I have never understood this rule. A 'meatpuppet' is supposed to be someone who you have got to support your views or general position in some Wikipedia process such as editing, voting &c. I don't know about people here, but my RL experience is that it is generally quite hard to get some other disinterested person to support your own views or opinions, unless those views are in themselves reasonable, or can be supported by logical, clear and arguments, supported by authority or evidence or other reliable sources. But isn't that what an encyclopedia should be about? Getting people to support your point of view, using logical, clear and arguments, supported by authority or evidence or other reliable sources?

The 'Meatpuppet' policy seems to assume, contrary to all previous evidence and experience of human nature, that ordinary people have a Svengali-like power to persuade people by the magnetic force of their personality, or by hypnosis or other supernatural means. Is that true?

Have you never hung around a political party, religious institution, or university campus?

Yes, all three.

I think that when that policy was drawn up, it was supposed to be to prevent the author of an article up for deletion (for example) to persuade 10 of their friends to set up new accounts to join the debate; otherwise, as they'd obviously be editing from different IPs, they wouldn't technically have been covered by the rules against sockpuppetry.

Although certain admins (and others who throw the term around) seem to forget it, WP's definition is "A new user who engages in the same behavior as another user in the same context, and who appears to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose" (my emphasis) and stems from this Arbcom case back in the Dark Ages. After a somewhat dubious sockpuppetry case with which certain high-profile members of this forum may be extremely familiar, it seemed to be reconstrued as "anyone who ever agreed with you about anything". It never should have been, and as far as I'm concerned it shouldn't have been allowed to become synonymous with WP:CANVASS.

Even if they are friends, why would they rush to your support to defend some silly article you have written? Why would you embarrass yourself in front of your friends, showing them the silly article you have written? Why would you embarrass yourself even admitting you have anything to do with Wikipedia? Not even my wife knows I have anything to do with Wikipedia (not that she would be interested if I told her, and she certainly wouldn't be setting up an account to defend the Medieval philosophy article. She thinks Medieval philosophy is a waste of time).

It's usually internet friends - the sort of people who think it's terribly important that there is a Wikipedia article about their website with 20 readers.

You're obviously not in high school.

I got married early.

The Medieval Philosophy article isn't generally the sort of thing where meatpuppetry comes into play; it's the minor websites and crappy bands, where the band find out their article is up for deletion and put a note on their Myspace page saying "Please create a Wikipedia account so you can vote to keep this article". See here for an example of "true" meatpuppetry, and here for an example of what is but shouldn't be called meatpuppetry (as the canvassed "keep" voters weren't created solely to defend the article). Be aware that trying to read either of these will give you a headache.

Thank you for that. This all suggests that it was in fact a silly idea having an encyclopedia that absolutely anyone can edit.

[edit] Actually, strike that last comment out. If the principle of Wikipedia really really works, then shouldn't the majority (i.e. the 1,000 odd editors who couldn't care less about the Garage band) immediately overwhelm the small minority of people on Myspace who voted for the garage band? And if there was in fact an overwhelming number of people from Myspace who voted to keep the band, doesn't that suggest the band might have been worth keeping?

In other words, isn't the policy against meatpuppetry fundamentally compromising the basic principle on which Wikipedia is founded, namely that anyone can edit?

Yes but... in practice, it doesn't split into "people who want it kept" and "people who want it deleted"; it splits into the 1% of editors who are interested in the subject so have it on their watchlist, 1% of editors (if that) who try to periodically read through WP:AFD and offer genuinely unbiased opinions, and the 98% who DGAF about the subject so are never even aware of the discussion. Thus, any deletion debate is always skewed in favour of those with in interest in the topic. (The obvious example is Daniel Brandt; with all due respect to him, of Wikipedia's 7 million users 6,999,990 couldn't care less about him. However, the ten people who did want an article on him were enough to ensure every debate ended "no consensus to delete".)

There are certainly problems with the current AfD process, but I'm not sure how it could be improved on; IMO, the default position with regards to anything non-libellous should be "keep" and it should be down to whoever wants it deleted to make a convincing case for deleting it. To be honest, most WP admins are fairly good at discerning "valid argument" from "keep, it might be totally unsourced but this band is cool" style arguments.

On the Runcorn/Poetlister case, I have been told that even if they weren't sockpuppets they were meatpuppets so should be blocked for that. One of the gems on the subject is from our friend Fred, where he rules that you can be blocked as a sockpuppet of a banned user for behaving like that user:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=123412816

Now some of the Runcorn "puppets" ran up hundreds of edits without ever editing any of the lists of Jews; their only crime was to vote on AfDs. Collusion, probably; meatpuppetry, no.

This seems to have been oversighted, or was there a problem with your link?

Not oversighted - deleted by Jayjg, but the revision in question is still there in the history.

This would be an example of meatpuppetry on HinduUnity.org. Definitely a more intelligent effort than what meatpuppety usually entails.

I like how Tom harrison and Netscott are labelled as "Pakis."

OK then, what is wrong with using external websites? The fallacy seems to be 'There is an inherent selection bias among users of a particular external website (true) but there is no inherent selection bias on the corresponding page in Wikipedia (false)'. One could imagine a situation in which there were no usenet or discussion forums, and where the appropriate Wikipedia talk page was the forum for the peculiar people who come to argue about the topic.

Another fallacy is that Wikipedia is a place where people who have no interest in any particular ethical or political issue come to improve the quality of the encyclopedia through sheer altruism. This is false in the case of Wikipedia, and it is false in the case of RL. Most of the driving RL issues, campaigns and debates are not driven by ordinary disinterested altruists, but by all sorts of vested interests and parties. Even true in the case of academia.