age and education (young graduates were far more likely to vote Remain). But in the meantime, there is a question that needs to be answered - are political campaigners deliberately exploiting these personality traits? 

Chris Sumner, from the Online Privacy Foundation, warns that in the era of Big Data, clues about our personalities are collected online: "In the era of Big Data, these clues are aggregated, transformed and sold by a burgeoning industry."

Indeed, Cambridge Analytica, a data company associated with the political right in the UK and US, states on its website that it can "more effectively engage and persuade voters using specially tailored language and visual ad combinations crafted with insights gleaned from behavioral understandings of your electorate". It will do so through a "blend of big data analytics and behavioural psychology". 

"Given the differences observed between Leave and Remain voters, and irrespective of which campaign, it is reasonable to hypothesize that industrial-scale psychographic profiling would have been a highly effective strategy," Sumner says. By identifying voters with different personalities and attitudes, such campaigns could target "the most persuadable voters with messages most likely to influence their vote". Indeed, in research yet to be published, the Online Privacy Foundation targeted groups with differing attitudes to civil liberties based on psychographic indicators associated with authoritarianism. The findings, says Sumner, illustrate "the ease with which individuals' inherent differences could be exploited". 

Julia Rampen is the digital news editor of the New Statesman (previously editor of The Staggers, The New Statesman's online rolling politics blog). She has also been deputy editor at Mirror Money Online and has worked as a financial journalist for several trade magazines. 

0800 7318496