View source for User:Raymond arritt/Expert withdrawal

This has all been discussed before: [[Wikipedia:Expert retention]], [[Wikipedia:Expert rebellion]]. Please also see the discussions taking place on the talk page: [[User talk:Raymond arritt/Expert withdrawal]].

__TOC__

==Some description of the problem for the uninitiated==
This was presented for the benefit of [[User:Tparameter]] at the talk page of [[User:Raymond arritt]]"


"Expert" was the best shorthand term I could think of for "rational, well-informed person." Although most of the people who have raised issues do have expertise relevant to the topics in which they're editing, they're more than happy to work with well-intentioned novices. I'll gladly help people whose knowledge has some gaps but are coming at an issue in a constructive way (see for example [[Talk:Global_warming#May_vs_Will|this exchange]]). It's dealing with aggressive POV-pushers and Kozmik Kadetts who are convinced they have [[WP:TRUTH|The Truth<sup>TM</sup>]] that gives people fits. [[User:Raymond arritt|Raymond Arritt]] ([[User talk:Raymond arritt#top|talk]]) 02:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


Tparameter, let's take another example, which is not exactly about "experts". Let's consider the abortion and pregnancy articles. Now we have a few doctors and nurses and choice and right to life advocates who are trying to construct an article or two that show all sides. 

And one or two antiabortion editors come to the articles and unilaterally demand that the articles be written as they dictate, ignoring all sources that they dislike and deleting all material that they disagree with. And they are abusive and combative and uncivil and attack others repeatedly who are trying to have articles that include material from both the right to life and the right to choose sides of the argument, and from the medical perspective. They fight frantically to present the articles ONLY from the right to life view. When told about NPOV, they ignore it or twist the words tortuously to get their way. And many other editors give up and leave Wikipedia because it is too unpleasant to deal with these anti-abortion editors. 

Then finally, RfCs and Arbcomm proceedings are started against the antiabortion editors. But they promise to do better, and get off and then act badly again, and the entire cycle repeats a half dozen times. Finally the anti-abortion editors are blocked, but then plead to come back and are allowed back, and start acting badly again. And more mainstream editors trying to operate within NPOV give up and leave. And to save one troublesome editor who is unwilling or unable to abide by NPOV, we drive off 5 or 10 others who are trying to abide by NPOV. 

If there are experts in this picture, it is the doctors and nurses, who are discouraged from editing by these difficult editors. But the principles are the same as on many other articles. 

This same behavior goes on over and over. My main concern and Raymond arritt's concern is on pseudoscience articles and science articles. Where one person claims that magic is real and the articles must be rewritten to include magic or else it is patently unfair. And they and their friends demand that science take a back seat in science articles to magic.

And our administrative structure of admins and arbcomm etc are unable or unwilling to do anything about this situation. And they get 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 10th, 20th, 50th, 100th chances to improve and they never improve. And just drive regular productive editors working within NPOV away, and these regular productive NPOV editors are given no 2nd chances as the disruptive trolls, sock puppets, meat puppets, POV warriors and tendentious disruptive editors are. 

Is that clearer?--[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 02:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

==Discussion==


<font size="+1"><b>Proposal:</b></font>
<div style="float: center; margin-left: 5px; width: 450px; border: #99B3FF solid 5px; padding: 5px; clear: right">
Given the level of dysfunction that has come to prevail on Wikipedia, the most appropriate course for a principled scientist is to withdraw from the project. 
</div>

==Discussion==
*I agree. In fact, I suggest that we should start a movement where we encourage scientists or pro-science editors to post the above notice or a similar notice on their user pages and talk pages as a signal to a system that is refusing to listen. Comments?--[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 05:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

* I basically agree, but with modifications. How about proposing a one month moratorium? All pro science editors simply stop editng for one month and abandon Wikipedia to the mob. If the result doesn't make the front page of the New York Times I'll bet..... It should cause the ArbCom members and Jimbo himself to stop and take notice. They need to take this matter seriously enough to establish an ArbCom Science Committee that can deal with questions like "Is homeopathy pseudoscience?" IOW a high level RfC that has binding consequences and creates policy. Such questions need to be settled. Then methods of effectively and quickly dealing with pushers of fringe POV who violate NPOV need to be developed. 
: May others propose other wording here? I'd like to see other versions on this page and then we can take a vote and begin to use the one we choose. -- <i>[[User:Fyslee|<b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b>]]</i> / [[User talk:Fyslee|<b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b>]] 05:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

::Propose whatever you like. No rules, no deadlines, no preconceived outcomes. This was meant to be open; I'm curious to know the views of other science-oriented editors. [[User:Raymond arritt|Raymond Arritt]] ([[User talk:Raymond arritt|talk]]) 06:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
* Wikipedia would go on without experts; it would be qualitatively worse, but it would still be at the top of most Google searches. I can only speak for the U.S., but many of the scientific "controversies" of the day (intelligent design, global warming, medical scams, etc) have their roots in widespread scientific illiteracy. Wikipedia is an incredibly powerful medium to counter that illiteracy. I would propose something diametrically opposite: ''Given the level of dysfunction that has come to prevail on Wikipedia, the most appropriate course for a principled scientist is to impress upon all of his or her colleagues the importance and value of participating in a medium like Wikipedia.'' Scientists are busy; they have to publish or perish, and ever since - I dunno - [[George W. Bush Administration|22 January 2001]] or so, this country's research investment has shrunk dramatically and it's not easy to keep an investigative career going. Wikipedia is free, volunteer work, but the more the inmates appear to be running the asylum, the more important it is for scientists and experts to volunteer their time and put up with the BS. Just my 2 cents - it's late, and I've had a few gin and tonics, so take it with a grain of salt. '''[[User:MastCell|MastCell]]''' <sup>[[User Talk:MastCell|Talk]]</sup> 06:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
*Motion to move to [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Main_Page Citizendium]. ~ [[User:UBeR|UBeR]] ([[User talk:UBeR|talk]]) 06:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

*The main reason I stay is whatever I write shoots right up to the top of Google.  I feel it is my duty as an expert in my field to put accurate information in that spot.  But I sure as hell sympathize with you, and my field is not nearly as overrun with kooks and nutjobs as is any one of the sciences.  Just my opinion, and I'm no more sober than MastCell.  Cheers, [[User:Antandrus|Antandrus ]] [[User_talk:Antandrus|(talk)]] 06:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

*Good example of a defeatist attitude.  --[[User:Merovingian|Merovingian]] ([[User talk:Merovingian|T]], [[Special:Contributions/Merovingian|C]]) 06:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

:*Yes, that approach would be defeatist. Do you have a proposal for how to address the situation? Or do you feel there is no problem to be addressed? [[User:Raymond arritt|Raymond Arritt]] ([[User talk:Raymond arritt|talk]]) 06:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

::*Experts should be given some leeway when dealing with topics in which they are well-versed.  --[[User:Merovingian|Merovingian]] ([[User talk:Merovingian|T]], [[Special:Contributions/Merovingian|C]]) 06:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

:::* [[User:Merovingian|Merovingian]], I don't see that you are a regular contributor to scientific or healthcare articles, much less controversial ones. In spite of that, as an experienced admin, I'm hoping that you have an angle on this that might be enlightening to us beginners. What is your interest in this matter? -- <i>[[User:Fyslee|<b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b>]]</i> / [[User talk:Fyslee|<b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b>]] 06:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

::::*No, I am not an expert on anything in particular, not that that should exclude me from this conversation.  I believe it is important to retain experts on real-life subjects.  This issue should go beyond science, as well.  They have the kind of knowledge and experience that is not easily duplicable.  Calling for some kind of withdrawal or boycott is naive, frankly.  Boycotts do little to help a problem; rather, they prolong any solution.  On the contrary, more participation or active lobbying on the part of experts would be more helpful.  --[[User:Merovingian|Merovingian]] ([[User talk:Merovingian|T]], [[Special:Contributions/Merovingian|C]]) 06:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

:::::* You are definitely welcome. I am hoping you have some suggestions for a solution. These concerns aren't coming out of nowhere. We need some fundamental policy changes and enforcement provisions. Wikipedia needs to decide if it will become an authoritative resource, or remain an unreliable one. -- <i>[[User:Fyslee|<b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b>]]</i> / [[User talk:Fyslee|<b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b>]] 06:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

::::::*As I said, experts should be given some more clout, if you will. Exactly how to do this cannot easily be defined without being inherently arbitrary. A side issue is identity. Not all users disclose their real identities, and maybe some experts wish to as well. Any policy to have experts put in a more powerful position (the word "powerful" being relative here) would be hard to enforce without some type of vetting system, so we don't have to deal with another [[Essjay controversy]]. But for the experts we ''do'' have and ''have'' verified, they need to be respected and listened to. To play the devil's advocate for a moment, however, this is not to say that they should have the final word on a given subject. Any expert scientist has his or her own motives, that much cannot be denied; we are all human, and most of us still have to make a living. They will still be subject to core Wikipedia guidelines, and I feel that that includes NPOV as well. If a fringe theory receives enough attention by '''credible''' sources, there is no reason to deny it space on Wikipedia simply because it is not a mainstream theory. Perhaps a structured type of group of experts meant for discussing certain fields should be set up. Obviously we'd need to get in touch with the Foundation, as I believe they are best able to coordinate something between online and real-world cooperation. --[[User:Merovingian|Merovingian]] ([[User talk:Merovingian|T]], [[Special:Contributions/Merovingian|C]]) 07:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

::::::::*I've read some horrible stories about "experts" who were really hurt by off-Wiki attacks by the POV zealots out there.  If I have to give my private information to edit here, I'm not going to edit.  Think about the Scientology article.  Who here would even dare go over there to clean up that mess?  Not me.  They are scary.  And think about the sociopaths that inhabit Creationism, Abortion, and numerous other articles.  If they knew who we were, they'd not stop at harming our reputations or worse.  Not to sound paranoid, but these people ARE sociopaths.  [[User:Orangemarlin|<span style="color:orange;">'''Orange'''</span><span style="color:teal;">'''Marlin'''</span>]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Orangemarlin|Talk•]] [[Special:Contributions/Orangemarlin|Contributions]]</sup></small> 15:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

:::::::::*I understand your concern, as I have been pestered myself by off-wiki malcontents.  It wouldn't be necessary to publicly identify yourself, but to just confirm your credentials to the Board or Jimbo, basically, anybody that can really be trusted, wouldn't be too bad, right?  --[[User:Merovingian|Merovingian]] ([[User talk:Merovingian|T]], [[Special:Contributions/Merovingian|C]]) 03:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

:*I don't think my motion is a defeatist attitude. I see it as an evolutionary process, if you will. Just as Nupedia transformed into Wikipedia, so should Wikipedia transform into [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Main_Page Citizendium]. The problems over which we quarrel today do not exist there. There's no need for a revolutionary process or profound changes to a dysfunctional system and its policies--just a simple move for those dedicated to providing accurate information. ~ [[User:UBeR|UBeR]] ([[User talk:UBeR|talk]]) 07:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
::*UBeR, I don't think M. was responding to you but rather to the original proposal. [[User:Raymond arritt|Raymond Arritt]] ([[User talk:Raymond arritt|talk]]) 07:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
:::*Yes, I know he wasn't. If you simply leave the project, then Merovingian may very well be correct. I was simply trying to explain why I think my idea shouldn't be considered a defeat. ~ [[User:UBeR|UBeR]] ([[User talk:UBeR|talk]]) 16:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

::* That would amount to abandoning the highest profile source to the cranks. Citizendium is a noble idea that will never begin to compete with Wikipedia for the top spot in searches, and that's what the public uses. This is a much larger vehicle that just needs fixing. No need to build the (much smaller) bridge all over again. -- <i>[[User:Fyslee|<b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b>]]</i> / [[User talk:Fyslee|<b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b>]] 07:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
:::*With that type of attitude, yes it will remain that way. The purpose, of course, is to dispel that kind of attitude and eventually bring that project to something that surpasses Wikipedia. Lets not kid ourselves, we're not working on some bridge that just needs some minor tweaks and adjustments--this is more akin to an [[I-35W Mississippi River bridge|I-35]] we're working on. You are not going to fix things here in one fell swoop. You're talking about big changes, some of which are inherently against Wale's philosophies and ideals for Wikipedia. I've been looking around reading some the suggestions and can't help but notice the similarities between what they want and what Citizendium already has: appreciation and roles for its experts, flagged articles, accountability, reliability, accuracy, stability... ~ [[User:UBeR|UBeR]] ([[User talk:UBeR|talk]]) 17:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

* As a finance professional, please change "scientist" to "expert." There are experts in fields that are not hard-sciences. [[User:PouponOnToast|PouponOnToast]] ([[User talk:PouponOnToast|talk]]) 15:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

<s>* How about a one-week strike!!!!  :)  Let's see what Jimbo has at the end of the week.  [[User:Orangemarlin|<span style="color:orange;">'''Orange'''</span><span style="color:teal;">'''Marlin'''</span>]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Orangemarlin|Talk•]] [[Special:Contributions/Orangemarlin|Contributions]]</sup></small> 15:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)</s>

*Clearly this is an issue which a lot of people are concerned about. Is it entirely out of the question to push for a policy change or for specific new panel? [[User:Jefffire|Jefffire]] ([[User talk:Jefffire|talk]]) 16:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
:*I don't think a policy change is in the cards, and I'm not convinced one is even needed. Wikipedia already has some good policies but they're being ignored or perverted to other ends. Instead of [[WP:WEIGHT]], we get a fatuous "some say the earth is round, others say it is flat" version of neutrality. Instead of [[WP:IAR]], which says that the good of the encyclopedia is more important than rigid adherence to rules, we have endless process wonkery while the encyclopedia deteriorates (more like "ignore all facts, obey all rules"). It's more of a cultural issue than a policy issue. And cultures are much harder to change than policies. [[User:Raymond arritt|Raymond Arritt]] ([[User talk:Raymond arritt|talk]]) 16:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

:::I mostly agree, but with some minor disagreements: It's not something to be done out of [[principle]] but something scientists are forced to do out of [[pragmatism]]. Expert editors simply ''cannot'' effectively make edits to Wikipedia. The upward battle in attempting to do so is extremely stressful, and not enjoyable. I'm no scientist, but I am a college student and I have struggled to include basic information I learned in introductory college courses, based on college textbooks I currently have in my posessions and extensive research, as a hobby. Simply leaving Wikipedia is not a good thing because Wikipedia is a [[feedback loop]] whereby if expert editors leave, the whole thing will collapse into a jumble of nonsense in an even worse condition than it is in now.

:::Scientists firmly standing against Wikipedia's ''model'' is a good thing, provided that they either:
:::# Strongly voice their condemnation of Wikipedia ''together'' in an attempt at gaining consensus for policy reforms.
:::# Continue making the same contributions on outside wikis based on a different model, such as Citizendium.

:::In my experience with Citizendium so far, the model seems to suffer from the exact opposite flaw of Wikipedia, in that its registration process is unnecessarily tedious, its complex process is difficult to follow and poorly worded such that it discourages "non-expert editors" from being able to quickly and easily join and make edits. An appropriate step towards progress would be a combination of the Wikipedia model and the Citizendium model. <span style="font-size:large;">[[Zen|&#9775;]]</span>&nbsp;<span style="font-family:impact;">&nbsp;[[User:Zenwhat|Zenwhat]]</span>&nbsp;([[User talk:Zenwhat|talk]]) 16:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding defeatism: It is only defeatism if this proposal is created by a lack of conviction. Given the amount of work a lot of people have put into stopping [[WP:FRINGE|fringe theories]], I don't think ''anyone's'' conviction here ought to be in question.

It is not defeatism if the problems are based on experience, reason, and evidence. See [[Wikipedia:FAIL#Outside_scientific_studies_confirming_Wikipedia_failure|Outside scientific studies confirming Wikipedia failure]] on [[WP:FAIL]]. This proposal is based on a rational response to these real observed problems, not mere emotional weakness.

As a few studies have noted, Wikipedia has the stability that it does because of a core group of editors regularly watching certain pages. Based on this, an "expert revolt" or "boycott" would definitely have a noticeable, meaningful impact on getting the issue of fringe sources clarified.

For those that do, however, wish to call this "defeatism," based on the University of Minnesota's recommendations, here is one suggestion other than a boycott: A "[[User:Zenwhat/Greylist|Greylist]]" of sources that are usually used as unreliable sources, since fringe-pushers tend to use sources from the same URLs, regularly. Regularly consulting this "greylist" possibly in combination with one of the pro-Science Wikiprojects suggested here may be a more effective way of dealing with fringe. <span style="font-size:large;">[[Zen|&#9775;]]</span>&nbsp;<span style="font-family:impact;">&nbsp;[[User:Zenwhat|Zenwhat]]</span>&nbsp;([[User talk:Zenwhat|talk]]) 17:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

*The withdrawal of the scientists and intellectuals to effect a crisis on Wikipedia? -- I like it!  Whether in the long-term this would be "good" or "bad" for WP is debatable, and I could offer several arguments to support either possibility, as well as an argument or two that this move would be a zero-sum gambit, yet I think it's worthwhile.  Let WP sink to the depths of scientific illiteracy; let it become a para-wiki or a conservapedia; let the smog of smugness that clouds the eyes of those who fail to see that WP is indeed dysfunctional be lifted. [[User:Jim62sch|<font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">&#0149;Jim</font><font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62</font><font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149;</font>]] 21:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
*As a believer in both Wikipedia and in science (although not somebody with any specialized scientific training), I obviously don't like this, since it would substantially weaken Wikipedia.  But I also think (again as somebody who believes in science and who rolls his eyes at such notions as [[intelligent design]], [[homeopathy]], and their ilk) that you might be overstating the extent of the problem.  For example, the lead of [[global warming]] says "While individual scientists have voiced disagreement with the conclusions of the IPCC, the overwhelming majority of scientists working on climate change are in agreement with the conclusions." which seems to me to be a (just) victory for the forces of science.  The lead of [[homeopathy]] says "No plausible mode of operation has been identified for homeopathy and its underlying principles are "diametrically opposed" to modern pharmaceutical knowledge. Claims for the efficacy of homeopathy beyond placebo are unsupported by the collective weight of scientific and clinical studies and homeopathy is considered to be "scientifically implausible" and pseudoscientific." which seems to me to be another such victory.  The lead of [[intelligent design]] says "The unequivocal consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science but pseudoscience."  Yet another victory.  You're winning.  You're only winning because you take a lot of time to counter the fringies, perhaps, but you are winning. [[User:Sarcasticidealist|Sarcasticidealist]] ([[User talk:Sarcasticidealist|talk]]) 00:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't agree with this.  Comparing what Wikipedia was when I started, to what it is now, it is infinitely better now.  And yes I mean not only the articles, but also the hierarchy.  There have been useful steps taken to curb the most heinous abuses.  And the community openness to introspection is only one of those.  There will always be people on the edges, and we should not only include proponents of alternative medicine, but also proponents of the idea that our encyclopedia should only include peer-reviewed sources.  That might be fine if we were writing the PDR or a Physics textbook, but we aren't.  There are POV-pushers from *both* sides of this debate.  To characterize it as a "We-are-right-you-are-wrong" avoids the central problem, which is, we do allow minority viewpoints.  Hard scientists need to accept that or make an attempt to change policy.  Only consensus will change policy. If consensus cannot be achieved, then the alternative is to accept the status quo even if it grates.[[User:Wjhonson|Wjhonson]] ([[User talk:Wjhonson|talk]]) 04:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't see much evidence to support the assertion that we're somehow failing.  We're doing very well.  If ''individual editors'' are getting burned out keeping things in shape, that's a small concern.  They need to take a more relaxed approach, or take a break for a while.  We'll keep going because there are plenty of other editors to step in and keep things in shape.  I don't get this bit about withdrawing because you're "principled"- it just sounds like melodrama to me.  [[User:Friday|Friday]] [[User talk:Friday|(talk)]] 16:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

* More editing is the solution. But also more persuasion and application of existing policies like [[WP:NPOV]]. [[User:Stephen B Streater|Stephen B Streater]] ([[User talk:Stephen B Streater|talk]]) 21:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

* I'm waiting for the movie version... not so much to see ''Who is John Galt?'' as to see who gets cast as [[Dagny Taggart]]. [[User:Dlabtot|Dlabtot]] ([[User talk:Dlabtot|talk]]) 00:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

== Proposal 2 ==

<div style="float: center; margin-left: 5px; width: 450px; border: #99B3FF solid 5px; padding: 5px; clear: right"><center>'''Scientists boycott Wikipedia'''<br>
Given the level of dysfunction that has come to prevail on Wikipedia, the most appropriate course for a principled scientist is to participate in a demonstrative boycott of Wikipedia. It is proposed that pro-science editors refrain from editing all controversial scientific and health articles from February 1 until March 1, 2008. Let the cranks, kooks, and fringe editors have a field day.<br>This demonstration should make the front page of the New York Times and cause the ArbCom members and Jimbo himself to stop and take notice. They need to take this matter seriously enough to establish an ArbCom Science Committee that can deal with questions like "[[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Is_homeopathy_pseudoscience.3F|Is homeopathy pseudoscience?]]" We need a high level committee that reports to the ArbCom committee, where binding policies on these matters can be created. Such questions need to be settled. Then methods of effectively and quickly dealing with pushers of fringe POV who violate NPOV need to be developed.</center> 
</div>
It definitely needs tweaking and shortening, so make Proposal 3, 4, 5, etc... -- <i>[[User:Fyslee|<b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b>]]</i> / [[User talk:Fyslee|<b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b>]] 06:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

: The ArbCom does not exist to dictate content disputes.  --[[User:Merovingian|Merovingian]] ([[User talk:Merovingian|T]], [[Special:Contributions/Merovingian|C]]) 06:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

:: It's about time it consulted scientists and got involved. The reputation and atmosphere of Wikipedia are at stake. We are driving away excellent editors, while kooks are a dime a dozen, and they are protected. -- <i>[[User:Fyslee|<b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b>]]</i> / [[User talk:Fyslee|<b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b>]] 06:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

:::Kookery generally can't stand up against the necessity for good referencing.  Even without experts, most editors (be they administrators or not) should be able to enforce our core guidelines.  --[[User:Merovingian|Merovingian]] ([[User talk:Merovingian|T]], [[Special:Contributions/Merovingian|C]]) 06:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

:::: I definitely agree. The problem is that it isn't working, or at least it is so difficult that good editors get burned out, while some admins protect the kooks, even unbanning them, adopting them, and then protecting them. -- <i>[[User:Fyslee|<b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b>]]</i> / [[User talk:Fyslee|<b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b>]] 06:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

:::::So, the development of processes to deal with fringe theories and their proponents and their proponents' behavior (not to mention the behavior of Wikipedia members such as admins that would condone unwarranted attention for such things) does need to go forward, but I highly doubt that a boycott by experts in those fields will help.  Bringing attention to a discussion should give as many users a chance to comment as possible, not that everybody will care, but some fresh ideas can be culled.  --[[User:Merovingian|Merovingian]] ([[User talk:Merovingian|T]], [[Special:Contributions/Merovingian|C]]) 07:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

:::::: As you can see from my link to the "[[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Is_homeopathy_pseudoscience.3F|Is homeopathy pseudoscience?]]" discussion, we have no high level place to discuss such matters. An ordinary RfC doesn't cut it. Science isn't bound by consensus, and in such matters science needs to be given the deciding vote whenever it is feasible. Seriously doubtful situations are another matter, which is not the subject here. -- <i>[[User:Fyslee|<b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b>]]</i> / [[User talk:Fyslee|<b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b>]] 07:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

:::::::I would see nothing wrong with establishing a place to discuss that.  Please see my longer post in the first section for more.  In short, some serious work needs to be done to set something like that up.  --[[User:Merovingian|Merovingian]] ([[User talk:Merovingian|T]], [[Special:Contributions/Merovingian|C]]) 07:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

As a way to draw attention and more eyeballs to this discussion, I have posted a version of the "notice" to my user and talk pages and invited others to do so as well, with a link back to this page. I think some other mechanisms, like a special Science Committee with administrative powers and input to the Senior levels of the Wiki hierarchy might be helpful. I am not sure a boycott will be necessary, but a widespread threat of a boycott might be enough to get someone's attention. We need to brainstorm to think of ideas on what to do. Here are some:
*a high level committee to deal with science issues and pseudoscience issues or disputes
*renaming NPOV as something else so that people do not mistake NPOV as being neutral, and therefore supportive of pseudoscience
*rewriting the NPOV guidelines to make it more clear that Wikipedia will not and can not be a platform for the promotion of pseudoscience over real science
*mechanisms to encourage pseudoscience proponents and trolls etc to go to related Wikis such as [http://paranormal.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page Paranormal Wiki] where they can promote their material without restrictions that they view as unfair, such as NPOV or interaction with real science and real scientists. Note: the Paranormal Wiki might need to be renamed to accommodate alternative medicine and some other [[WP:FRINGE]] science areas, which might object to be classified as "paranormal"
*possibly some sort of special expert status, possibly from vetting, potentially confidential so that people who want to remain anonymous can still have that benefit but be recognized as experts (I have a few graduate degrees in the sciences, but I am loathe to drop my anonymity and I know several others in the same boat)
Here is my proposed viral marketing notice for this page. Please feel free to copy it to your user and talk pages: 
<div style="float: center; margin-left: 5px; width: 450px; border: #99B3FF solid 5px; padding: 5px; clear: right">
Given the level of dysfunction that has come to prevail on Wikipedia, the most appropriate course for a principled scientist is to withdraw from the project.</br> 
</br>
The bureaucracy should either take corrective steps to fix this situation, or else suffer the eventual loss of huge amounts of valuable talent and volunteered resources.
</br>
</br>
''If you agree with this statement, post it to your pages, and pass it on.''  [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Raymond_arritt/Expert_withdrawal (discuss this here)]
</div> --[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 14:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

:The problems are not confined to 'science'. 'Philosophy' has long since been abandoned to the wolves. 'Religion' is near hopeless. The [[Christianity]] article devolved from an FA article, to GA, to barely B-class because of in fighting, POV-pushing and nonsense. I spent 2007, in that part of Wikipedia and — by reputation — had thought the 'science' side was the bastion of sanity. Even outside reviewers have written that the 'science' articles were superior: for example, the infamous 'Nature' comparison to Britannica.  To a very productive editor who left Wikipedia over the destruction of the Christianity article, I said as - a parting comment - that:
<blockquote>
''Wikipedia eats its young, no doubt about that. I do not know if it will survive in the long term. I'm afraid I spend time at Wikipedia with a cheerful apathy and yet I'm endlessly surprised by the destructive behavior: if Wikipedia were a person, I'd say it had a severe personality disorder.''
</blockquote>
:Now, I find the same problem exists with the science articles. Having spent a month on the science side, my preconceptions have been shredded. Science is in worse shape; my opinion, but also my observation. I agree with {{user |Filll}}. Everyone take a wikibreak for a month. The project is entirely volunteer-driven, and everyone deserves a vacation. Nevertheless, I don't think it will cure the problem. I think Wikipedia hit its peak in 2007 and will begin its decline this year. Like so many Internet fads, this one will pass. Yahoo and AOL are imploding. MySpace and Facebook will peak this year. Wikipedia will have company. Cheers! [[User:Wassupwestcoast|Wassupwestcoast]] ([[User talk:Wassupwestcoast|talk]]) 14:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

:: Anything about finance or economics is overrun with goldbugs and other sorts of fringe wierdness. [[User:PouponOnToast|PouponOnToast]] ([[User talk:PouponOnToast|talk]]) 15:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

:::Just for everyone's info, there is this discussion - [[Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Wikimedia's statistics are not trustworthy\Evidence Wikipedia is failing.|Evidence Wikipedia is failing]] at the village pump. A perennial discussion, yes, but relevant. Cheers! [[User:Wassupwestcoast|Wassupwestcoast]] ([[User talk:Wassupwestcoast|talk]]) 15:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


*How about some sort of "certified science" label for articles that have been through review by the science community, and judged to be reasonable and balanced and following NPOV carefully. There could be special permission to protect these sorts of articles more aggressively to keep them at a high standard. Other articles might be good, but might have some pseudoscience in them and would not get certified.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 16:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

** The [[pie in the sky]] is not attainable. The '''problem''' is not even acknoledged, so let's not skip step 1. [[User:PouponOnToast|PouponOnToast]] ([[User talk:PouponOnToast|talk]]) 16:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

** Good idea. Maybe assign benevolent dictators to troubled articles, who will then be up for, lets say a maximum of 2 reviews by ArbCom or something a year. And/or (still additions to your idea) lock all troubled articles of a certain size and prominence from new editors - and block with extreme prejudice from such articles all idiots (by dictator, triumvirate or whatever, as long as it is quick). In a nutshell: more levels of protection, diffuse admin privileges over articles. [[User:Lundse|Lundse]] ([[User talk:Lundse|talk]]) 01:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

*I think we first have to hit the mule on the head with a 2x4 to get its attention. And we should have proposals to suggest once we get the mule's attention.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 16:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

*Even though I am not, by any stretch of the imagination, a big contributer to these articles in question, I fully support this month long break.  Though most of my editing is simply reverting POV edits and being cranky on talk pages, I have always wondered what would happen, especially if we truly got all the editors on board, if everyone with an ounce of integrity decided to stop defending these articles from the constant onslaught of "fringies" who are seemingly adored by a good number of admins.  This whole enterprise would be even better if the articles, that everyone here seeks to protect and uphold, have an outside review during the period everyone is gone (drinking).  The intelligent design article will read like a DI blog post.  Water memory will be proven through cherry picking of unreliable sources.  Evolution will be "just a theory" and Darwin will be described as some of a minion of Satan.  Good stuff.  [[User:Baegis|Baegis]] ([[User talk:Baegis|talk]]) 16:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

*An idea similar to a "certified science" label - see [[Wikipedia:Flagged revisions]] - seems to be moribund. {{user |Zenwhat}} has been busy making some interesting contributions to the [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia is failing]] article. See [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia is failing#Outside scientific studies confirming Wikipedia failure|Outside scientific studies confirming Wikipedia failure]] which says, in part:

<blockquote>
''For instance, in order to address the problem of [[WP:RS|unreliable sources]] and [[WP:FRINGE|fringe views]], there could be the creation of a "[[User:Zenwhat/Greylist|greylist]]" which automatically generates a list of articles which likely contain inappropriate edits, based upon the likelihood of ''certain'' sources to be regularly misused again and again. This could more appropriately address extreme violations of [[WP:NPOV]] and [[WP:V]], which are not captured by bots, while at the same time allowing humans to make the final decision as to what constitutes a "reliable source" or not.''
</blockquote>

and

<blockquote>
''...Wikipedia's ability to prevent obvious vandalism is intriguing, but that alone is not how Wikipedia's success is defined since the problems stem from system bias and erosion of good content, which, unlike random vandalism, cannot simply be addressed through the use of large networks of bots crawling Wikipedia and making automatic reverts according to a set algorithm.''
</blockquote>

Anyway, as always, there is a lot of typing going on, but will anything get done? The academics seem to see failure. Cheers! [[User:Wassupwestcoast|Wassupwestcoast]] ([[User talk:Wassupwestcoast|talk]]) 16:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


*Here is another idea. How about a Science Guild, with levels? The top level might be certified experts with credentials. A secondary level might be those invited into the guild by those in the top level as pro-science editors and somewhat trustworthy. People in the guild might be accorded special powers or consideration.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 16:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

:The bigger problem is that Wikpedia is all voluntary. No one has to do anything, so establishing a super user with certified credentials doesn't mean the super user is going to step in and do anything. We are barely replacing Admins because of attrition. Cheers! [[User:Wassupwestcoast|Wassupwestcoast]] ([[User talk:Wassupwestcoast|talk]]) 17:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

*Put on your thinking cap and see if you can come up with constructive suggestions to improve the current situation.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 18:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

== The issue of quacks\cranks\kooks ==
A completely open wiki-process appears to fail because it makes the false assumption that a minority of bad editors (vandals, trolls, and just general nutcases) cannot overwhelm a majority of good editors. An open question: Can we make a similar assumption regarding the sample of "expert editors"?

The idea of supporting a more closed system like Citizendium or a "Science Guild" as proposed above seems to rely on the assumption that the proportion of bad average editors to good average editors is larger than the proportion of bad expert editors to good expert editors. If we have a more closed system, a Science Guild, etc., some theoretical problems that could arise in certain fields:

*People with degrees in Feminist studies, Black studies, Queer studies, etc., vandalizing various articles
*Neomarxians, Austrian economists, Sociologists, and Ecologists vandalizing articles on economics
*Economists vandalizing articles on Ecology and Sociology
*Theologians vandalizing articles on religion
*Philosophers -- they'd probably vandalize just about everything (just kidding)
*Wackos with Ph.D.s in medical fields vandalizing articles on Homeopathy and Alternative medicine

As a demonstration of how this problem might arise (and certainly would in rare cases), there is [[User:Pundit]] who is a visiting professor at Harvard (I verified his credentials), but at the same time he made this absolutely absurd edit [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Cannabis&diff=186436885&oldid=186429761] and has argued that [[Cannabis Culture magazine]] is a "reliable source."

Having an education, such as a Ph.D., ''generally'' grants a greater ''absolute'' degree of trustworthiness, but not a guaranteed degree of trustworthiness. (See [http://www.quackwatch.com/ quackwatch]) More importantly, does the attainment of a degree ensure a greater ''relative'' degree of trustworthiness, compared with others of the same educational achievement? If not, then how could such a policy improve Wikipedia's margin of error?

And should expert editors have broad authority or only authority over their particular field? How narrowly should "their particular field" be? On one article I saw a debate where some people claimed that a professor wasn't a reliable source, because the article was on Islamic history, but he was a professor just on Islamic theology, not specifically on "Islamic history"! Is that too narrow? <span style="font-size:large;">[[Zen|&#9775;]]</span>&nbsp;<span style="font-family:impact;">&nbsp;[[User:Zenwhat|Zenwhat]]</span>&nbsp;([[User talk:Zenwhat|talk]]) 17:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

:Under the current system, one or two vandals or POV warriors or trolls etc can overwhelm many mainstream editors. What is needed is a new approach to this and a willingness to try different kinds of remedies and tools. For example, one thing that is often tried is to restrict the editing of the mainspace page by a problem editor, but to let them run rampant on talk pages at will. This really is just about as disruptive and upsetting, and frankly not a useful remedy on places like [[homeopathy]]. Of course, "experts" can still cause problems. That is why a self-governing Guild, which can control or monitor the actions of its members, with levels of "trustedness" is appropriate. As an outside check, the products of the guild should be eventually peer-reviewed by outside bodies as feedback to the WP community at large that the Guild has not gone off the deep end. --[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 18:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
::Case in point: [[Paul Tillich]]. One SPA (who knows the subject but is pushing an unorthodox opinion on it) has completely disrupted the editing process on that article: not by mainspace edits (which can be reverted) but by excessive polemical commentary on the Talk page that makes its normal use impossible. [[User:Gordonofcartoon|Gordonofcartoon]] ([[User talk:Gordonofcartoon|talk]]) 01:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

== Counter-proposal ==
I mentioned this above, but I feel like putting it in a blue-bordered box like everyone else:
<div style="float: center; margin-left: 5px; width: 450px; border: #99B3FF solid 5px; padding: 5px; clear: right">
Given the level of dysfunction that has come to prevail on Wikipedia, the most appropriate course for a principled scientist is to impress upon all of his or her colleagues the importance and value of participating in a medium like Wikipedia.
</div>
The reason that [[WP:WEIGHT]] is so hard to uphold is that minority views are represented on Wikipedia ''far'' in excess of their representation in the real world. This creates a skewed perspective, where ideas like [[AIDS denialism]] or secondhand-smoke-is-harmless are considered reasonable alternative views rather than discredited fringism. The solution is not to go on strike, which would dilute the accurate representation of these topics even further, but to convince scientists, researchers, and generally knowledgeable folk of the need to contribute. Such people tend to be skeptical of an encyclopedia that anyone can edit - for good reason - but with increased participation these problems will go away. '''[[User:MastCell|MastCell]]''' <sup>[[User Talk:MastCell|Talk]]</sup> 18:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

:I agree with this in principle, except that we should try to consider some other options to try to improve the situation if we cannot recruit enough mainstream scientists, or recruit them fast enough, or if they find Wikipedia to be an unfriendly environment.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 18:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

::Is it even the right option to try and fix the problem by weight of numbers? It could just turn out a big-ass edit war. [[User:Jefffire|Jefffire]] ([[User talk:Jefffire|talk]]) 18:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

:::The idea is to encourage knowledgeable people to volunteer to share that knowledge via Wikipedia. It sounds like the best option to me. '''[[User:MastCell|MastCell]]''' <sup>[[User Talk:MastCell|Talk]]</sup> 00:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

:::Yes, and the best way to encourage "knowledgeable people"/experts to use Wikipedia is to provide an environment better than the battleground that currently exists. (which is the point of this whole discussion - but this kind of response is illustrative of the mindset of those who don't see a real problem) I'm surrounded by some of the leading experts in their fields, and the response I get to Wikipedia ranges from lukewarm to frosty - and given the current state of things I wouldn't encourage them to edit here either. [[User:Mostlyharmless|Mostlyharmless]] ([[User talk:Mostlyharmless|talk]]) 22:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. I work with Nobel Prizewinners, and I guarantee not a single one would put up with this nonsense. I personally refuse to even look at the articles related to my expertise, because it is so unpleasant to edit with morons. The only want I can edit here is to work on things that I have no background in; I also get to learn something while I am at it.

Look for example at poor [[User: Orangemarlin]], a cardiologist. OM is completely tied into knots and frustrated when trying to edit medical articles, because of interference with a vast assortment of POV warriors, nincompoops, people with a grade 8 education, trolls, sock puppets, meat puppets, FRINGE proponents ~etc. And it is frustrating as all get out.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]])

==Small-scale strike==

I was thinking that if the idea of a complete abandonment of Wikipedia (or the controversial areas at least) by experts seems a bit extreme at first, we might wish to try enacting it on a much smaller scale. For instance, we could start with one article. Encourage everyone who's been working on defending the expert POV on that article to give it a break for a week or two (both on the article and talk page), and then we'll see how quickly and how badly it deteriorates. 

One article I think might be perfect for this is [[Homeopathy]]. If you've had any experience with it, the reasons why should go without saying. For those that haven't, it's an extremely controversial article that was eventually pushed up to Good Article status a while back. It's been protected for long bouts of time, and recently came off of one long protection. Now might be a good chance to see how it falls from its GA version (or even the last protected version) when the homeopaths have their way with it. --[[User:Infophile|Infophile]] <sup>[[User_talk:Infophile|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Infophile|(Contribs)]]</sup> 18:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Rather than a month-long total wikipedia boycott, how about nominating 8 or 10 specific articles ([[evolution]], [[intelligent design]], [[homeopathy]], [[abortion]], [[atheism]] - whatever) and letting just those articles succumb to mob rule for a month. Just as effective in terms of making a point, perhaps easier to make a "story" out of for the media, and a lot less of a mess to clean up eventually (which I'm sure is what would happen). [[User:Snalwibma|Snalwibma]] ([[User talk:Snalwibma|talk]]) 18:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


:I agree with both of these. And [[homeopathy]] was an article I particularly had in mind. I would give it longer than 2 weeks however, to let the editing really pick up steam. At least a month or two would be great. It would be an interesting experiment to watch what happens. Mainstream POV editors would still have to watch the article to minimize mainstream edits, and prevent other editors inadvertently wandering into the experiment and then fighting against the FRINGE elements. Let the FRINGE elements have the article to themselves for a good long time; we can always revert any damage. 

:I suspect that SOME of the [[WP:FRINGE]] elements are only here to fight, and not to actually create anything at all or be productive. I think some will not be bothered to edit at all if there is no fighting to be done, because all they are interested in is fighting. I would be interested in testing that hypothesis.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 18:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

::Well, I'm going to start now then with that article. Anyone else who wants is of course free to join me, though I won't be informing any new users about it until we have a consensus that it's a good idea. --[[User:Infophile|Infophile]] <sup>[[User_talk:Infophile|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Infophile|(Contribs)]]</sup> 18:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I have serious doubts about this. The fringers would soon get wind of the experiment. The saner ones would encourage the others to back off (or even make constructive edits) to foil it. We'd end up with egg on our face, and the fringers would get to say "See? They're whinging about nothing." [[User:Raymond arritt|Raymond Arritt]] ([[User talk:Raymond arritt|talk]]) 18:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

:Yeah, that's a concern. Maybe we should decide off-wiki which article to stop editing. On the other hand, I'm not sure this lot has the foresight to try to foil our plans like this, especially with how frequently new users join their side. --[[User:Infophile|Infophile]] <sup>[[User_talk:Infophile|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Infophile|(Contribs)]]</sup> 18:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I have actually proposed this exact same scenario a few times to the "fringers" in homeopathy a few times over the last few weeks. The "fringers" I talked to were anxious to "give it a go" (like Whig for example), since they are positive that the pro-science people are just insane and do not really know what neutral means and NPOV. I am positive if we gave Whig a reprieve from his currently impending doom at his 3rd RfC, he and several others would jump on board to promote the "Truth". 

Believe me, they are just as annoyed with the pro-science lobby as we are with them. They would revel in a chance to get rid of us so they could really write these articles the way they should be written. And why not give them a chance to see how they do? I had previously suggested a period of 6 months of unfettered editing.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 19:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

:I think 6 months might be too long. We could probably make a good point with just one month. --[[User:Infophile|Infophile]] <sup>[[User_talk:Infophile|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Infophile|(Contribs)]]</sup> 19:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

== Only partially in jest ==
<div style="float: center; margin-left: 5px; width: 450px; border: #99B3FF solid 5px; padding: 5px; clear: right">
Given the level of dysfunction that has come to prevail on Wikipedia, the most appropriate course is for all editors to work together to fix it.
</div>I'm not saying that fixing it will be easy though.  If it were, we'd have already done so. --[[User:Ronz|Ronz]] ([[User talk:Ronz|talk]]) 18:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
:Although this is a great idea, there is a core problem or imbalance that several pro-science editors have noticed. We have a situation where pseudoscience is being favored over real science, and pseudoscience promoters and trolls are being treated with kid gloves and nurtured, while real scientists are being driven off. Articles are turning into terrible battlegrounds between pro-science and anti-science forces, and the anti-science forces often get the upper hand or just overwhelm the pro-science forces, or exhaust them. It is because there is a HUGE group of editors on Wikipedia that do not want science here, and want to spread pseudoscience, and the bureaucracy enables this and protects it.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 18:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
::It would be difficult to fix a problem that very few will even admit exists.  A good number of the people in power positions, for whatever reason, are failing to address the problem.  Also, many of the people on the fringe side are looked at as the scrappy little underdogs and in need of admin support.  Because who doesn't root for the underdog when he is taking on the big, bad establishment?  Except for those whose reasoning is grounded in reality.  [[User:Baegis|Baegis]] ([[User talk:Baegis|talk]]) 18:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

:This is exactly what I was thinking - except, I'm not sure that wikipedia is "dysfunctional". It's still young, and works fairly well, in terms of its intended purpose. It's not a reliable source, so why hold it to that standard in the first place? [[User:Tparameter|Tparameter]] ([[User talk:Tparameter|talk]]) 00:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly correct Baegis. That is why we need two things:
*Ideas on creative ways to try to help the current system improve
*A big wakeup call to the establishment to help implement any ideas; an alarm basically, to let the establishment know there is a problem that needs to be addressed (as has happened a few times previously)--[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 19:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

==[[WP:Undue|Undue weight]] to the success of Wikipedia==
<div style="float: center; margin-left: 5px; width: 450px; border: #99B3FF solid 5px; padding: 5px; clear: right">
Given the level of dysfunction that has come to prevail on Wikipedia, and that anonymous volunteers’ - who do not benefit because of their good work – labor on Wikipedia, the most appropriate course for a principled scientist is to withdraw from all stress inducing work and maximize leisure time pleasure. The principled scientist should treat the project as a fun hobby.</br> 
</br>
The community of hobbyist-editors ought not to concern themselves with the success or failure of Wikipedia. Perhaps Wikipedia will squander the labor of valuable talented volunteers. Perhaps Wikipedia will squander the good will of readers as inferior and worthless articles predominate. Wikipedia is an experiment that may not succeed. 
</br>
</br>
'''Be a [[Wikipedia:WikiSloth|WikiSloth]]. Spend time with your family. Write real papers and real articles in the real world. On Wikipedia, enjoy yourself.'''
</div>

*I think that we may be placing undue weight on the success of Wikipedia, itself. What if this version of the collaborative model fails? Why should we subsidize a trouble model,with excessive time and labor? Would anyone here remain at their place of work - where you are actually paid and recognized / credited - if this level of dysfunction existed? In the cartoon strip [[Dilbert]], you could be a 'Wally'.  Or, you could try to help make your employer better. Or, you could find a better employer. Wikipedia isn't work. Cheers! [[User:Wassupwestcoast|Wassupwestcoast]] ([[User talk:Wassupwestcoast|talk]]) 21:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
*Hear, hear!  --[[User:Merovingian|Merovingian]] ([[User talk:Merovingian|T]], [[Special:Contributions/Merovingian|C]]) 03:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

*I think this may be my favorite idea of all. How about the following revision? [[User:Raymond arritt|Raymond Arritt]] ([[User talk:Raymond arritt|talk]])

<div style="float: center; margin-left: 5px; width: 450px; border: #99B3FF solid 5px; padding: 5px; clear: right">
Given the dysfunction that now prevails in the Wikipedia community, and the fact that effort on Wikipedia is anonymous, unrecognized, and unrewarded, the most appropriate course for a scientist or other expert is to avoid all stress inducing aspects of the project and maximize leisure time pleasure. They should treat the project as a fun hobby and stay away from potentially stressful activities such as resolving disputes or enforcing policy.</br> 
</br>
These hobbyist-experts ought not to concern themselves with the success or failure of Wikipedia. Perhaps Wikipedia will squander the labor of talented volunteers. Perhaps Wikipedia will squander the good will of readers as inferior and biased articles increasingly predominate. Such matters are of no consequence to the hobbyist-expert.
</br>
</br>
'''Be a [[Wikipedia:WikiSloth|WikiSloth]]. Spend time with your family. Write real papers and real articles in the real world. On Wikipedia, enjoy yourself.'''
</div>
:I like the revision. Cheers! [[User:Wassupwestcoast|Wassupwestcoast]] ([[User talk:Wassupwestcoast|talk]]) 04:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
::That about sums up my approach to the project at this stage--same as when I started! [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 16:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

:::So how do you explain that patch in the middle? :) (ducks, runs) ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 17:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
::::(Cross-posted) Two years of temporary insanity? [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 19:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
::::OK -- me, Wassup and Mackensen makes three of us. Is that enough to qualify as a cabal? [[User:Raymond arritt|Raymond Arritt]] ([[User talk:Raymond arritt|talk]]) 17:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

==Another crazy idea==
I suspect that a good fraction of our problems is the name NPOV for the goal for how articles should be written. As Jimbo has said before (and I am looking for this quote), the word "neutral" in this name is misleading and creates a lot of confusion, because we do not want our articles to be "neutral" but "balanced" in a certain way, and not balanced so that [[WP:FRINGE]] views have equal weight to mainstream scientific views. 

I think that NPOV should be renamed. Called it "Mainstream Point of View" or "Balanced Point of View" or "Conventional Point of View" or "Dominant Point of View" or something. NPOV is an awful name, and creates probably 75% of the problems, I have observed.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 00:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

:I have a hard time buying this.  The people who are the problem editors already aren't trying to achieve what we describe as a neutral point of view.  Changing the name would help, really?  I doubt it.  Undue weight is already reasonably well explained.  [[User:Friday|Friday]] [[User talk:Friday|(talk)]] 00:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

It would help. We need something that clearly says, the mainstream dominates. Period. If you don't like it, then, make like the birds and flock off.---[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 01:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

:We have that- it's [[Wikipedia:NPOV#Undue_weight]].  Been there for years.  [[User:Friday|Friday]] [[User talk:Friday|(talk)]] 17:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, UNDUE is part of NPOV, and from what I have observed (and Jimbo noted in some talk as I am trying to verify), the "N" for "neutral" in "NPOV" is seized on by people who do not want to read a lot of text and just want to edit. And they misinterpret the "N" to mean "neutral" and therefore nothing negative about their favorite subject.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 19:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Nothing besides SPOV will do- and then only partially.  With Dominant POV, most people don't believe, for example, in evolution.  Even Scientific Dominant POV won't work here, as "science" is not clearly demarcated, and sometimes scientists ignore subjects.  Only Skeptical POV will work for Fringe topics, and Mainstream Scientific POV for mainstream topics.  You can't put it all under one roof.  Under current rules, the skeptics, being an extreme minority on many things, should flock off.  Further, you have to do OR in some subjects for this to work well.  ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#FFFFFF;">Martin<sup>phi</sup></span>]]'''    [[User talk:Martinphi|☎]] Ψ [[Special:Contributions/Martinphi|Φ]]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 02:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

==Dysfunctional?==

If you hold wikipedia to the standard of reliable sources, then it's dysfunctional purely by its nature. But, it's not a reliable source. Basically, it's young, and it functions fairly well, and seems to be improving. It's a great place to get basic information on a variety of topics - a place to start studying a topic. Moreover, as a platform, it's very young. Some people aren't cut out for it, however - whether they are scientists or otherwise. Of course, everyone who leaves has their own reasons, but it seems like most of the vocal ones that I've seen tend to leave because they can't function without more control than they can garner. [[User:Tparameter|Tparameter]] ([[User talk:Tparameter|talk]]) 00:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
:I do not think you understand the situation.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 01:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
::I believe that I do. My understanding is that in order to accept most of these discussions, first you have to accept that dysfunction "prevails" on wikipedia. My point is that the premise is debatable. [[User:Tparameter|Tparameter]] ([[User talk:Tparameter|talk]]) 01:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

We can either give up and accept things as they are, or we can try to improve things.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 02:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

:Since that's at least your third response to me (in two different threads of the same or similar topic) without addressing the points I've made in the slightest, and since you did not ask for clarification, I guess I can assume that you don't want to discuss my points substantively. That's okay - but, I'm left slightly (very slightly) curious as to why you would waste your time in the first place. With regard to frustrating discussions on wikipedia, I suppose I could thank you for the irony. ;] Anyway, all the best. [[User:Tparameter|Tparameter]] ([[User talk:Tparameter|talk]]) 02:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

: I am glad to respond to your points, once I am sure that you understand where this page is coming from. I responded with a long post on Raymond arritt's talk page. As long as you have read it and understood it, then if you have any further comments or questions then please post them and I will try to address them, if I can understand them (to be honest I cannot quite understand what you are saying above).--[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 03:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

::I think Tparameter makes a good point here. There will always be a certain amount of dysfunction on Wikipedia caused by its very nature. If you try and eradicate that part of the dysfunction, you are fighting the system itself. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 19:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course Wikipedia is dysfunctional. However, several things have changed in the last few years to reduce, or attempt to reduce, dysfunctionality at Wikipedia, such as BLP, OTRS, Arbcomm and many other policies. 

It is naive and even silly to imagine that the current Wikipedia system cannot be improved further. After all, there are volumes of criticism in the academic literature, popular media and other online and blog communities about how awful Wikipedia is at X, or Y or Z, and ideas for how Wikipedia should change to improve itself. 

So it is not completely ridiculous to at least contemplate how Wikipedia might possibly improve in some areas where it is obviously struggling. Because, you never know, we might have a positive impact. And if you never try to improve, you never will.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 19:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

==Another crazy idea (2)==
What about if some articles require you to pass an NPOV quiz first before you are "certified" to edit?--[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 01:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
:I'd be interested to see if any of the current "editors" on the Homeopathy article could pass this test.  [[User:Baegis|Baegis]] ([[User talk:Baegis|talk]]) 01:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
::Apart from other concerns, that strikes me as a very easy quiz to game. [[User:Sarcasticidealist|Sarcasticidealist]] ([[User talk:Sarcasticidealist|talk]]) 01:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

:::You are quite right. But it would be a start. It is not the only remedy we should consider. I think people who cannot or will not abide by NPOV should be rapidly barred from editing until they can demonstrate that they are able and willing to abide by NPOV.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 01:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

That is what gave me the idea. I am positive that almost all of the people I have seen having trouble with the mainstream consensus on [[creationism]], [[intelligent design]], [[homeopathy]] and similar kinds of articles does not know what NPOV is. I have seen this over and over and over. If these people had to demonstrate a knowledge of NPOV, and could be rapidly barred from editing even the talk page because of failure to understand NPOV, then things would be far less tense and pressured and we might actually do more creative productive work. 

I suspect that most of these people are here only to fight. However, those that want to be productive but cannot work within NPOV are frustrated over and over and become embittered and it consumes a huge amount of community effort to get rid of them. It is not that their material is not interesting and entertaining, but it is not suitable for Wikipedia. That is why I am trying to find other creative outlets for them so they can be productive too.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 01:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

There's a problem with that idea, Fill. [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=the+right+answers+to+wikipedia%27s+quiz&btnG=Search] <span style="font-size:large;">[[Zen|&#9775;]]</span>&nbsp;<span style="font-family:impact;">&nbsp;[[User:Zenwhat|Zenwhat]]</span>&nbsp;([[User talk:Zenwhat|talk]]) 15:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

:Good point. Although you see what I am trying to do; that is, to address the problem somehow that actually the people who are struggling here do not know what NPOV is, and possibly do not want to know. 

:I will admit that when I first came to Wikipedia, I didn't know either and I was confused. It was not really that clear. And so possibly if some more examples and an FAQ and some test questions etc were assembled to help people learn, this might help a lot.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 15:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

== A less aggressive proposal ==

<div style="float: center; margin-left: 5px; width: 450px; border: #99B3FF solid 5px; padding: 5px; clear: right"><center><s>'''Scientists boycott Wikipedia'''</s><br>
Given the frustration that comes with dealing with <s>fringe kooks</s> "open-minded" editors on Wikipedia, the most appropriate course for a rational thinker is to take the higher ground. That is, those who recognize true pseudosciences at a glance should make every effort to avoid insults, to strive to offer only substantive points in discussion, and should err on the side of caution when labelling pseudosciences explicitly. Moreover, establishing friendships with those on the other side may bring about more constructive edits on all sides.</center> 
</div>
Just brainstorming. [[User:Tparameter|Tparameter]] ([[User talk:Tparameter|talk]]) 03:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

:Should one discard NPOV?--[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 03:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

::Absolutely not. [[User:Tparameter|Tparameter]] ([[User talk:Tparameter|talk]]) 04:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

::No one wants to waste time gaining the trust of wingnuts. We want to get rid of the junk. Why err on the side of caution? For example, do we have to talk through every 'perpetual motion machine'?  Cheers! [[User:Wassupwestcoast|Wassupwestcoast]] ([[User talk:Wassupwestcoast|talk]]) 03:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

:::I'm not sure that a 'perpetual motion machine' would be considered to be qualified for the cautious approach. On the other hand, I've seen MIT research scientists classified as "nutjobs" within their field of expertise. That would clearly be a case to use caution instead of blatant attacks on a true intellectual. As for "wingnuts", I would say that homeopathy and the like are much more likely to attract [[moonbat]]s. [[User:Tparameter|Tparameter]] ([[User talk:Tparameter|talk]]) 04:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
::::Pretty good. The last sentence doesn't square with real-world experience, though it may be helpful in a Machiavellian sense. [[User:Raymond arritt|Raymond Arritt]] ([[User talk:Raymond arritt|talk]]) 04:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

:::::I was kind of thinking that kooks could be persuaded to move toward editing other things they're interested in, like the cities where they live, their hobbies, and so forth - instead of provoking strong emotions in areas of faith. It's a long-shot. [[User:Tparameter|Tparameter]] ([[User talk:Tparameter|talk]]) 06:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

:A principled scientist should learn how to explain science. It would be just as wrong to withdraw from editing WP as to withdraw from teaching science courses to nonscientists. There is no need to "label" pseudoscience, just to explain it. Anyone who claims to be an expert should be able to give an object description of even the most absurd theory. an objective description will make it plain to everyone but the convinced anti-science POV. There is no need to resort to labels to explain things to a unprejudiced reader. (and no hope at all that a label convince the prejudiced to look at things more scientifically). Homeopathy (for example), explained in any straightforward way, is obvious nonsense, and I do not see what is gained by trying to say it is pseudoscience--it will only give the impression that the scientist is the bigot. Those who resort to opprobrium always give an impression that it is they who are prejudiced. The thing to do with the ignorant is to teach them, and those who  want to defend science have the obligation to learn how to do it patiently.  '''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG|talk]]) 05:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

::But what to when the ignorant insist on remaining ignorant, and fight objective descriptions tooth and claw?  I agree that labeling things as pseudoscience may not be effective (even when incontestably correct). But getting an accurate, straightforward account of these topics into Wikipedia is nearly impossible in the face of opposition from determined advocates of nonsense -- and the administrators who shelter them. [[User:Raymond arritt|Raymond Arritt]] ([[User talk:Raymond arritt|talk]]) 05:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

::: Are we forgetting what is pretty obvious at times, namely that some editors are incapable of understanding these issues? Some are too immature, some are uneducated, some are mentally disturbed, others are immune to cognitive dissonance (IOW they are really and truly [[True believer syndrome|true believers]]). They too waste alot of our time and effort. It's like trying to make jello stick to the ceiling with thumbtacks. -- <i>[[User:Fyslee|<b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b>]]</i> / [[User talk:Fyslee|<b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b>]] 06:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

::::I'm just waiting for a specific instance to be cited. And I mean a long-term war against "wingnuts" that would be so drama-filled as to cause sensible scientists to leave the Wikiverse. I've been involved in long-term wars and I'm still here. Perhaps I'm not sensible. There may be a slight possibility, that certain personality-types aren't well-suited to play Wikimopoly.[[User:Wjhonson|Wjhonson]] ([[User talk:Wjhonson|talk]]) 06:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

::::: Of course, but there are different forces at play.  The forces pushing an academic away from academia are 1. need to get published in peer-reviewed journal 2. need to get paid to teach 3. fear of being seen editing Wikipedia by other academics, WP being regarded as an extension of crank activity on usenet.  The forces pushing him or her onto WP are 1.  Displacement activity for writers block on peer-reviewed article 2.  Enjoys making fun of cranks (same thing explains why academics go on usenet) 3.  Real concern that some cranky subject is getting #1 ranking in Google, and the public is being misled.  ''By contrast'', there are no forces pushing the crank off WP.  Only ones pushing them on, in particular the realisation that anything they write will be the first thing that comes on Google.  What crank would resist?  In the old days, you had to spend a lot of your own money getting your mad idea published, and no one would pay real money to read it anyway.  In the internet era all has changed.  For free you can get your idea 'published' so that millions would read it.  You don't have to pay the vast sums for google to advertise it.  Just write some old rubbish in Wikipedia.  Quite clearly the forces acting for crank ideas are far more powerful than those in the other direction.  In my view academics should be paid by their institutions to write for WP, but perhaps that's controversial.  [later edit - [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bmorton3&diff=prev&oldid=79464375 this] makes it quite obvious why it is difficult for WP to attract academics. [[User:Renamed user 4]]

:::Chiropractic comes to mind - but, I'm curious how many "scientists" see one every other week. It's quackery (and it's been confirmed through personal experience) - yet, the article doesn't reflect the degree to which it is a pseudoscience. My point is that I'm less worried about those without the capacity to understand; I'm worried about those WITH the capacity, but that actually believe.  [[User:Tparameter|Tparameter]] ([[User talk:Tparameter|talk]]) 06:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

::::Which I think illustrates the problem.  You have a personal bias against Chiropracty, which may or may not be justified.  I take no stance on that.  I happen to have a wheelbarrow of personal bias myself, as we all do.  However our job here, is as journalists to document the situation, not judge the situation.  We form articles from verifiable sources.  If ten million people believe chiropracty helps them, then we have to accept that as verifiable even if we think it's the placebo effect.  Our own personal opinions must be laid aside once we enter the wikiverse, and we must edit to policy, not to a scientific standard. Scientists have plenty of journals in which to express their articles.  And "wingnuts" have plenty of places to express theirs.  We document the universe, we should not also determine it. [[User:Wjhonson|Wjhonson]] ([[User talk:Wjhonson|talk]]) 06:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

:::::One of my main points is that caution on these topics is best. Yes, I think Chiropractors are quacks - but, you can note that I have never modified that article, for example. Why? For exactly the reasons you said. On the other hand, as an example of over-reaching science-police around here, the [[Austrian school]] of economics was put in the category of "pseudosciences" recently. Philosophies regarding economics, particularly those with Nobel laureates as members, do not fit that category at all IMO. This is what I'm referring to with regard to caution. There are actually plenty of examples of exploratory or skeptical areas of science, or in this case political philosophy, that "mainstream" scientists here label as pseudoscience. I'm saying, relax, and focus on those subjects that are CLEARLY quackery to all but only the tiniest minority. [[User:Tparameter|Tparameter]] ([[User talk:Tparameter|talk]]) 07:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I would tend to say something like "that position appears to lack substantive evidence".  If I were to instead say "you are a loon", I don't think I'd get anywhere with my editorial comrade. [[User:Wjhonson|Wjhonson]] ([[User talk:Wjhonson|talk]]) 07:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

:Why do we get so hung-up on the [[:category:Pseudoscience]] tag, which many of the debates  seem to be about. Its a [[Pejorative]] term, its a black/white distinction, when reality is shades of grey. By relentlessly trying to force this term you do nothing but create an argument. So don't come crying when you get an argument. --[[User:Salix alba|Salix alba]] ([[User talk:Salix alba|talk]]) 09:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

::So true. [[User:Tparameter|Tparameter]] ([[User talk:Tparameter|talk]]) 15:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I can see both sides of this. The Pseudoscience category is a bit like waving a red flag in front of a bull. I know some are considering other names for it and have considered other names for this category, to be less upsetting to the proponents. On the other hand, I find the categories very handy for finding related articles and topics quickly and easily. So...--[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 15:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

== Couldn't resist commenting on this one ==

I couldn't resist joining this one - please note I have been indefinitely blocked (see [[User talk:Renamed user 4]]), but this almost no bearing on what I say here.

1.  I originally started the 'Expert Rebellion' page with Engineer Scotty years ago.  I see the situation hasn't improved, indeed got worse.

2.  I am amused to see, still, that each person regards only their own area of expertise as vulnerable to crank ideas.  Look, every area has its cranks.  Mathematics I was involved with a complete nut who belongs to the 'Cantor was wrong' school of thought, courtesy usenet.  Mainstream science we know about.  And philosophy, my area of expertise, got corrupted long ago.  Check out my talk page for the tracking I am doing on the articles as they degrade.  Philosophy, despite being the origin of all rationalism in ancient greek times, and which in academic circles is still a very difficult technical subject to master, as a natural target for bar-room 'philosophers' (and ganja smoking ones, natch).

3.  And you are all missing the real elephant in the room, which is [[Neurolinguistic programming]].  Just check out the version as [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Neuro-linguistic_programming&oldid=33400304 at the end of 2006], with what it is now.  It got taken over by a bunch of these kooks, who are practising 'therapists', and moreover they have very powerful support here (mentioning no names - that's what got me blocked).  

4.  On the idea of small-scale strike, we tried that on the philosophy main article when it was attacked by two well-meaning but idiotic editors.  They tore the article into pieces in about a week, feuding with each other.  One thing you haven't picked up on is that cranks, while they have a common target (scientific conspiracy against them) will appear united.  But of course cranks are only cranks because they have some peculiar idiosyncratic view of their own meaning by definition they disagree with all other cranks.  They quickly start fighting.  The reason experts are able to agree is because they have a well-defined and very sharp line between crank theories on the one hand, and minority but scientific positions on the other, and can unite against cranks.  This happened on the Philosophy page, where there Anglo-analytic types united with the European Hegelian/Habermas types for a unique period in the history of the subject against the cranks.

5.  The suggestion above for a system based on trust, that would not need credentials, is the obvious way to go.  Or perhaps some credentials based on work at WP, not the outside world.  The trust could be earned in all sorts of ways, not just scientific expertise.

5a.  [later edit] I do think academics (not just scientists - the 'humanities' side of WP needs far more attention than the science side) should be encouraged, perhaps financially, to edit WP, but [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bmorton3&diff=prev&oldid=79464375 this] makes it quite obvious why this will not happen [[User:Renamed user 4]]

6.  Wish you all well, I have every support for what you are doing.  Good luck.  (Though I have to say, you need it.  )  Again, apologies for butting in when I am no longer really part of WP.  [[User:Renamed user 4]]

:Gah, I've seen the NLP page in action. There's a lot of money and conflicts of interest at play regarding that particular piece. [[User:Jefffire|Jefffire]] ([[User talk:Jefffire|talk]]) 11:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
:: Yes - I've just linked in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Neuro-linguistic_programming&oldid=33400304 end-2006] version for a true comparison.  [[User:Renamed user 4]]

::Hey! I'm glad others have noticed it! Now that we have, we can follow what is the right remedy for such problems, which is editing by a wider group of responsible editors. That's the solution for bias and POV-- in every direction.  And that is why we do not want editing only by "elite" editors or experts--  I don't trust elites: I think the people who have been editing NLP think of ''themselves'' as the experts.  I don't think the people at Citizendium are any freer from POV than the ones here.  I agree 100% with Mast Cell in his many comments above--the solution to the problems of WP is wider participation. What we want with WP is to attract good people, people who will want to teach others, especially the ignorant. On any given topic, the eccentric will be hugely outnumbered if enough people pay attention. We want to attract those who want to help, not those who want to pontificate. (I hope everyone knows my own bias, which is that what  is called pseudoscience is indeed stupid. But I want to encourage people to grow out of it, not corner them into defending it.)  '''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG|talk]]) 04:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

:::'''The thing''' about that, David, is that real POV-pushes just ''don't want to be taught, and what you stated ''forces experts into a ''system of authority by tribalism''.  It plays the Lord of the Flies game with rules based upon overwhelming the opposition by numbers and persistence.  It's an inherently unjust system for human beings.  CZ can much more readily deal with POV pushers by simply sending them on their way.  [[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] ([[User talk:Stephen Ewen|talk]]) 22:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


:I respectfully disagree with the views of DGG expressed above. All surveys of the public demonstrate a far greater acceptance of anything deemed to be pseudoscience or [[WP:FRINGE]] beliefs among the public than the experts or those trained in that area subscribe to, including alien abduction, holocaust denial, belief in ghosts, bigfoot, levitation, telepathy, astrology, witches, demons, etc. If an unmanaged flood of editors is envisaged, you will get the public views in every single article. Including the world view that Americans or Westerners are the most evil people in existence and should be killed on sight, which is quite prevalent in many areas of the world with large populations (of course, these views might carry some truth with them).--[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 16:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

::::As an adjunct to this, should we close all schools of library science? Allow anyone off the street to summarily fire any librarian and replace them? Get rid of the Library of Congress research service and replace the staff there with the janitorial staff? Drop not only college requirements but high school or elementary school graduation requirements for hiring as a teacher?--[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 16:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC) 
 
::: Hmm well I tried.  For the [[Philosophy]] articles I went to academic departments and emailed profs and suchlike and tried to encourage them.  Usually they responded that since Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, anything they wrote would be corrupted by idiots.  I did try to explain that NPOV principle means that won't happen ''so long as enough experts are involved'' but of course they took one look at the pages and decided, rightly, that not enough experts were involved, and it became self-fulfulling.  I did get [[User:Peter_J_King  | Peter King ]] briefly involved, but you only have to look at his user page to see what happened.  [[User:Renamed user 4]]

== Proposal : Content Arbcom ==
Not a bad idea. I presume you will add more here?--[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 15:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

<div style="float: center; margin-left: 5px; width: 450px; border: #99B3FF solid 5px; padding: 5px; clear: right">
We need a content arbcom '''drawn from reputable reliable institutions''' that partner with Wikipedia.
</div>

I suggest that Universities be contacted for named highly credentialed and respected volunteers to man an English-language Wikipedia content arbcom in which our regular arbcom passes them issues for deciding once and for all (or maybe only a year or two?) content decisions on highly limited but significant questions of fact that can not be resolved though consensus except by wearing out one side or the other. I see this as starting small and limited and becoming larger and more important and useful over time, especially with flagged versions. Using named people, limiting their time involvement, and limiting the issues to be decided can make this a post people will feel is worth their time and possibly useful in their career. see also [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikiquality Wikiquality] [[User:WAS 4.250|WAS 4.250]] ([[User talk:WAS 4.250|talk]]) 15:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

See http://www.ocwconsortium.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view%20%20&id=15&Itemid=29 for such institutions that share WikiMedia's ideals (and also a great source for high quality data). [[User:WAS 4.250|WAS 4.250]] ([[User talk:WAS 4.250|talk]]) 15:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

:Excellent ideas. These are exactly the types of ideas that I hoped we would start to generate and catalogue at this page.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 16:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

::A content arb-com of some form is an excellent idea in my opinion. [[User:Jefffire|Jefffire]] ([[User talk:Jefffire|talk]]) 17:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Already done. It's called citizendium. [[User:GusChiggins21|GusChiggins21]] ([[User talk:GusChiggins21|talk]]) 06:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I have had similar thoughts myself, although I prefer the term ''editorial board''. Personally, for the sake of fairness, I would have a number of subcommittees (for example: Fine Arts and history; Film, television and contemporary music; Physics, mathematics, and engineering; and Biology and medicine), each of which would have a post for each of the five major continental regions. This does lead to committee creep, yes, but we need to make sure that cultural biases are reduced, and each area does tend to have a slightly different style of coverage (certainly I doubt that a mathematician, a media studies professor and a historian would all agree on what is notable and needed to be covered for their own areas). Content policies should be controlled also by such a board, for as we have seen, a degree of expert understanding is really needed to understand their original spirit. [[User:LinaMishima|LinaMishima]] ([[User talk:LinaMishima|talk]]) 17:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
:The idea of a content Arbcom is a great idea.  And yes, there should be numerous different groups that can each cover a major area.  It could be split up similar to how a college is divided.  For example, there could be:
*a Physical Sciences Arbcom (Math, physics, chemistry, stats, earth sciences, Engineering (maybe), and the like)
*a Bio Sciences committee (Biology, EEOB, BioChem, maybe medical as well), 
*a Social Science (Economics, Philosophy, Sociology, Pysch) and so forth.  
:Some of the Arbcoms would be broad, but could subdivide work amongst themselves and even open separate panels to address area specific questions, ie especially in the broad category of Social Sciences.  Of course, to become a member of one of these groups would be a matter of debate.  We could take a model similar to [[Citizendium]] and have people who actually work in the field sit on them; this would of course entail a bit of outing to explain your credentials (Master's, Doctorate, work in the field) which may cause problems.  I think we are all aware of the stress that being outed could actually entail, especially when it leads to harassment at your workplace.  Another option would be to have elections, similar to the current Arbcom, but the biggest problem with that would be the fact that, in many areas, it might lead to no one being elected.  I'm sure we have seen what happens at RFA's to anyone with the slightest hint of a mainstream POV (edit:also in RFC's).  The fringe users come out in full force and meatstack the whole oppose section.  But I would encourage the other side to get involved, because it would help to have a sane (and understanding of what NPOV actually means) creationist *gasp* sit with the group overseeing the related articles to make sure the articles on creationism get a fair shake (which they already do, but we have to think in terms of balance).  Same thing with the Homeopathy article.  I hope this makes some sense, because I think that this might be one of the better ideas so far.  Except for the strike, of course.  [[User:Baegis|Baegis]] ([[User talk:Baegis|talk]]) 20:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
::I think the groups themselves should consist mostly of a few people with academic qualifications and positions. By requiring this, we reduce the potential group size needed, we avoid similar problems to the Esjay farce, and ensure that there is quality to the group's work. However it may be of use to have layman's postings also availible. I would also suggest elections for these posts (or at least most of them) rather than selection from up high, as that is more likely to be approved of by the community, and increases the likelihood that a given member will be generally respected. [[User:LinaMishima|LinaMishima]] ([[User talk:LinaMishima|talk]]) 21:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

::When you guys talk about the wikipedia community '''electing''' a content arbcom, you miss the entire point. The wikipedia community has '''no credibility''' in determining who to pick as an expert on a given claim. Universities and the like do. We pick institutions that wish to coordinate their expert volunteers. Wikipedia is not qualified to decide that User:WAS is an expert in [[H5N1]]. We ''can'' decide that Harvard as an institution is qualified to find an expert volunteer in replying to a claim in dispute that has reached arbcom and arbcom passes to them. If wikipedia is going to start voting on who is to decide an issue of fact, then we are truly lost without any credibility at all. Wikipedia's community can identify credible institutions that do have credibility and that's what we need to do. [[User:WAS 4.250|WAS 4.250]] ([[User talk:WAS 4.250|talk]]) 22:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
:::I should have been clearer - academic institutions should nominate, then the community picks, or at the very least all persons standing must have some form of institutional backing. The need for the community to be involved in picking the board is clear - without that aspect, people will claim it is an attempt to get around consensus and the like. Basically, we must use the system for our own ends, not insist on some novel method, however more appropriate a novel method may be. [[User:LinaMishima|LinaMishima]] ([[User talk:LinaMishima|talk]]) 22:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
::::Yes, it is an excellent idea to have the community approve/disapprove a volunteer outside expert for a specific category of claim (physics, music, etc) who has been first identified by an accredited credible institution as an expert in a given area or for a given claim.  [[User:WAS 4.250|WAS 4.250]] ([[User talk:WAS 4.250|talk]]) 23:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I think both have a place here. Of course, we need more outside independent review, one way or another to have more credibility. And academia is a perfect place to look towards. 

However, I think something like an internal Science Guild and/or science editorial board might be of some use. The Science Guild could consist both of individuals with verified credentials, and those invited into the Guild, possibly creating an organization with multiple levels accordingly. There are many day-to-day functions that could be dealt with a structure like this. Presumably we would only go outside for reviews or to mediate problems once or twice a year, and it would be unreasonable to ask an outside body to be more intimately involved. For day to day questions and decisions and advice, the internal body  would be relied on. One might imagine the Science Guild as functioning like the US Presidential Science Advisor, or US National Academy of Sciences. Many content questions dealing with science are sent to Arbcomm, which usually has nothing to say, and the issue continues to brew or fester.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 22:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
:A two-tier approach could work well, but verified identities are required. The current ArbCom system, that allows editors to contribute to decisions can be appropriated to allow others to be involved. I would also strongly recommend that if we bring this proposal forward, that we do it for all content areas, not just for 'scientific' articles (I'm sure a history or film studies professor would not approve of being called not a science, even though it is a different form to the physical sciences). By covering all areas, this would seem less biased, and help all areas equally. [[User:LinaMishima|LinaMishima]] ([[User talk:LinaMishima|talk]]) 22:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
::This second "tier" sounds like a cross between proposals to allow projects extra authority over "their" articles and something I proposed that went nowhere which was a policy addition that said expert opinion counted for more than non-expert opinion in evaluating which sources were more reliable for a given claim. [[User:WAS 4.250|WAS 4.250]] ([[User talk:WAS 4.250|talk]]) 23:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


Since you already have been thinking in this direction, that tells me we might be on the right track.

The difference between science and other areas is that it is much easier to distinguish mainstream from nonmainstream material in science, in most cases. Also, the material that is strongest on Wikipedia in general is science, and most professional scientists use Wikipedia in their work according to surveys. The opposite is true in the humanities where Wikipedia is almost universally viewed as a pile of crap, and a quick view at a few articles in the humanities suggests why. 

On the other hand, if a system like this works, it could easily be extrapolated to all areas.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 23:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

:::Filll, quite seriously, you will be very much at home in Citizendium. It's a good project, but rather slow moving, and could use some help. I'm there occasionally myself for the change in atmosphere. Why dont you join also? '''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG|talk]]) 04:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

:::::DGG, I responded to you when you suggested this before. Did you see it and see fit to respond? If you want to get into this, let's really do it someplace, although this might not be the best place to clog with such things. And actually, why do you personally not leave Wikipedia and join Citizendium? After all, you have no problems with anonymity clearly. (I am sorry if this seems uncivil or offensive in any way I do not intend it to be so.)--[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 15:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::As far as I can tell, there is nothing wrong with people who see the merits of both places, editing in both places. I think it is even widely encouraged. Of course, not everyone will be able to (or welcome to) edit Citizendium, or wish to edit under their real name, so there will always be that problem. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 15:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

:::: Yes thanks for the observation about the humanities.  How true that is, and of [[Philosophy]] the truest, sadly.  On Citizendium, I have an account there and made some contributions, but there is nothing like writing [[Medieval philosophy]], say, and getting #1 on Google.  It took about a month before google even recognised the existence of the equivalent article on Citizendium, and it is far from #1.  [[User:Renamed user 4]]

Theres something about this proposal which I find quite unsettling. Such a content ArbCom would have a lot of power to shape the tone of the encyclopaedia. What we might find is powerful grouping emerge to get their own candidates onto the committee. In effect this could transform a lot of small disputes into one big "presidential" election with all its associated drama.

The obvious current equivalent is [[WP:RFC]]. Of the many discussion processes on wikipedia RFC's seem to be one of the weakest. Are there any ways in which the RFC system can be improved? Would fixed cut off dates, transcluded sub-pages (as in AfD), or a change in format help?. --[[User:Salix alba|Salix alba]] ([[User talk:Salix alba|talk]]) 11:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

==Proposal: Draft Suggestion Paper==
After we have collected a suitable number of ideas on these pages, I propose that we draft a "suggestion paper" including a summary of the main ideas, and their advantages and disadvantages.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 17:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
:After streamlining, in depth discussion, and refinement of the ideas then yes(I'm guessing you mean that) that would be a very progressive move. [[User:Jefffire|Jefffire]] ([[User talk:Jefffire|talk]]) 17:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
::Yes of course. We need a lot more ideas and a lot more discussion and refinement. Once we collect the ideas and have some ideas about what the advantages and disadvantages are of each, we would have something that others could consider for possible implementation. A position paper. And THEN if we were able to get the attention of someone in a position of authority, some of them might be considered for testing or implementation.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 18:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
:::I've put my thoughts on the talk page. Not quite sure what the difference is between this page and that. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 19:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

:::Great idea!  See below. [[User:Raymond arritt|Raymond Arritt]] ([[User talk:Raymond arritt|talk]]) 15:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

==Referenda, Plebiscites==
I have wondered if there was a way to get more voting on Referenda or Plebiscites by Wikipedians, and to draw more attention to issues and get more input. We can get a fair amount of voting on Arbcomm votes and on RfAs. Can we get more voting on Referenda and Plebiscites? What about an announcement at the top of the watchlist page during the voting period? What about an announcement in the [[Wikipedia Signpost]]? 

Some of these issues we are discussing here need more input and more publicizing.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 23:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
:You could try {{tl|Cent}}. This discussion is big enough now to justify being a centralised discussion, IMO. Also, look at [[:Category:Wikipedia discussion]]. Off the top of my head, the places people suggest advertising something include: [[WP:VPP]], [[WP:AN]] (I know, but still), [[WP:MAIL]] (ie. the wiki-en mailing list), and as you say, the Signpost and watchlist announcement - the latter is very unlikely though. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 15:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

== Proposal : Reliable sources guidelines written by each project ==

<div style="float: center; margin-left: 5px; width: 450px; border: #99B3FF solid 5px; padding: 5px; clear: right">
The current site-wide reliable sources guideline should be replaced by reliable sources guidelines, especially including lists of preferred online sources, created by the project most relevant to a specific claim (that may or may not have tagged the talk page of the article the claim dispute is occurring on) that can be used in a content dispute for any claim. Content arbitration (by whoever) will adjust the claim to clearly fall within some project's members real life credentials and their project's reliable sources guideline.
</div>

I dreamed this up last night. Haven't reflected very long on it though... But it seems workable. [[User:WAS 4.250|WAS 4.250]] ([[User talk:WAS 4.250|talk]]) 14:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
:Sounds good, but it relies on the projects being "good" and not taken over by, well, I won't use the word being bandied about, but those who are convinced of their views, which are not the mainstream science POV. ie. It relies on the projects being populated by experts who come up with good guidelines on reliable sources. How good are the WikiProjects for the various sciences anyway? [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 15:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

::That is why some have suggested anchoring whatever we do to (1) outside academic experts or panels etc (2) an "elite" of experts who have dropped anonymity here and have identified and allowed their credentials to be verified. That would help considerably. I apologize if this suggestion is viewed as uncivil or offensive in any way andn I apologize to anyone who is offended.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 15:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

:::Sounds very reasonable. No need for anyone to be offended, though they might disagree, of course! I generally agree, with the proviso that people will get upset if the expert or panel are, or appear to be, arrogant and dismissive. Diplomacy is needed in this sort of environment, even under severe provocation. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]])

::::This could well backfire.  Any attempt to pay formal respect to expertise -- and especially, credentials -- is like waving a red flag in front of a bull. [[User:Raymond arritt|Raymond Arritt]] ([[User talk:Raymond arritt|talk]]) 15:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

==Draft of essay / position paper ==
I've started [[User:Raymond arritt/Expert withdrawal/Draft]] where we can begin summarizing the main points from our discussion. You'll note that I've couched the issue in slightly different terms. My original choice of "expert" as a shorthand for "person grounded in reality" has led to some misunderstandings: we're not concerned with creating more deference to experts, but with creating less deference to those with fringe views. In this spirit I've chosen to title the essay "Challenges to the integrity of Wikipedia." (Some might prefer "Coping with kooks," but that's a bit over the top...) I think the essay will work best if it's concise and as non-confrontational as possible. [[User:Raymond arritt|Raymond Arritt]] ([[User talk:Raymond arritt|talk]]) 15:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
:Should we put some diff's in to show some of the problems?  For example, diffs from long term disruption in part of editors that are eventually banned.  It might make for a more compelling case.  If we would do this, it might be good to split up the work over a variety of topics.  Just an idea.  [[User:Baegis|Baegis]] ([[User talk:Baegis|talk]]) 20:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

==We need to make this more visible==

In order to bring attention to this, I suggest creating a boilerplate to display on the article pages that indicate that experts in the subjects have refused to edit the article until the community helps resolve the problem. [[User:ScienceApologist|ScienceApologist]] ([[User talk:ScienceApologist|talk]]) 16:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

:I think that is a bad idea for several reasons. Seems to violate [[WP:CANVAS]] and [[WP:POINT]] as well as being either inaccurate or worthless as any truly accurate statement that "users x, y, and z are not editing this article because they are not getting their way" is just going to be laughed at. [[User:WAS 4.250|WAS 4.250]] ([[User talk:WAS 4.250|talk]]) 17:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

:: If pro-science editors boycotting articles actually doesn't harm them, then that's a lot of time a lot of editors will have back. Review [[User:PouponOnToast/EW]]. It is not a violation of WP:POINT to '''not''' take action, it is not a violation of WP:CANVAS to ask people to '''not''' fix problems. [[User:PouponOnToast|PouponOnToast]] ([[User talk:PouponOnToast|talk]]) 17:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

:::I think that placing a boilerplate will do a lot to make the issue more visible. It is not a violation of [[WP:POINT]] for us to place something like this on the page:

{{ambox
| type  = content
<!-- | image = [[Image:Circle-question-red.svg|40px]] -->
| text  = '''Various Wikipedian [[WP:EXPERT|experts]] are on strike from editing this article until an effective policy for dealing with [[WP:DE|disruptive editors]] is implemented. Please note that content here may not be [[WP:V|verifiable]] nor [[WP:NPOV|neutral]].'''<br /><small>Please see the relevant discussion on the [[:{{NAMESPACE}} talk:{{PAGENAME}}#{{{1|}}}|talk page]]. {{#if:{{{date|}}}|This article has been tagged since {{{date}}}.}}</small>
}}

::: It's not appropriate for the article page, IMHO. Talk is a different story. [[User:PouponOnToast|PouponOnToast]] ([[User talk:PouponOnToast|talk]]) 17:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
::::I don't think that's appropriate for any Wikipedia article at all. ~ [[User:UBeR|UBeR]] ([[User talk:UBeR|talk]]) 19:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Any campaign to make wikipedia worse by encouraging experts to not contribute is an attempt not to help wikipedia, but to harm wikipedia. Spamming notices about the wiki trying to get good contributors to help less is and will be seen as '''disruption''' that must be deleted and the disruptors as traitors to be excommunicated. [[User:WAS 4.250|WAS 4.250]] ([[User talk:WAS 4.250|talk]]) 20:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

: There is a campaign '''right now''' to make wikipedia worse by encouraging experts not to contribute. You're ignoring that one because it's dishonest, deceitful and basically evil. You're noticing this one because it's proponents are not bad people. [[User:PouponOnToast|PouponOnToast]] ([[User talk:PouponOnToast|talk]]) 20:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

::I noticed this one because Wikipedia Review is promoting and encouraging the idea that experts stop editing wikipedia and are pointing to this effort on this page to do just that as something to encourage. I came to this page to encourage other better ways of handling the problems mentioned. Many people at Wikipedia Review wish to destroy Wikipedia and think efforts to get experts to not contribute is an excellent means to that end. [[User:WAS 4.250|WAS 4.250]] ([[User talk:WAS 4.250|talk]]) 22:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

::: BADSITES BADSITES BADSITES? How ironic, given who they think I am. If you feel that an expert boycot would be bad for the encyclopedia, do something to make the experts feel welcome, something like, say, stoping the consistant sanctions war over every psuedoscientific topic out there? [[User:PouponOnToast|PouponOnToast]] ([[User talk:PouponOnToast|talk]]) 22:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

:::::I think a Content Arbcom is needed to end unending content disputes. [[User:WAS 4.250|WAS 4.250]] ([[User talk:WAS 4.250|talk]]) 16:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

::::WAS, your attitude is unfortunately typical of what is broken here at Wikipedia.  Rather than actually trying to solve the problem, you deny a problem even exists.  [[User:Shot info|Shot info]] ([[User talk:Shot info|talk]]) 23:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

:::::Do you have a problem with reading or thinking? At '''no''' time or place have I denied wikipedia has problems. In fact on this very page I offered two separate '''solutions''' to the problems this page is about. And so you are now claiming that I have offered solutions to problems that I deny exist? Complete idiocy like ''you'' just displayed is what is wrong with wikipedia. Go slap yourself with a trout as punishment. [[User:WAS 4.250|WAS 4.250]] ([[User talk:WAS 4.250|talk]]) 16:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)  

=== The correct thing for scientists to do on wikipedia ===

I disagree with:
:"''Given the level of dysfunction that has come to prevail on Wikipedia, the most appropriate course for a principled scientist is to withdraw from the project.''"

See [[Integrated Multi-Trophic Aquaculture]] for an article written by scientists who are experts on this subject and therefor wanted an article in wikipedia on it. I wikified it for them and they thanked me.

Working scientists should create useful content on specialized subjects that they are experts on, and then let others maintain the page, other than checking it every month or so. If it turns into a cesspool like [[Homeopathy]], then abandon it to the warriors. The current effort to stop ''any'' editing by scientists is pointless drama by science-minded '''warriors''' at wikipedia. No scientist who does not get off on battling in cyberspace would engage in these endless turf wars on controversial articles. I'm glad they do, but I don't so I won't.  If they don't enjoy the fighting anymore, they can just stop fighting ''on those articles''. There are plenty of science subjects that need articles and won't require fighting to keep them accurate. [[User:WAS 4.250|WAS 4.250]] ([[User talk:WAS 4.250|talk]]) 16:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

:Sympathizing somewhat with the general sentiment in this discussion, I can't avoid commenting [[Homeopathy]]. It's not '''that''' bad. It's not a very good article, anyways, but it clearly states in the intro: ''Claims of homeopathy's efficacy beyond the placebo effect are unsupported by the collective weight of scientific and clinical evidence''. No doubt the convergence time for some certain topics, cults, pseudoscience, fringe theories etc. take a longer time to converge to somethink like informative, but despite my initial impressions, they actually do, even in such inherently hopeless cases as [[Scientology]]. ... said: [[User:Rursus|Rursus]] ([[User talk:Rursus|bork²]]) 15:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

::Happened to see above edit suddenly appear on long-dormant page which is still apparently on my watchlist.  The discussion you're referring to is 18 months old; since then there has been an [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Homeopathy arbitration case] concerning the Homeopathy article; the article was placed under discretionary sanctions and the most persistent promoter of homeopathy was banned.  It's not one of the articles I keep an eye on, since I'm more interested in articles about fringe topics that attract few or no science-literate editors (which have remained terrible throughout the last 18 months), so I can't comment on the relative quality of homeopathy pre and post arbitration, but just to say that if there's an improvement in the article since 18 months ago, it might be related to those sanctions more than to the passage of time. [[User:Woonpton|Woonpton]] ([[User talk:Woonpton|talk]]) 17:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

== Tagging articles with documented off-wiki canvassing ==
Piggybacking on the above idea, I would throw out there that we should have a article-talk-space tag indicating when an article has been the subject of documented off-wiki canvassing to promote a particular POV. For example:
{{ambox
| type  = content
<!-- | image = [[Image:Circle-question-red.svg|40px]] -->
| text  = '''There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article.''' If you've come here in response to such recruitment, please review [[WP:MEAT|the relevant Wikipedia policy on recruitment of editors]], as well as the [[WP:NPOV|neutral point of view policy]]. Disputes on Wikipedia are resolved by [[WP:CONSENSUS|consensus]], not by majority vote.<br /><small>{{#if:{{{date|}}}|This article has been tagged since {{{date}}}.}}</small>
}}
Off-wiki canvassing is a frequent occurrence; [http://www.otherhealth.com/homeopathy-list-discussion/9250-looking-sms565-other-wikipedia-people.html this recent example] on [[homeopathy]] comes to mind, but I could just as easily produce calls for motivated fringe-POV-pushers on [[AIDS denialism]] or [[intelligent design]], among many others. It might be useful to tag high-risk articles with links to the off-wiki canvassing; if nothing else, the heightened visibility might lead to the canvassing postings being taken down. '''[[User:MastCell|MastCell]]''' <sup>[[User Talk:MastCell|Talk]]</sup> 18:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

:Great idea. As the saying goes, Just Do It. Anybody can make a template. In fact, I think [[Template:Recruiting | I just did]]. [[User:Raymond arritt|Raymond Arritt]] ([[User talk:Raymond arritt|talk]]) 06:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

== Probably not going to happen - "Finished Articles" ==
I would like to see a [[Wikipedia:Finished article]] policy. I believe this would go a long way towards solving some of the problems discussed above. No article is ever really "finished" at Wikipedia but it should be easier than it is to protect well written articles developed by consensus. Good, well rounded articles about fringe topics have been developed in the past and shouldn't require babysitting. For example [[Intelligent Design]] has reached Featured Article status. The paranormal-related [[Spring Heeled Jack]] used to be a Featured Article but was worn down over time. It shouldn't require old editors protecting it constantly from new editors who want to slant it. All that does is burn out established editors. If there were a "Finished Article" policy that pretty much locked "finished" articles and required consensus for substantial changes, editors wouldn't get burnt out by the constant back and forth among points of view. It would go a long way towards protecting science and medical related articles from this burnout effect. Once an article is developed to Featured Article status, it could apply as a "Finished Article", and then be somewhat locked down to prevent POV pushes in any direction. For a criteria that defines a "Finished Article", I'm thinking along the lines of [[WP:1.0]]. Let's face it, working on these articles, and working with the varying viewpoints involved, is hard work. Currently the only pay-off after months and months of hard work is that the article is stable for a few weeks until another jackass comes along. [[Wikipedia:Finished article]] would both solve the problems of denigration and also give editors some sort of pay-off for their time in the trenches. --'''[[User:Nealparr|<span style="color:#000">Nealparr</span>]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Nealparr|talk to me]])</sup> 01:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

:Neal, this is similar to the idea behind Veropedia: make an archive of good Wikipedia articles that will be guarded from deterioration. You might want to think about participating there. See [http://www.veropedia.org/ http://www.veropedia.org/] [[User:Raymond arritt|Raymond Arritt]] ([[User talk:Raymond arritt|talk]]) 02:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

::For some reason the [[Barenaked Ladies]] song [[It's All Been Done]] comes to mind : ) --'''[[User:Nealparr|<span style="color:#000">Nealparr</span>]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Nealparr|talk to me]])</sup> 02:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

:::Hi Neal, FWIW such a policy can be easily taken up here in Wikipedia only if certain admins were more interested in this thing called an encyclopedia instead of treating Wikipedia as some social experiment to see if the next new editor is the best editor eva...  [[User:Shot info|Shot info]] ([[User talk:Shot info|talk]]) 07:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

How do you know when an article is truly "finished"? Especially with regard to science articles; every year science makes many discoveries that make a mockery of thinking that was previously orthodox. I've heard this idea before with regard to biographies of long-dead people, but even the dead have a curious habit of changing, with discoveries of long-lost correspondence, publication of new research about them, new reflections in popular culture etc etc. Not a workable option, I'm afraid. --[[User:Dweller|Dweller]] ([[User talk:Dweller|talk]]) 11:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, all that is required is for admins lock down controversial pages more often and for longer periods. More and more wikipedia articles are getting so good that most changes are reverted as just making the article worse. It is time to treat well written articles with no recent history of improvement as free to lock down until a request is made on the talk page accompanied with a useful addition or change suggestion. [[User:WAS 4.250|WAS 4.250]] ([[User talk:WAS 4.250|talk]]) 16:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe the [[Wikipedia:Flagged revisions]] proposal would be the best way to approach this. [[User:Sxeptomaniac|Sχeptomaniac]]<sup>[[User talk:Sxeptomaniac|χαιρετε]]</sup> 20:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

== Welcome ==
I don't suppose it's necessary for me to say that the scientists here--actually, everyone who can work within our modest rules--is welcome to [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Special:RequestAccount join the ''Citizendium.'']  Why not give it a try?  Within a few years, we'll probably have grown exponentially (we're already growing at an accelerating rate), and there will then clearly be no reason to avoid us. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] ([[User talk:Larry Sanger|talk]]) 03:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
:Hear, hear!  The only thing that has discouraged me is that CZ didn't fork more WP content.  Do you think quality over quantity has proven to be the right call?  I love everything else about it, and otherwise only lack of time has stopped me from going for it.  best regards, [[User:Jim Butler|Jim Butler]]<sup>([[User talk:Jim Butler|talk]])</sup> 05:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
::Larry, a year ago I would have disagreed with you.  But it appears that the current model of Wikipedia is a victim of it's own success and it is suffering for it.  O well, time to leave the pseudoscientific articles to suffer under the weight of the misinterpretration of NPOV...  [[User:Shot info|Shot info]] ([[User talk:Shot info|talk]]) 05:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Unless Wikipedia can recognize some of these problems and begin to address them, or experiment with other approaches, then it will fail in certain areas, clearly. 

For example, if one lets anyone edit, one will get articles reading like anyone wrote them. And if you survey the general public in the US, only 35% do not believe in haunted houses, only 18% do not believe in psychic healing, only 32% do not believe in demonic possession, only 34% do not believe in ghosts, only 42% do not believe in telepathy, only 40% do not believe that extraterrestrial beings have visited Earth, only 43% do not believe in fortune telling and prophecy, 44% in communication with the dead, 54% do not believe in astrology, and 55% do not believe in reincarnation. 

So how do you think the average American would write articles on science and pseudoscience? Let's face it, science is going to lose every time. A minority of the  average potential editors rejects mysticism and magic. So guess what your average editor and average admin is going to do when faced with a choice between science and magic and/or mysticism? 

And the same is true in all areas where expertise is required, because the average person editing will believe nonsense and then put nonsense in the article. 

So we have to find better methods of combatting this, or else defect to [[Citizendium]].--[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 05:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

:Could you tell me where you got that????  Thanks much (-: ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#FFFFFF;">Martin<sup>phi</sup></span>]]'''    [[User talk:Martinphi|☎]] Ψ [[Special:Contributions/Martinphi|Φ]]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 02:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Polls were conducted by [[Bryan Farha]] at [[Oklahoma City University]] and [[Gary Steward]] of the [[University of Central Oklahoma]] in [[2006]], and compared to the results of a [[Gallup poll]] in 2001.<ref name=fate>''Smart People See Ghosts'', Brad Steiger, Fate Magazine, April 2006 Issue, p. 52-56; the unusual thing found by Farha and Steward was that belief in the supernatural increased with education level, contrary to many other surveys. However, that aspect of their study is not being used here.</ref> They found fairly consistent results. 

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|+Percentage of Americans polled
!
!belief
!not sure
!belief
!not sure
|-
!
!colspan="2"|Farha-Steward
!colspan="2"|[[Gallup poll|Gallup]]
|-
|psychic/[[Faith healing|spiritual healing]]
|56
|26
|54
|19
|-
|[[Extra-sensory perception|ESP]]
|28
|39
|50
|20
|-
|[[haunted house]]s
|40
|25
|42
|16
|-
|[[demonic possession]]
|40
|28
|41
|16
|-
|[[ghost]]s/spirits of the dead
|39
|27
|38
|17
|-
|[[telepathy]]
|24
|34
|36
|26
|-
|[[Extraterrestrial life in popular culture|extraterrestrials visited Earth in the past]]
|17
|34
|33
|27
|-
|[[clairvoyance]] and [[prophecy]]
|24
|33
|32
|23
|-
|communication with the dead
|16
|29
|28
|26
|-
|[[astrology]]
|17
|26
|28
|18
|-
|[[Witchcraft|witches]]
|26
|19
|26
|15
|-
|[[reincarnation]]
|14
|28
|25
|20
|-
|[[Channelling (mediumistic)|channeling]]
|10
|29
|15
|21
|}

Other surveys by different organizations at different times have found very similar results. A [[2001]] [[Gallup Poll]] found that the general public embraced the following: 54% of people believed in [[psychic]]/[[spiritual healing]], 42% believed in [[haunted houses]], 41% believed in [[Demonic possession|satanic possession]], 36% in [[telepathy]], 25% in [[reincarnation]], and 15% in [[channeling]].<ref>Skeptical Inquirer, 30, 1; 37-40</ref> A survey by Jeffrey S. Levin, associate professor at
Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk found that over 2/3 of the U.S. population reported having at least one mystical experience.<ref>USA Today, January 12, 1994</ref><ref name=fate/> 

A [[1996]] [[Gallup poll]] estimated that 71% of the people in the [[United States]] believed that the government was covering up information about [[UFO]]s. A 2002 [[Roper poll]] conducted for the [[Sci Fi channel (United States)|Sci Fi channel]] reported that 56% thought [[UFO]]s were real craft and 48% that [[Extraterrestrial life|aliens]] had visited the [[Earth]].<ref name=fate/>

A [[2001]] [[National Science Foundation]] survey found that 9 percent of people polled thought [[astrology]] was very [[scientific]], and 31 percent thought it was somewhat [[scientific]]. About 32% of Americans surveyed stated that some numbers were lucky, while 46% of [[Europeans]] agreed with that claim. About 60% of all people polled believed in some form of [[Extra-sensory perception]] and 30% thought that [[UFO]]s were "some of the unidentified flying objects that have been reported are really space vehicles from other civilizations."<ref>[http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind04/c7/c7s2.htm#fn21 ''Science and Technology: Public Attitudes and Understanding-Public Knowledge About S&T'', Chapter 7 of Science and Engineering Indicators 2004, National Science Board, National Science Foundation]</ref> New Scientist reported in 2006 that almost 2/3 of Americans believe they share less than half their genes with "[[monkeys]]", when in fact the figure is much closer to 95-99%, depending on the primates involved and the study used.<ref name=Hecht/>--[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 02:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

::Hey, that's great research Filll. I hope you don't mind, but I copied and pasted it into the [[Paranormal#Belief polls|paranormal]] article. --'''[[User:Nealparr|<span style="color:#000">Nealparr</span>]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Nealparr|talk to me]])</sup> 08:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

:Cool, thanks (:  Never heard it put negatively the way you did it above "those who ''don't'' believe".  Where is that from tho?  I can't find it  by using google, the nearest is [[Level of support for evolution]], but that doesn't have all the info. ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#FFFFFF;">Martin<sup>phi</sup></span>]]'''    [[User talk:Martinphi|☎]] Ψ [[Special:Contributions/Martinphi|Φ]]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 04:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Um this is trivial to find. Tons and tons of this stuff. If this is not enough for you, go to the NSF. And literally hundreds if not thousands of other places. This kind of information is unbelievably easy to find. People in general are as dumb as stumps and will believe anything any moron tells them.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 04:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

:Indeed. Take the two-thirds of Americans that believe the story of Noah's Ark and the global flood is literally true.<ref>David Morris: [http://abcnews.go.com/sections/primetime/US/views_of_bible_poll_040216.html Six in 10 Take Bible Stories Literally]. ABC News, telephone poll february 6-10 2004. See also [http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/292818.aspx Surveyed Americans Believe in Biblical Truth]. CBN News, December 22, 2007.</ref> [[User:Terjen|Terjen]] ([[User talk:Terjen|talk]]) 06:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

==How Google Works==

I've seen editors here (and elsewhere) suggest that it may be a good idea to defect to a different wiki, one more science-focused. If I may, I'd like to offer my expertise on why those suggestions aren't good ideas, especially if you're trying to build a useful reference for science related topics, one that teaches science, helps inform the masses, and is the "de facto" reference source. I come from a web development background and while many may be aware of how Google and other popular search engines work, not everyone does. So here is the technical reasons why you shouldn't defect.

# Google ranks web pages by popularity first. Popularity is defined by how many sites link to a page. The reasoning is that if many sites link to a page, it must be a comprehensive treatment of the topic, in other words "a good source". This is the best that computer science and artificial ranking can offer. It doesn't take into account human values, just what a computer can determine is a "good value".
# Google also looks at page structure. Is it a well-formed page in terms of HTML structure? Google (obviously) has determined that MediaWiki structures pages well.

Those two factors are what causes Wikipedia pages to turn up first in search engine queries on topics. The second is less important if the alternate wiki is based on MediaWiki, for example Citizendium. The first is very important.

Everyone links to Wikipedia. Bloggers do it (Google sees blog linking habits as important). News articles sometimes do it (Google sees outbound links from news sources as important). Nearly every link to a wiki (and it is common to link to wikis for background info) is a link to Wikipedia. This is what has caused Wikipedia articles to surface as the first or second link in queries at Google.

Can you duplicate that at an alternate wiki, for example Citizendium? Probably not. Everyone will continue linking to Wikipedia regardless of the quality of the articles, and Wikipedia will continue being the de facto source for all topics. It is very unlikely that the masses in general, not necessarily scientists, will start linking somewhere other than Wikipedia. Instead, they'll just assume that an article on Wikipedia related to science is as good, or good enough, as an article on Britney Spears. Only experts will see a quality difference, consider that quality difference to be important, and experts are by definition ''always'' the minority.

An expert based wiki/encylopedia will ''never'' receive the inbound links required to rise to the top of search engine queries. In other words it ends up being an encyclopedia only for internal use, an encyclopedia by scientists for scientists and one that no one outside of science will read.

It won't solve the problems editors here are saying needs to be solved. That from-scientists-for-scientists article on Creationism will be buried, Wikipedia's article on Creationism will continue to be dominant in search engine queries, and the masses will continue to be scientifically illiterate on Creationism. If the goal of science is to teach and clear up misrepresentations of science, why would scientists ever want to abandon Wikipedia, considering it's technical position in terms of computer science, how the web currently works, and its potential as a teaching tool? How many millions of dollars are spent on creating public awareness of science, combating scientific illiteracy, and so forth. Here it's free! Somewhere above I read someone say that there's no incentive for scientists to contribute. Of course there is. --'''[[User:Nealparr|<span style="color:#000">Nealparr</span>]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Nealparr|talk to me]])</sup> 07:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

::And by the way, whatever scientist wrote the [[modus tollens]] article, thank you. I used it recently to win an argument. Before my stint at Wikipedia, I wasn't even aware of it. --'''[[User:Nealparr|<span style="color:#000">Nealparr</span>]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Nealparr|talk to me]])</sup> 07:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

:::When the bloggersphere begins to move, Google will follow it.  Wikipedia is on a downwards spiral, a product of it's own success (and fame).  All that is needed is it's leadership to allow admins to enforce policy (rather than leaving up to certain "rogue" elements).  Gradually as the editing community splits and fragments, those who can abuse the system "best" here at Wikipedia will stay.  The others will go elsewhere.  Gradually the "rest-of-the-world" will see that for what it is and say so.  It happened before Wikipedia and it will happen when Wikipedia sails itself into idiotic POV pushing irrelevancy...besides, it's only the articles that attract the hordes of netkooks that are in need of admin reform.  The rest of the project seems to be sort of ok (although in saying that, firmer hands the admins would be appriciated in almost all talk pages in any articles I wander through).  [[User:Shot info|Shot info]] ([[User talk:Shot info|talk]]) 07:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

:::::I disagree with "''Wikipedia is on a downward spiral''". Wikipedia has lots of problems, and has ''always'' had lots of problems. But our problems are getting fixed (too slowly tis true). Wikipedia, the encyclopedia and the community, every year are better than the year before. We have fresh blood in a new revitalized arbcom, are hiring people to raise funds in a professional manner in our new home San Francisco, and are gonna join with Creative Commons and the Free Software Foundation so that the next GFDL version is nothing other than the next version of the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA licence so that we are finally compatible and have an appropriate licence for wiki created work. '''These are cornerstones being fixed.''' Wikipedia has always been an encyclopedia ''in the making''. Our success has led us to the delightful problem of having lots of articles good enough to protect as ''finished''. That is not a downward spiral. Quite the opposite. [[User:WAS 4.250|WAS 4.250]] ([[User talk:WAS 4.250|talk]]) 17:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

::::(ec) I have to say, I disagree. Or rather, that scenario is unlikely. In the computer world you have what's called the "[[killer app]]". On the web you have killer sites. There are search engines that provide more functionality or more specialized searches than Google, but everyone still uses Google (by everyone I'm speaking generally). There are better shopping experiences than eBay or Amazon, but everyone still shops there. Once a killer site comes along that fills a niche so well, it's very difficult for the web to make a massive shift. Wikipedia filled that niche on popular encyclopedias for the masses. Revolutions only occur in unfilled niches. I'm sorry to say, but there's not going to be a huge revolution that switches everything from a social encyclopedia back to a top-down expert driven encyclopedia. It's just not going to happen. That's the way encyclopedia's have been always been published, and it's fallen out of fashion. In other words, the blogosphere won't adopt it, certainly not for this reason -- remember, pseudoscience is ''vastly'' more popular than science and there's more pseudoscience bloggers than science bloggers. Experts are ''always'' the minority. Might as well dig in and try your best to improve Wikipedia. Wikipedia doesn't need experts. Experts need Wikipedia so their views aren't misrepresented in front of the masses who will continue to use it, more so than anything else. --'''[[User:Nealparr|<span style="color:#000">Nealparr</span>]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Nealparr|talk to me]])</sup> 08:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC) 

:::::I see Neal's point but there's more at work. There's a view held by some here that it's better to allow a bad article to become ''obviously'' bad than to look good enough superficially. Then people will begin looking at other sources of information. Maybe there's room for more than one popular wiki -- Wikipedia for those who want exhaustive knowledge of Pokemon characters or bands who have sold 37 copies of their latest CD, with Citizendium or Veropedia for serious topics. (And of course Conservapedia for... um, people who read Conservapedia.) I have no idea what will happen and no firm ideas about what I think should happen. Time will tell. [[User:Raymond arritt|Raymond Arritt]] ([[User talk:Raymond arritt|talk]]) 07:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

:::::::I'm looking forward to the [http://www.eol.org/ Encyclopedia of Life], which will be a beautiful teaching tool, and has expert-driven wiki features. That will be popularized by academics, and probably be encouraged as a tool for use in schools. It's not going to be as popular as Wikipedia, though, ever, and nearly all of it will be lost on Creationists who will never visit it because they don't understand evolution anyway. I asked ScienceApologist once why he bothers editing fringe paranormal topics if his goal was to teach science on Wikipedia, my thinking being that the only people who reads paranormal articles are people who think paranormal stuff is cool. He said that potentially anyone could read an article on the paranormal and mistake it for real science, instead of something folkloric. Well, I guarantee that people looking for information on paranormal topics aren't going to go to EoL (there's nothing there for them), so that potential to educate them on mainstream science's position is lost. Same thing with Intelligent Design or any other topic not supported by mainstream science. Scientists will have their academic wikis, like EoL, but the masses will continue to suffer scientific illiteracy, something that certainly doesn't help science's cause. That's why I say, of course scientists benefit from contributing to Wikipedia. You know how much the Encyclopedia of Life website cost? ($100 Million [http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2007/05/09/what_on_earth_database_to_list_all_named_species/]) : ) And the people who really need convincing about biology aren't even going to go there. --'''[[User:Nealparr|<span style="color:#000">Nealparr</span>]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Nealparr|talk to me]])</sup> 08:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::::: Neal, as I say, I'm with you on this.  There is a huge battle for civilisation going on here, and the main problem is that the forces of good do not even realise this is going on.  It's like Augustine having these learned disputes on the nature of the Trinity at the very same time the vandals and the Goths were beating down the gates of the city and the Roman empire was collapsing.  It's exactly like that.  [[User:Renamed user 4]]
:I've seen this argument before and it's not a compelling one not to switch to Citizendium. We don't join because it's not popular enough and it's not popular enough because we don't join. There's a faulty logic to that, and the solution to that problem, in my eyes, is simple. ~ [[User:UBeR|UBeR]] ([[User talk:UBeR|talk]]) 17:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
:By the way, a reasonable person would ask why join in the first place? I've outlined that above within the context of what's being discussed here, but Citizendium has [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:We_aren%27t_Wikipedia their own page] that explains it pretty well. ~ [[User:UBeR|UBeR]] ([[User talk:UBeR|talk]]) 17:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

::The logic behind what I'm saying is that if you'd like to clear up misconceptions about science among the masses, you go where the masses are, rather than making a 100% accurate encyclopedia that the masses won't read. There's really no reason why one couldn't do both, since the technology behind making that happen mostly boils to to copy and paste. --'''[[User:Nealparr|<span style="color:#000">Nealparr</span>]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Nealparr|talk to me]])</sup> 18:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

=== But it's not free ===

<div style="float: center; margin-left: 5px; width: 450px; border: #99B3FF solid 5px; padding: 5px; clear: right">
How many millions of dollars are spent on creating public awareness of science, combating scientific illiteracy, and so forth. '''Here it's free'''! Somewhere above I read someone say that there's no incentive for scientists to contribute. '''Of course there is'''. --'''[[User:Nealparr|<span style="color:#000">Nealparr</span>]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Nealparr|talk to me]])</sup> 07:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
</div>

Once again, [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bmorton3&diff=prev&oldid=79464375 this diff] shows why it's not free, and why there is no incentive (indeed, a disincentive).  Until a few dollars from the millions being spent on programs to combat scientific illiteracy are diverted into a grant to pay for this guy contributing to Wikipedia, rather than being blamed for it by his Chair.

<div style="float: center; margin-left: 5px; width: 450px; border: #99B3FF solid 5px; padding: 5px; clear: right">My Chairperson has instructed me to cease working on Wikipedia until such time as my publications are in-line with tenure expectations, so I suspect I will be gone indefinitely</div>

It's only free for cranks and trolls who have no hope of ever being published in an authoritative peer-reviewed journal.  [[User:Renamed user 4]]

:Do you mean it's not free as in time spent, like he should be working on something else? Or are you saying that poor guy is penalized for the content of a Wikipedia article? --'''[[User:Nealparr|<span style="color:#000">Nealparr</span>]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Nealparr|talk to me]])</sup> 08:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

:: The first.  Brian wrote some good stuff and I encouraged him to stay, but it was mostly displacement activity for what he really should have been doing, i.e. getting stuff published in 'proper' journals and getting his tenure.  Obviously he mentioned he was doing stuff in Wikipedia to the Department, and they took a dim view.  The department is trying to market itself to potential students, sponsors, government agencies &c and peer-reviewed publications by department staff is a big marker for that effort, indeed it goes into some of the ratings I believe.  Getting articles into Wikipedia isn't.  [[User:Renamed user 4]]

:::Hey, I can't argue with that. Wikipedia editing instead of doing what you're supposed to be doing is an addiction I'm struggling with myself : ) I doubt any of my clients would accept "but I was busy talking to this guy on Wikipedia" as an excuse. All I'm saying is that there's an enormous potential benefit there despite trolls, debates, arguments, and what not. I'm not arguing against fixing Wikipedia to make it easier. I'm pointing out the technical (and perhaps also philosophical) problems with jumping ship. --'''[[User:Nealparr|<span style="color:#000">Nealparr</span>]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Nealparr|talk to me]])</sup> 08:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

:::: Hey and I agree with you too.  I'm just saying that, currently, it's not free, given the relative cost to a scientist writing for Wikipedia is greater than for a crank, and this creates a huge natural advantage for the crank.  It will only be resolved by a campaign in academia to get them to understand how it works, and perhaps encourage the idea of grants to sponsor Wikipedia work, in the public interest.  On the former I wrote to an academic recently pointing out some flaws in an article.  He replied, agreeing that the article was wrong, but saying 'Your chances of improving the article are limited. By its very nature, Wikipedia is a collection of internet links'.  How dismissive, and wrong, but that is what you are up against.  Another, who I regularly correspond with, cannot understand why anyone would write anything they cannot sign.  He compared it to the work of the medieval scribes who toiled to preserve all the ancient classical learning, anonymously, and without thanks for the great store of knowledge we have today.  Yes, there is a benefit, but it needs to be 'monetized'.  [[User:Renamed user 4]]

==Philcha's point idea==


::"Pseudointellectuals, POV pushers, uncivil assholes, and egomaniacs will always be a problem" looks like a growing problem; and it's increasingly hard for editors and admins to control as Wikipedia grows. I suggest a more automated approach is needed, e.g.: articles get "points" for each access; editors get points for each edit in each category; edits from people whose points for the relevant category (highest applicable category if several) are less than the article's score are put on a "to be reviewed" list; articles that get a lot of abuse can have their thresholds raised; editors who clearly violate published Wikipedia rules can have their scores reduced; editors who are proven experts in their fields get their scores for these fields boosted. [[User:Philcha|Philcha]] ([[User talk:Philcha|talk]]) 08:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

(Cross posted from my talk page).--[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 16:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

==Similar problems elsewhere==

The issues you're highlighting here are very much also a problem in other areas of Wikipedia - perhaps more so, if anything. Personally I think it's indicative of a general failure of governance across the project. You may be interested in seeing this: [[Wikipedia:Working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars]]. I wonder if there would be scope for something similar to address the problems with science articles? -- [[User:ChrisO|ChrisO]] ([[User talk:ChrisO|talk]]) 08:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

:Yup. "A general failure of governance across the project" puts it in a nutshell. Thanks. [[User:Raymond arritt|Raymond Arritt]] ([[User talk:Raymond arritt|talk]]) 08:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

: No I think this is a very harmful analogy.  Science is not some particular point of view, or 'official position' on something.  It's not like the scientific position is that the universe was created 14 billion years ago, whereas the YE creationist position is that it was created 6,000 years ago. Not at all. Science is a method, not a position.  The method is to look at all the evidence for a particular position, and see if the evidence logically supports it, or positively refutes it.  The 'best' explanation so far is that the earth was created 14 billion years ago.  To suppose that science is some kind of position or view leads to SPOV vs NPOV nonsense and then you have to accommodate all 'significant viewpoints'.  Science POV = NPOV.  On the failure of governance, where is the failure?  Agreeing with Neal above, the real problem is that in many areas there is no critical mass of experts.  My experience is a small number of experts is enough to defeat any number of trolls (because experts by their nature agree on the sources, and the NPOV method, whereas the trolls disagree with one another).  But experts seem to be leaving in droves, and that is what is causing the problem.  SA seemed to be fighting a single-handed battle at one point.  [[User:Renamed user 4]]

::A small number of experts can defeat any number of trolls when Wikipedia works the way it's supposed to. But more and more, the trolls find a sympathetic admin who lambastes the experts for biting a newbie (even when the troll has been here for months) or unblocks the troll for yet another "last chance." Wikipedia's policies are good but they're being ignored or subverted. [[WP:IAR]] is supposedly the foremost rule, yet in practice we have a strict obey-all-rules policy when a case hits arbcom. [[WP:NPOV]] is great as written but in practice we get a fatuous "some say the earth is round but others say it is flat" parody of neutrality. It doesn't matter how many experts we get when the deck is stacked in favor of anti-science fringe types viewed as the feisty underdogs fighting the big bad scientific establishment. [[User:Raymond arritt|Raymond Arritt]] ([[User talk:Raymond arritt|talk]]) 09:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

::: What we need is more technically literate admins who can address these issues. Would you stand? [[User:Stephen B Streater|Stephen B Streater]] ([[User talk:Stephen B Streater|talk]]) 09:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

::::[[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Raymond_arritt | Done that already]] and if I had to do it again there's no way I'd pass... [[User:Raymond arritt|Raymond Arritt]] ([[User talk:Raymond arritt|talk]]) 10:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

<undent> Allow me to interject a little. I have recently engaged some with one of our admins here about this. This admin is actively and even almost frantically promoting pseudoscience here because it is "fair". As I have noted elsewhere here, well over half the US public believes in what we might call mystical or magical thinking, or pseudoscience. So is it any wonder that we get admins who let their own personal views color things and are amenable to the arguments that science has no place on Wikipedia, particularly in pseudoscience articles? --[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 19:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

:::::I think Arbcom are the problem. Thankfully I'm not dealing directly with it at the moment, I don't have the time or the patience right now but there's no real recourse against POV pushing of any kind on Wikipedia. Every level of dispute resolution on Wikipedia essentially asks you to resolve the content problem yourself, and will only censure for behaviour considered uncivil. Arbcom are particularly bad at handing out these kind of judgements. As they say they don't do "content disputes". As a result we're seeing the same articles and editors being brought up over and over again. Theirs isn't an easy job, and I respect them for it - but they're not making their jobs any easier by giving space to POV-vandals.

:::::The purpose of Wikipedia of course isn't to establish truth, but to present the evidence. I'm not asking Arbcom to establish the wording of a page, but they do need to recognise which editors are capable of doing so. However, editors who cannot edit constructively, and demonstrate no intention of doing so, should be admonished and then shot (banished) - the assumption of good faith is far too great, and as noted above, has driven many away, and is threatening to drive some of the pillars of Wikipedia away. Unfortunately, most of the bureaucracy here (and Wikipedia has one, despite protestations otherwise) is completely head in the clouds about these issues. [[User:Mostlyharmless|Mostlyharmless]] ([[User talk:Mostlyharmless|talk]]) 22:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Well the alarm bell has to be sounded, and reasonable alternatives to consider and try have to be presented. What I think most admins here is missing is that the POV pushers '''''loathe''''' NPOV, or do not understand it, or misinterpret it. And no amount of wikilove and explaining is going to change that to someone who is deluded, or even mentally ill.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 22:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


It might be worthwhile to try something similar to [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Macedonia]], where discretionary sanctions include blocks for incivility, disruption, and edit-warring. --[[User:Ronz|Ronz]] ([[User talk:Ronz|talk]]) 22:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

==Rule of law==

Unfortunately, being accommodating leads to the current mess, because we cannot accommodate all desires, particularly when everyone has a different idea of what is needed. And that was our mistake, for retreating from the conflict instead of finding ways to remove the unconstructive elements. It might feel good to [[WP:AGF]] and do whatever someone is asking, but it is ultimately bad for the articles, bad for Wikipedia, and bad for long term  productivity of all contributors. 

There is a reason that functioning societies have laws and the rule of law, and the police are empowered to act on the laws and we have courts and lawyers etc. It is folly to think that an environment that is more and more resembling society at large can not have a similar structure. We have laws here, but not the rule of law, and it is almost impossible for our "police" to enforce the rule of law. So therefore the citizens have to enforce things themselves and we get the rule of the jungle. It is pretty obvious.

Where would you rather live? Sweden or Afghanistan? Denmark or Colombia? Japan or Mexico? War zones or the Wild West exhibit the same characteristics that are developing on Wikipedia. If we refuse to enforce our laws, we will have problems. This does not mean we need to be authoritarian about it like North Korea. But we can find a better balance perhaps.
--[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 17:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
:Accommodating does not have to mean making changes.  But discussing the problem in a professional way should be possible.  When submitting a paper it is rare to address all the reviewers recommendations.  But they are not ignored you have to rebut the criticisms.  Part of an editors role is to moderate this exchange.  True, we don't have editors here but I think self moderation is not unreasonable.  One thing for sure is that unprofessional behaviour,  from writers or reviewers, will never get the job done. We need to endeavor to keep the discussion at a level where all concerns are addressed and discussed to a mutual conclusion.  This might be easy or hard but short tempers will never help. [[User:David D.|David D.]] [[User talk:David D.|(Talk)]] 19:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
::The lead of articles is always the trickiest part, even in a topic like [[integration]] someone is always coming along to rewrite it in their own words, usually to the detriment of the article. Yes constant vigilance is needed, that just part of the process. Its the same here as any endeavor if you garden you will be always weeding, don't like weeding - don't garden. --[[User:Salix alba|Salix alba]] ([[User talk:Salix alba|talk]]) 19:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
::: Some people like the discussions eg about the lead. We had a great time in the [[Mathematics]] lead. Wikipedia is a great place to learn to communicate with independent minds. [[User:Stephen B Streater|Stephen B Streater]] ([[User talk:Stephen B Streater|talk]]) 20:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

==Need for change in atmosphere or procedures==

I have had many tell me that [[WP:AGF]] is the only thing that matters, beyond all else. While I agree in principle, it depends on what one's adversaries are doing. If you just try to "wikilove" your opponents to death and they are dead set on pushing an anti-science agenda or some other nonsense, you will not always succeed, and if you do, it will take far longer than reasonable. What if the POV pusher resorts to meat puppetry or sock puppetry? What if they launch vexatious litigation? What if they curse you at every opportunity and refuse to discuss things rationally? Or in most cases, are literally ''unable'' to discuss things rationally? (After all, we have an immense number of people that are mentally disturbed and deficient in this world). 

One could  mount mediation requests and multiple RfCs and even go to Arbcomm or try other remedies. However, these consume hours and hours of time, and often have unsatisfactory results. 

How willing is the community to waste many man hours of other volunteer workers? There are efficiency and productivity considerations here to be taken into account, and if the project does not think of these, it will suffocate in its own wastes.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 19:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

:Wikipedia's bureaucratic procedures are mostly useful to keep the warriors busy while the rest of us edit noncontroversial articles. [[User:WAS 4.250|WAS 4.250]] ([[User talk:WAS 4.250|talk]]) 21:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

::'Often have unsatisfactory results'. Usually is more accurate. I'd say 90% of the problem editing on Wikipedia won't pass RfC or Arbcom standards for censure. [[User:Mostlyharmless|Mostlyharmless]] ([[User talk:Mostlyharmless|talk]]) 22:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

::There is another way around it: be polite and careful oneself, attract other editors into the discussion on the reasonable assumption that they will generally be sensible, and thus not get into a situation which needs arbcom at all. all that is needed for most articles that get attention is patience and persistence and a good case. The problem is mainly with seldom-visited articles that are owned, and for that a single RfC usually takes care of it. If the POV pusher alone is the one who resorts to improper behavior, it is usually fairly easy to stop or remove him; the difficult cases are where both sides have gotten into a situation where they have made major errors. Then it does take much work by the community to disentangle the mess.  Those who are not prepared to work calmly on stress-provoking subjects should stay on articles that will not stress them.  '''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG|talk]]) 22:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

:::And if the POV pushers don't use uncivil behaviour, you have no recourse. ''Improper'' as you put isn't defined by arbitration as pushing a POV. I've been in dispute in the past with a person who wanted to put the opinion of a single journalist as equal that of those recognised as published experts in the field. But since the person was editing within 'the rules', I had nowhere to go and abandoned the article (being unwilling to spend my precious time fighting it over and over) [[User:Mostlyharmless|Mostlyharmless]] ([[User talk:Mostlyharmless|talk]]) 23:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

:::This response of course illustrates the attitude received whenever these issues are mentioned. [[User:Mostlyharmless|Mostlyharmless]] ([[User talk:Mostlyharmless|talk]]) 23:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

::::It costs us nothing to be civil. Yes, the fact that civility matters more than content is frustrating. But we can't change that. We've already got the deck stacked against us because of the anti-elitist (translate anti-expertise) bias that prevails. Why cede them more ground on civility? Let's all be unfailingly nice even if it kills us. Which in some cases it just may. ;-) [[User:Raymond arritt|Raymond Arritt]] ([[User talk:Raymond arritt|talk]]) 23:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
::::: I agree with Raymond. Civility gets results. See the case of Science Apologist, who has recently made great strides to abide by the trapings of civility required here. This has resulted in the opposite of his usual interactions with admins - he is complained about, but his complainants get blocked, because SA is the one that looks civil. '''You must appear civil at all times.''' If you cannot exude the sense of disconnected gravitas (review - [[User:Newyorkbrad]], [[User:Theresa knott]] some prime examples) that gets results, try harder. Emulate the forms of success, and you will find success. [[User:PouponOnToast|PouponOnToast]] ([[User talk:PouponOnToast|talk]]) 23:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::: Yes, civility is a virtue, and does get you a long way. ScienceApologist has had some substantial victories, but you only need look at the current Arbcom case on Homeopathy involving SA to see that it can only get you part of the way, and then you're on your own. I quote - "I do not believe that it is within the committee's capabilities to solve the problems raised here. '''We're not going to issue a remedy handing an unequivocal win to''' either the pro-homeopathy or '''pro-science caucuses'''. You're left with WP:NPOV and WP:RS." [bold added]
::::::    "The scope of the arbitration case outlined is extraordinarily nebulous. It is not possible to imagine a resolution which would work without straying recklessly into areas of making content findings. " - Can you believe it? If it were not so routine it would be shocking.
:::::: You go round in circles and get asked to solve problems yourself - as if you were dealing with  reasonable people. It can get extraordinarily stressful or tiring, and as noted above, the best thing to is to abandon those articles - it just isn't worth the stress. [[User:Mostlyharmless|Mostlyharmless]] ([[User talk:Mostlyharmless|talk]]) 23:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Heh, so "be civil to have somebody do their job as an admin".  What is broken is the failure of Wikipedia to police itself.  And if you have two people argueing, one is obviously a POV pusher and then goads the other into making an "uncivil" comment, bang... the crap band of admins we have say "sorry, your out and BTW we aren't punishing the POV pusher".  If the admins got past their navally challenged egos, and actually read and looked at the problem...and then (I don't know...) acted on it, we wouldn't be here.  But in saying that, most action taken by admins in AN/I is only by a minority, the remainder say things like "I don't see a problem here"....which is absolutely true, but it doesn't mean there ''isn't'' a problem, just a useless admin... So back to square 1, the lack of governance of Wikipedia.  If the project doesn't solve it, it will be victim of it's own success.  But that's fine, there will always be something else to replace it (MicroWiki??...Googlepedia???) and I'm sure the Project's competition would just looooove Wikipedia to consume itself.  [[User:Shot info|Shot info]] ([[User talk:Shot info|talk]]) 23:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

:::::::: [[Knol]]. -- [[User:Levine2112|<b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b>]] [[User talk:Levine2112|<sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss</sup>]] 04:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. My first introduction to this problem was at [[black people]]. That article had a very bad problem with about 20 different POV groups that just talked past each other. I and a few others tried to get them to use a scientific approach, but it was hopeless. 

I could not even get them to agree that they had different definitions of what a "black person" is. East Africa? West Africa? North or South of the Sahara? All of Africa? Only American? South Indians? Sri Lankan Tribes? Minority groups in China, Phillipines, Indonesia, Japan? Aboriginals in Australia? Different definitions of black in US law, Canadian Law, Australian law and UK law? Opinions of White Supremacists and Black Supremacists and PanAfricanists? Pseudohistory? NeoNazis? Are Jamaicans black? In The UK? In Jamaica? In the US? Is Obama black? Is Condaleeza Rice? Clarence Thomas? Does black have anything to do with color? Do you have to have a slave ancestry to be black? What about black Irish? Even the Caucasians are known locally in Asia as "black"? Are they? And so on and so forth. 

Then other problems started to intrude, like some editors telling me to avoid discussing things with another because he was a Basque or something (Spanish separatist politics in a discussion like this???). Anyway, it was impossible, and I gave up and left. I am sure it is no better now, but at least I do not deal with it. If anyone thinks they can [[WP:AGF]] and get some science in the article, they are welcome to try. I would be extremely impressed, frankly.---[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 23:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

==Synopsis==   
I wonder if all this long discussion can be boiled down to some sort of '''position paper''' when you're all done? There is so '''much''' discussion I'm finding it hard to monitor this talk. I recommend some or all of you start working on a combined '''essay''' with an associated Talk page. Or do you already have one?[[User:Wjhonson|Wjhonson]] ([[User talk:Wjhonson|talk]]) 23:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
:We are collecting ideas for one but it is not yet written and then we can get more feedback.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 23:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

== A jumble of nonsense == 
 
Above, [[User:Zenwhat|Zenwhat]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:Raymond_arritt/Expert_withdrawal&diff=186839106&oldid=186838351 wrote]:
 
: ''"...if expert editors leave, the whole thing will collapse into a jumble of nonsense in an even worse condition than it is in now."''

Well, that is the whole point. If that doesn't happen to a very noticeable degree, this exercise will be in vain, and that mustn't happen.

A few points to consider:
 
One boycotted article isn't enough. Maybe five of the most controversial articles spanning various fields should be made the subjects of this experiment. I suggest that we vote on these (others may be suggested) and choose the five that get the most votes:

* [[Abortion]]
* [[AIDS denialism]]
* [[Alternative medicine]]
* [[Atheism]]
* [[Electronic voice phenomenon]]
* [[Evolution]]
* [[Homeopathy]]
* [[Intelligent design]]
* [[List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts]]
* [[Quackery]]
* [[Vaccine controversy]]

[[User:Snalwibma|Snalwibma]] has [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:Raymond_arritt/Expert_withdrawal&diff=186855562&oldid=186855514 already voiced] these thoughts above, and I basically agree.

The boycott must be maintained for at least a month, or, if an obvious "jumble of nonsense" that violates multiple policies here hasn't resulted, then it should be extended longer. The media will likely notice the best (worst) examples of mob rule.

To make it sufficiently effective, it should be obvious that the more nonsensical the edit, the more certain that it should not be touched by us. So even while observing such editing, it is vitally important to refrain from instinctively reverting nonsense. Maybe keep private notes about it for future reference, but maintain the boycott.

This suggestion is designed as a boycott of certain editors. If they are allowed to edit unopposed, their actions will become more noticeable. THEY are a large part of the problem. The editing environment is because of their disruptions and failures to understand NPOV. Their actions need to be profiled by giving them their will. Hopefully changes will be made in the future that will help to more effectively deal with such editors.

Keep in mind that all this involves no acts that violate policy. It only requires our inaction. There is no violation of [[WP:POINT|POINT]], since editing here is a voluntary matter. It is not our obligation to edit, but it is the obligation of the Wikipedia community and upper echelon decision makers to create a more pleasant environment through policy changes and stricter enforcement policies of existing polices. Admins who violate policies and coddle tendentious and even banned editors need to be dealt with. Admins who unblock banned editors violate the community's trust and are party to the ensuing disruption which their actions cause. If their mentees cause problems, they should suffer the consequences (possible desysopping). -- <i>[[User:Fyslee|<b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b>]]</i> / [[User talk:Fyslee|<b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b>]] 07:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

=== Voting for articles ===

Just place your sig once under five different articles. When voting, I suggesting choosing articles that are extremely contentious, often locked, and which are the targets of certain fringe editors who need to be noticed by others. (I'll start...;-)

* [[Abortion]]
# --[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 19:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
# <span style="font-size:large;">[[Zen|&#9775;]]</span>&nbsp;<span style="font-family:impact;">&nbsp;[[User:Zenwhat|Zenwhat]]</span>&nbsp;([[User talk:Zenwhat|talk]]) 22:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
* [[AIDS denialism]]
# -- <i>[[User:Fyslee|<b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b>]]</i> / [[User talk:Fyslee|<b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b>]] 07:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
# <span style="font-size:large;">[[Zen|&#9775;]]</span>&nbsp;<span style="font-family:impact;">&nbsp;[[User:Zenwhat|Zenwhat]]</span>&nbsp;([[User talk:Zenwhat|talk]]) 22:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
# --[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 19:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Interesting that this is included, since the scientific view has been well & successfully defended at that article by other editors; I don't see that any of the ones above have ever edited it, so why are they boycotting what a/never had any help from them and b/doesn't need their help? '''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG|talk]]) 15:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
::::I'd agree - as a heavy editor of this article, I think it's actually in fairly good shape. Given the subject matter, there are inevitably drive-bys on the talk page, and half-hearted off-wiki attempts to galvanize a band of denialists to overwhelm and rewrite the article from a more "sympathetic" POV, but they get handled. Associated AIDS-denialism [[WP:COATRACK]] content is being cleaned up as I find it (e.g. [[passenger virus]], [[T-Lymphocytopenia]], [[zidovudine]], etc), though it is surprisingly pervasive. I don't think a boycott is necessary; in fact, I'd encourage anyone interested in the topic to make suggestions for its improvement, since I think it's fairly good coverage but could benefit from outside viewpoints. '''[[User:MastCell|MastCell]]''' <sup>[[User Talk:MastCell|Talk]]</sup> 18:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
* [[Alternative medicine]]
# -- <i>[[User:Fyslee|<b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b>]]</i> / [[User talk:Fyslee|<b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b>]] 07:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
# <span style="font-size:large;">[[Zen|&#9775;]]</span>&nbsp;<span style="font-family:impact;">&nbsp;[[User:Zenwhat|Zenwhat]]</span>&nbsp;([[User talk:Zenwhat|talk]]) 22:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
# --[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 19:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
* [[Atheism]]

* [[Electronic voice phenomenon]]
# --[[User:Infophile|Infophile]] <sup>[[User_talk:Infophile|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Infophile|(Contribs)]]</sup> 19:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
# [[User:Shot info|Shot info]] ([[User talk:Shot info|talk]]) 23:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
# <span style="font-size:large;">[[Zen|&#9775;]]</span>&nbsp;<span style="font-family:impact;">&nbsp;[[User:Zenwhat|Zenwhat]]</span>&nbsp;([[User talk:Zenwhat|talk]]) 22:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

* [[Evolution]]

*[[Federal Reserve]]\[[Fractional-reserve banking]]
# <span style="font-size:large;">[[Zen|&#9775;]]</span>&nbsp;<span style="font-family:impact;">&nbsp;[[User:Zenwhat|Zenwhat]]</span>&nbsp;([[User talk:Zenwhat|talk]]) 22:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
* [[Homeopathy]]
# -- <i>[[User:Fyslee|<b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b>]]</i> / [[User talk:Fyslee|<b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b>]] 07:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
# --[[User:Infophile|Infophile]] <sup>[[User_talk:Infophile|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Infophile|(Contribs)]]</sup> 19:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
# --[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 19:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
# <span style="font-size:large;">[[Zen|&#9775;]]</span>&nbsp;<span style="font-family:impact;">&nbsp;[[User:Zenwhat|Zenwhat]]</span>&nbsp;([[User talk:Zenwhat|talk]]) 22:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
# [[User:Shot info|Shot info]] ([[User talk:Shot info|talk]]) 23:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
* [[Intelligent design]]

* [[List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts]]
# -- <i>[[User:Fyslee|<b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b>]]</i> / [[User talk:Fyslee|<b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b>]] 07:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
# --[[User:Infophile|Infophile]] <sup>[[User_talk:Infophile|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Infophile|(Contribs)]]</sup> 19:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
# --[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 19:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
# [[User:Shot info|Shot info]] ([[User talk:Shot info|talk]]) 23:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
# <span style="font-size:large;">[[Zen|&#9775;]]</span>&nbsp;<span style="font-family:impact;">&nbsp;[[User:Zenwhat|Zenwhat]]</span>&nbsp;([[User talk:Zenwhat|talk]]) 22:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
* [[Quackery]]
# [[User:Shot info|Shot info]] ([[User talk:Shot info|talk]]) 23:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
# <span style="font-size:large;">[[Zen|&#9775;]]</span>&nbsp;<span style="font-family:impact;">&nbsp;[[User:Zenwhat|Zenwhat]]</span>&nbsp;([[User talk:Zenwhat|talk]]) 22:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
* [[Vaccine controversy]]
# -- <i>[[User:Fyslee|<b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b>]]</i> / [[User talk:Fyslee|<b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b>]] 07:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
# <span style="font-size:large;">[[Zen|&#9775;]]</span>&nbsp;<span style="font-family:impact;">&nbsp;[[User:Zenwhat|Zenwhat]]</span>&nbsp;([[User talk:Zenwhat|talk]]) 22:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
*'''Not prepared to take part in any boycott.'''
#--[[User:Salix alba|Salix alba]] ([[User talk:Salix alba|talk]]) 08:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
#--'''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG|talk]]) 14:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)  
*'''Already don't waste my time on unending debate.'''
# [[User:WAS 4.250|WAS 4.250]] ([[User talk:WAS 4.250|talk]]) 09:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

*'''I will support an experiment on a few articles, carefully monitored, but I do not want to characterize it as a strike or boycott. I want to develop and propose alternate techniques for improving the problems we are discussing.'''
# [[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 17:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
# Though I don't really care how we characterize it. It is what it is, whatever we call it. --[[User:Infophile|Infophile]] <sup>[[User_talk:Infophile|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Infophile|(Contribs)]]</sup> 19:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
# The problem is widespread, by no means confined to science articles. Wikipedia only manages to hang on to whatever credibility it has by relying on editors to guard articles. All the kiddie admins can do is to spot the obvious swear words or page blanking. --[[User:Malleus Fatuarum|Malleus Fatuorum]] ([[User talk:Malleus Fatuarum|talk]]) 02:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

'''NOTE:''' Since other suggestions may be added, it is allowable to change your votes. -- <i>[[User:Fyslee|<b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b>]]</i> / [[User talk:Fyslee|<b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b>]] 07:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[[What the Bleep Do We Know?]] might be a good candidate, from what I have observed. We should pick articles that have not already been abandoned by the science and rational communities; for example [[black people]] was long ago abandoned, as far as I can tell. It was so ugly and toxic I have not been back for months.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 19:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I added articles related to monetary crankery. To understand what I'm talking about, see this recent example. [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard&diff=188216910&oldid=188214375]

Also, I don't understand why [[Atheism]], [[Evolution]], and [[Intelligent design]] are up there, because they generally look pretty good. However, it's true, again, they probably only look good because of people like us. It might be a good idea to propose boycotts of them as well, again, just to see how they'd turn out. <span style="font-size:large;">[[Zen|&#9775;]]</span>&nbsp;<span style="font-family:impact;">&nbsp;[[User:Zenwhat|Zenwhat]]</span>&nbsp;([[User talk:Zenwhat|talk]]) 22:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
:Haven't spent much time around the [[Atheism]] article, but I know the reason [[Evolution]] and [[Intelligent design]] are so good is because of all the defending that goes on. There's zero tolerance for trolls on them or their talk pages (first comment, they're referred to the talk pages. After that their comments are all userfied). --[[User:Infophile|Infophile]] <sup>[[User_talk:Infophile|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Infophile|(Contribs)]]</sup> 06:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

== Proposed Semi-Automated Solution ==
In case this movement gains the desired notice, here's an outline that could be proposed.

I see two problems being pointed out here.
1) Established material is easily degraded, and
2) Experts can easily be overwhelmed.

I do not like Zenwhat's idea of graylists, except as an informal feature that might be promoted.  However, a solution that utilizes as much automation as possible would be best.  One method that could work fairly well for Wikipedia would be to use better article "versioning."  Wikipedia's freely collaborative nature is a boon, but as noted in this page, it also allows for degeneration of content.  In order to help prevent article degeneration, page sections should become much more prominent units than articles themselves.  Content-oriented edits (as opposed to minor typo/grammar corrections) of existing page sections should NOT be immediately posted in all cases.  Editors who are truly interested in the Wikipedia content do not need "instant gratification" IMO.  Therefore, it may help to give Wikipedia article sections some measure of "protection" based on some measure of the "acceptance" of the page-section's content.  "Acceptance" would be somewhat tricky to quantify, but it would certainly be related to section age, number of recent modifications, total number of pageviews, number of logged-in user pageviews, and time of last modification to that page-section.  For example, a page section that is visited regularly by logged-in users that received 2 edits in the past 60 days would be given a much higher "acceptance" level than a brand new article section that has received 10 'distinct' edits in the past hour.

With an "acceptance" metric available, article sections could be automatically protected in various ways; this leads to the question of how such protection should be implemented. One could imagine that content edits are "blocked" in some way. A truly collaborative method would then require a majority of votes in order for a new version to be approved, but most volunteer projects cannot be trusted to accomplish this successfully.  So, this may be an option, but cannot be the only option.  This points to a need for "assumption of acceptability."  Such a requirement could be accomplished by simply using the "acceptance level" to determine a proportional time-delay that slows the propagation of content edits.

With such a "time-delay" system, edits to "Higly accepted" page sections could potentially be delayed for days, while edits to sections with a current "low acceptance" may not even be delayed at all.    A good way to take advantage of this delay-time would be to allow opponents of the proposed content a one-time ability to further delay the propagation of content changes from an editor on that section.  This extra time would ideally be used to resolve content disputes, instead of the current system whereby (in many cases) edit-warring is implicitly relied upon.  During this resolution time, the editor of the delayed material would be able to alter his proposed changes .. if acceptable to the opposition, then the extended delay could be released.  The ability to release a time-delay could be used as further leverage in gaining consensus with the editor whose content is, in some ways, being "held for ransom."

Generally, this should constitute a minimal impact to the editing process, in most common circumstances.  However, this system could create a practical problem in the case of moderately "low acceptance" section edits.   If a "dispute delay" is imposed on such a section, then it would lead to an extended edit-conflict situation.  In allowing the time for dispute resolution, a section would effectively be locked from further edits; for any reasonable allotment of time for dispute resolution [2 hours, minimum ... though probably closer to 24 hours] this would consitute an intolerable lock time.  Likely no clean solution would exist for this problem, but there are 2 saving graces: 1) page sections with *very* low acceptance would not even have this delay anyways, 2) the lock would only apply to a single ''section'' of a page, leaving the remainder of the page free.  There are some options to mitigate this problem that I could detail, if needed.

One other use of the "acceptance" metric is that article sections could be tagged or even filtered by a user-preferred level of acceptance.

None of this specifically addresses the utilization of our Wikipedia subject experts, but for that I would suggest this simple change ... just allow editors the ability to have watch lists of article sections instead of just entire articles.  Due to a new focus on article sections, this would allow experts to focus their efforts on particularly contentious material, or retain peace of mind that agreeable material still exists in the article (even if quality has degraded in other parts of the article).  It would also be trivial to place some special designator on the watchlist when a proposed edit has been "dispute delayed," which could draw in more opinions and consensus to a discussion before the edit is even finalized.

Anyways, this is a rough outline.  I run my own online community, but I'm still fairly new here, so take this with a grain of salt.

tl;dr ... let's acknowledge that some content deserves some special consideration in regard to preservation, and also make publicly-viewable edits a slower process when affecting long-standing subject material so that talk page discussion can pursued proactively.  [[User:BigK HeX|BigK HeX]] ([[User talk:BigK HeX|talk]]) 06:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
:this will work just as effectively to hamper good edits to bad articles that are accepted by a small group of tendentious editors, as it will in keeping good article good.  '''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG|talk]]) 14:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

:: It tends to rely on the assumption that bad edits are caught fairly quickly (and thus would have a low "acceptance rating" and subsequently would not be subject to the time-dalays ... in other words, it'd work just like editing does today).  If bad information is long-standing in an article though, then that could indeed pose a problem for good edits.  Are there many such cases where (A) there is long-standing "bad info", and (B) it still has a core of tendentious support? [[User:BigK HeX|BigK HeX]] ([[User talk:BigK HeX|talk]]) 15:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

== The fuse is lit ==

Well, it seems to me that rather than helping to defuse the situation, all the article probation has done is to light the fuse on the inevitable catastrophe. Of course, I could be wrong here, but it seems like the controversy is just getting more and more widespread. Admins are hinting towards sides right now, and it won't be long until the battle just steps up a level.

With that in mind, I think this may be a good time for us to take our leave. The situation can't explode if one side simply gets up and leaves (at least in the same way). They prefer civil [term exempted as I couldn't think of anything that would pass civility and not get me banned from this page as well] to incivil [also have to exempt this as simple contrast could result in the implication of incivility]? Well, let them have it and see where it gets them. --[[User:Infophile|Infophile]] <sup>[[User_talk:Infophile|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Infophile|(Contribs)]]</sup> 18:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

:It seems at the moment that your withdrawal has only made room for others with your POV, and not civil, either.  If you are going to make this experiment work, you'll have to convince everyone. ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#FFFFFF;">Martin<sup>phi</sup></span>]]'''    [[User talk:Martinphi|☎]] Ψ [[Special:Contributions/Martinphi|Φ]]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 23:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Well at the very minimum, one can save one's own butt.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 00:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

:Well yes -heh- I know what you mean.  Still, it isn't much of an experiment if it keeps going as it is now. ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#FFFFFF;">Martin<sup>phi</sup></span>]]'''    [[User talk:Martinphi|☎]] Ψ [[Special:Contributions/Martinphi|Φ]]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 00:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes and no. It shows that admins are, in spite of the claims of wikilove, willing to kick butt when people start spewing nonsense. And I can hear the screaming from here. Plus see the lies and misrepresentations. But at least I am not involved.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 00:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

::Heh. Maybe we should refer them to this page. In any case, I'm going to stay out of that quagmire and just watch as things (d)evolve. With the probation, my occasional sarcasm when encountering a lame point I've heard repeated dozens of times is bound to get me in trouble (again). They can't punish for inaction. --[[User:Infophile|Infophile]] <sup>[[User_talk:Infophile|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Infophile|(Contribs)]]</sup> 01:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

:::Indeed. The whole episode may turn out much better than I expected. Too bad we need a train wreck for people to sit up and take notice. [[User:Raymond arritt|Raymond Arritt]] ([[User talk:Raymond arritt|talk]]) 01:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

::::I predict that this will evolve into something newsworthy. I also predict that the evolution of phenomenon will be talked about in posterity. It's very interesting to watch. [[User:Tparameter|Tparameter]] ([[User talk:Tparameter|talk]]) 06:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
:::::I'd say "newsworthy" and "posterity" are overdoing it, but yes, it's interesting to watch. [[User:Raymond arritt|Raymond Arritt]] ([[User talk:Raymond arritt|talk]]) 06:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

==Prophecy==
As predicted here,[http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:Raymond_arritt/Expert_withdrawal&diff=prev&oldid=186860702] a boycott is not appropriate if for no other reason than that it can be too easily foiled.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Homeopathy#Context] I've quit editing that article for the sake of my own sanity, and if you want to do so for the same reason that's fine, but let's not pretend that a boycott will accomplish anything else. [[User:Raymond arritt|Raymond Arritt]] ([[User talk:Raymond arritt|talk]]) 06:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

:I personally have no reason to believe that without your editing the article can be made NPOV.  As you say, thee is homeopathic POV pushing.  But I'd like to see what would happen.  Instead, we are still saddled with POV pushers from the other side.  So, the experiment has not been tried.  Too bad.  I wasn't really trying to foil your attempt, but to promote. ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#FFFFFF;">Martin<sup>phi</sup></span>]]'''    [[User talk:Martinphi|☎]] Ψ [[Special:Contributions/Martinphi|Φ]]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 06:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

::I have no doubt that your intentions were all the best and that you would never try to obstruct science-oriented editors. After all, you've certainly never done such a thing in the past and have always adhered meticulously to good faith. We certainly disagree on substance but you've always been above board in your intent. [[User:Raymond arritt|Raymond Arritt]] ([[User talk:Raymond arritt|talk]]) 07:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
:::It would be a win-win in either case: Either the fringers become constructive or you've proven your point. (No, I don't support a boycott either, mind you.) ~ [[User:UBeR|UBeR]] ([[User talk:UBeR|talk]]) 08:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
::::Yes, with the first outcome obviously being preferable. [[User:Raymond arritt|Raymond Arritt]] ([[User talk:Raymond arritt|talk]]) 11:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

:::::Thanks, Arritt, for the above.  I don't, usually, recall disagreeing on content with you at least.  Almost always, my objections to other science oriented editors is over tone.  There is also the matter of WEIGHT, where some editors feel that the mainstream of science (rather than the mainstream) should have more weight/space than the subjects in articles on fringe subjects.  But that has not been nearly as much of a problem as matters of tone and wording which isn't neutral.  I would say more, but DGG has already made my points for me, here and elsewhere.  ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#FFFFFF;">Martin<sup>phi</sup></span>]]'''    [[User talk:Martinphi|☎]] Ψ [[Special:Contributions/Martinphi|Φ]]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 06:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I have seen some POV pushers become reasonable and productive. Unfortunately this is quite rare. I think while the "ban hammer" is flying, one has to be exceptionally careful, and this if nothing else is a good reason to stay away from those pages.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 14:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

: In my experience, more evidence usually resolves differences of interpretation. It's best to keep the temperature of the debate down until this point. One reason these discussions can drag on is that few people produce new references, either internally or externally. [[User:Stephen B Streater|Stephen B Streater]] ([[User talk:Stephen B Streater|talk]]) 19:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

::That's certainly true when reasonable people involved, but let's face it: We have unreasonable people on both sides of this particular debate. Evidence is just going to make them angry to be proven wrong. --[[User:Infophile|Infophile]] <sup>[[User_talk:Infophile|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Infophile|(Contribs)]]</sup> 17:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

::: Maybe, but after a few good nights of sleep, they will leave to pick a fight they can win. [[User:Stephen B Streater|Stephen B Streater]] ([[User talk:Stephen B Streater|talk]]) 19:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

==Question?==
From what I understand, this is a discussion on giving some sort of an increased power or weighting to editors who are experts in an area? Giving increased powers to any one group of people defeats the entire purpose of wikipedia, the socialist encyclopedia that anyone can edit, admins aside who attempt to keep to administrative duties only. This isn't citizendium, the reason wikipedia is so popular is that anyone can edit it, unfortunately experts must accept this but not let it get to them. If it gets to them to the point where they can't handle it, unfortunately wikipedia and the way it was designed to function/functions, then this place is not for them. If my interpretation of this issue is incorrect please advise. [[User:Timeshift9|Timeshift]] ([[User talk:Timeshift9|talk]]) 08:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
:Socialist encyclopedia? [[User:Tparameter|Tparameter]] ([[User talk:Tparameter|talk]]) 11:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
::Anyone in the world is able to edit, there is no class system on wikipedia. Everyone is the same. Giving increased editing powers to experts moves away from this. [[User:Timeshift9|Timeshift]] ([[User talk:Timeshift9|talk]]) 11:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[[User:Timeshift9|Timeshift]], you say "If my interpretation of this issue is incorrect please advise." OK. I'll do that. You mistake a method for a goal, a path for a destination, a means for an end. "Anyone can edit" is a means. "Encyclopedia" is the end result we are aiming at. To the extent that "anyone can edit" gets in the way of that goal, we adjust that means. You'll note that we block and ban people so "anyone" can not edit after all. To the extent that a means like empowering experts helps with the goal, we may use that means. See [[WP:IAR]]. We make and change and break rules as needed to achieve the end result of the best free encyclopedia we can create. So far, "anyone can edit" is a rule of thumb that has been very helpful toward that end. But we are getting to a point where an official role for experts might prove of value. I favor the idea of a content arbcom where experts from academia could play a part. But we are probably a couple years away from implementing any such thing. [[User:WAS 4.250|WAS 4.250]] ([[User talk:WAS 4.250|talk]]) 16:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

:''So far, "anyone can edit" is a rule of thumb that has been very helpful toward that end. But we are getting to a point where an official role for experts might prove of value.'' and that's what I disagree with. Quality edits by experts are good to have, but if there is any move toward elevating these experts beyond the rest of the editing community, you create a two-tiered environment. Wikipedia gained it's popularity by allowing all to have the same editing rights. Wikipedia should stay as is, not move to a psuedo-citizendium. [[User:Timeshift9|Timeshift]] ([[User talk:Timeshift9|talk]]) 22:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, TS, I think you got it in one: "If it gets to them to the point where they can't handle it, unfortunately wikipedia and the way it was designed to function/functions, then this place is not for them."  Which, is actually what is being discussed (Expert Withdrawal/rebellion/call-it-what-you-will) which for Wikipedia, is unfortunate - especially since the withdrawal is principally concerned with science and anti-science articles.  Without expert participation in these articles, you end up with [[Medicine]] just being a redirect to [[Homeopathy]], proof positive that [[Vaccine controversy|MMR vaccine causes Autism - heck any vaccine is by the Illuminatii]], and [[AIDS]] was caused by [[AIDS denialism|permissive drug use]].  There are lots of others, but here in the "socialist paradise", it's a paradise for the moronic uneducated who believe ''sincerely'' (but sincerely incorrectly) in these things.  Because admins don't wish to be ''involved'' (and are prevented by policy) and are too disinterested to be ''informed'', they end up rewarding ''civility'' over ''content''.  Something as you can appreciate doesn't happen in the real-world (tm) ... although there are admins so divorced from the real-world that they believe it ''does'' operate like Wikipedia. [[User:Shot info|Shot info]] ([[User talk:Shot info|talk]]) 23:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

:Your riddles confuse me. Are you saying you think experts should have more editing powers/normal people have less editing powers which creates a two-tiered citizendium environment, or are you saying the status quo should be maintained which is what made wikipedia so popular in the first place? [[User:Timeshift9|Timeshift]] ([[User talk:Timeshift9|talk]]) 23:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
::Read for comprehension rather than asking me when did I stop beating my wife.  [[User:Shot info|Shot info]] ([[User talk:Shot info|talk]]) 23:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
:::Thanks for that constructive answer... [[User:Timeshift9|Timeshift]] ([[User talk:Timeshift9|talk]]) 23:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
:::::No, Timeshift9, dude, he did answer your question.  Gave a demo.  That's the way he thinks things ought to be. Mean for stupid people, that is to say, people he thinks are stupid.  ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#FFFFFF;">Martin<sup>phi</sup></span>]]'''    [[User talk:Martinphi|☎]] Ψ [[Special:Contributions/Martinphi|Φ]]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 06:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
::::::It's true that I did answer the question, however I didn't give TS one of the two answers he would have liked me to supply.  Incidently you are mischaracterising my position, which I have articulated quite clearly on this page, and over at AN/I. [[User:Shot info|Shot info]] ([[User talk:Shot info|talk]]) 06:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
::::[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/How_to_win_an_argument Are you saying that you don't read for comprehension or that you lack the understanding of the issue(s)?]  [[User:Shot info|Shot info]] ([[User talk:Shot info|talk]]) 23:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

:Here's how I'd sum up the problem succinctly: We have informed admins, but they tend to become involved because of this, and so they get punished if they use their admin powers. So we're left with only uninformed admins being able to exercise real control over the situation, but since they're uninformed, they can only spot surface problems. Tendentious editing, misrepresentation of sources, thick-headedness, arguing for more fringe content, etc. thus don't get pruned out as they should. The solution? We need more ''respect'' for expert opinion, and to have people in high places who respect it and have the authority to act on it. Maybe it's as simple as allowing admins to use their powers in cases where they're involved in presenting an expert opinion (possibly requiring them to supply outside credentials to grant them this privilege). --[[User:Infophile|Infophile]] <sup>[[User_talk:Infophile|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Infophile|(Contribs)]]</sup> 23:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
::Exactly.  [[User:Shot info|Shot info]] ([[User talk:Shot info|talk]]) 23:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

:OK,Classify me. Am I an ignorant admin, an informed admin who gets involved and gets banned, or what?  '''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG|talk]]) 05:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I like to be naive and think that admins are like speakers of parliaments, who stay out of issues and are there to maintain order. [[User:Timeshift9|Timeshift]] ([[User talk:Timeshift9|talk]]) 05:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
:Your worldview does not reflect reality. I think Infophile's comments exactly nails it. Experts in a topic do tend to become involved - they have an informed opinion, of course. One they are involved, they are not supposed to use their admin powers anymore. This leaves uninformed admins, and the very few who manage to ignore obvious nonsense to maintain the semblance of neutrality. --[[User:Stephan Schulz|Stephan Schulz]] ([[User talk:Stephan Schulz|talk]]) 09:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

::I'm fully aware admins who are experts on the subject from time to time become involved. My previous comment, if it wasn't obvious, was tongue in cheek. I think that usually it does actually happen, but it is inevitable that every now and then admins who are experts do become involved. Admins however are chosen for their wikipedia expertise, not their subject expertise. It's coincidental. If experts are given an increased editing power however, is where I disagree per above. Equivalent editing rights must be maintained. When subject matter by non-experts is wrong however, then it can obviously be corrected by experts. It can also be challenged by either side. It is all a process. The process must be accepted by all users, as it has always been. [[User:Timeshift9|Timeshift]] ([[User talk:Timeshift9|talk]]) 09:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

:::Experts don't need additional power. Wikipedia doesn't need new policies.  All that's needed is to give the same attention to strong sourcing, undue weight, and so on that we now devote to the most sacred and holy [[WP:CIV|civility]], and to stop bending over backward to accommodate tendentious promoters of nonsense. Instead we're letting Wikipedia become the premiere no-cost venue for promoting ideas like [[homeopathy|curing diseases with distilled water]] and [[electronic voice phenomenon|communing with the dead using tape recorders]] and [[mucoid plaque|cures for non-existent illnesses]]. Science and reality win every time on a level playing field. But we've ended up with something more like [http://www.idrewthis.org/d/20040825.html this] (substitute "Wikipedia" for "American news media"). [[User:Raymond arritt|Raymond Arritt]] ([[User talk:Raymond arritt|talk]]) 01:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
::::So it's been safe to eat broccoli all along? ~ [[User:UBeR|UBeR]] ([[User talk:UBeR|talk]]) 16:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
::::I don't really se a problem with the mucoid plaque article. Basically, it just tells you that it's a bunch of BS [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 23:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

==Use of a strike?==
[note after writing this: I refer to a 'strike,' but I don't mean to distinguish that from any other withdrawal]

I should start off by saying that I only read the first third or so of this discussion. It is long long long, is in need of re-organization and user-friendlifying, and I planned to leave the office two hours ago. So, what I say may already have been said, or other movements may have rendered them irrelevant. That said, here are my thoughts: Say there were a strike. For the editors of the NY Times to pay attention, let alone put the final damages on the front page, it would have to be publicized. This, I imagine, would be something like posting a sign on a warehouse saying "Dear grafitists [grafitiists?]: The police will not patrol this area from [this date] until [this date]." The police, there, would not come back to a brick wall covered in spray paint. They'd come back to a battered wall, deep piles of broken glass, litter, etc. For an expert WP editors strike (like any other strike) to be effective, it would have to be generally supported. I would suspect that many of the editors who keep WP in line generally (watching grammar, vandalism, etc) are also experts in something. So a strike of the experts would mean a strike of the watchdogs. The damage at the end of a month would be impermanent: there are the storage servers, and the History lists. But restoring order would not be a simple thing, by any means. Someone would have to go through and sort out of month's worth of "good" edits from "bad" edits, and those editors whose edits of that month were reverted would fight back, and WP might not recover. (Of course, maybe the expert/watchdog overlap isn't that big, but I can't think of any feasible way to find out ahead of time.)

And so on. But (and I for one haven't had any G&Ts) there was some thing I was going to address. But what? It will come to me.
:In the meantime: I would definitely support a NPOV policy that lets WP say "The earth is round, and I'm afraid that's all there is to it." But that belongs on the NPOV talk page.
Oh yes: Showing that significant damage was done to the quality of WP by a withdraw of experts would be a major research project. If someone here is looking for a —what? systems modelling in science, technology, and society, following dynamic databases in changing environments?— dissertation topic then a strike might be worthwhile (if we assume I'm wrong, in the previous paragraph, to picture WP as barely being kept afloat by, e.g. editors who happen to stumble on a page up for deletion just in time to contest an automated process (not that I did a bunch of that today…) (looking into that would make for a great dissertation too)). We'd need
* an accepted working definition of expertise as it applies to WP
* a list of all those editors who went on strike, and knowledge of their qualifications (to know what definition of expert was reflected by the expert strike)
* a catalog of all the edits made in the time of no experts
* a classification of the edits (in a month that's what, a few hundred thousand?):
:do they fit what an expert would have said or not?
::If they do, was it by design or accident or as an artifact (of an edit war, or two editors who always contradict each other, etc).
* knowledge of the qualifications of the people who made the edits:
:Are they experts who didn't get the message? Do they meet our agreed-on definition of expert but consider themselves amateurs?

Then we'd to analyze how quality of WP changed during the strike on measures of NPOV and ….; how did the strike affect the population of active editors; whether we can attribute the one to the other. Maybe someone knows how to do that, but the chances that they'll become part of this discussion without it being publicized are mighty slim. And again, with publicity would come that school of editors (maybe even hackers) excited by the idea of messin' with a big project.

For these reasons, I side with an early comment and argue for the opposite approach: fight non-expert edits with expert edits.

As for where the expert voice would go: my impression is that the internet paradigm is that each field can only have one Champ. In terms of consolidation and inter-user reliability, this is of one the great boons of the internet age. But another aspect introduces some problems. That aspect is the non-admittance of generics. Once someone has carved out their spot as The Prototype/The Best the competition becomes —for whatever host of reasons— insignificant. To use an awful it's-really-time-to-get-dinner metaphor: In terms of Citizendium or future similar projects, I think WP's already gone into the throne room and locked the door. I mean, people are calling WP "Wiki." If the goal is (and I hope it is) to disseminate NPOV/expert/etc knowledge broadly, and now, it must be done on WP. Experts' withdrawing from WP would not precipitate a crisis. Wikignomes and procrastinators, and the policies already in place, would keep WP generally stable (even if it took an initial (e.g. one-month) hit), and so new generations of experts will keep coming to WP. There'd be a dangerous period when either the newbies would rise quick enough to carry WP on, or controversial info would be entered to quickly for editors to keep it clean. In the former case the WP article on the valiant "Experts of '08" would be deemed non-notable. In the latter case, WP would plateau and, as it became more out of date, people would stop using it. ''That'' would definitely precipitate a crisis, but with the whole wiki-reference enterprise associated with WP I bet this would be as damaging to Citizendium et al. as it would be to WP.

Good lord. Did I really write all that? Is it really that late? If anyone wants to read the articles (journal, not WP) I was supposed to be reading and take notes on them for me, hit my talk page :p   — [[User:Eitch|eitc]][[User_talk:Eitch|'''h''']] 00:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

==Quotable Quotes==
With the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Matthew_Hoffman/Proposed_decision#Don.27t_bite_the_newcomers witchhunt] that started all this, ArbCom member Paul August says "One good editor lost does ''far'' more harm to the project than dozens of disruptive editors not blocked at the first possible moment."  I gather than this is said without a shred of irony given ArbCom's rampant persecution of VU.  [[User:Shot info|Shot info]] ([[User talk:Shot info|talk]]) 05:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
:Er, I think the quote you're looking for is [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Matthew_Hoffman/Proposed_decision#Don.27t_bite_the_newcomers|here]]. Anyways, I think part of the problem here is that they don't consider the impact on someone who they already know is a good editor. When you're pushing away a known good editor in favor of potential good editors, you've got a problem. --[[User:Infophile|Infophile]] <sup>[[User_talk:Infophile|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Infophile|(Contribs)]]</sup> 18:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

That is the problem. Arbcomm in this instance is viewing Matthew Hoffman as the good editor lost, not the disruptive editor not blocked. Now since I was the editor dealing with Matthew Hoffman, from my perspective, Matthew Hoffman was ''nothing'' but disruptive and contributed nothing to Wikipedia, and is unlikely to ever contribute anything to Wikipedia. 

Matthew Hoffman was just one of an endless line of similar trolls who wanted to push his religious agenda; that is, that intelligent design should be promoted here on Wikipedia as the most brilliant scientific advance of the 20th century, proving that Charles Darwin was Satan himself. When we wanted to "make necessary assumptions" that intelligent design is part of creationism (and we have 5 or 10 reliable sources that say it is, including creationist sources), Matthew Hoffman threw a tantrum. When we suggested to Matthew Hoffman that the references at the [[intelligent design]] article should be sufficient, Matthew Hoffman threw a tantrum. He was obnxious, and pushy and nasty and threatening. 

Matthew Hoffman was unblocked, and where has he contributed? Not one bit since he was unblocked months ago. Now granted, he is probably operating here as a sock puppet, but still...

It is ludicrous to hound VU out of here in the desperate hope that Matthew Hoffman would produce something. I would dearly love to make some of these wikilove advocates responsible for these trolls, and if they do not produce, then stick it to the wikilove advocates who are more in favor of volunteering someone else's time to deal with these POVandals than doing anything about it, in the frantic  hope that one of these POVandals will actually have a conversion experience and become productive.  

I notice that almost none of these POV pushers actually are interested in creating anything. They are mainly interested in disruption, as near as I can tell.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 18:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

:Moving away from the specifics of VU and Matthew Hoffman to the general issues raised by the case, I agree that setting up a dichotomy between "potentially good users lost" and "disruptive editors not blocked" is incorrect or at least highly oversimplified. When a truly disruptive editor is not dealt with and is allowed to go on and on and on, then potentially good users are driven away. These are tightly interwoven issues, not diametrically opposed poles. The idea that disruptive users are harmless annoyances who can be left to their own devices until an ironclad legal case develops is deeply flawed. The number one reason that we lose good editors is that they get tired of the endless enabling of disruptive users, which makes everything a needless struggle. Without commenting on Matthew Hoffman or VU specifically, if the outcome of this case is that disruptive users are given even more leeway because of a fear of losing a potentially productive editor, then I can almost guarantee that this will backfire and drive away more good contributors than it preserves. '''[[User:MastCell|MastCell]]'''&nbsp;<sup>[[User Talk:MastCell|Talk]]</sup> 20:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

==Scientific... point of view?==

I got into a bit of a discussion about what's going on at Wikipedia offsite and made a post which details another problem around here which I think is part of the core problem. It might be hard, but I think it might be possible for us to actually make some headway on this issue if we push. Quoting straight from the post I made:

<blockquote>What I really hate over there is how the consensus among many casual editors seems to be that science is a point of view (”SPOV”), and as such, we have to appropriately balance it with other points of view to make articles Neutral Point of View (”NPOV”). They completely miss the point that science is a method, not a conclusion, and on top of that, it’s simply one of the best methods we have for gathering data. But it gets treated like a viewpoint over there, so it has to be balanced against pseudoscientific views. Now, there are clauses about not fringe giving views undue weight, but this doesn’t help much when there’s a ton of horrible research being done on a subject (as with Homeopathy and Chiropractic). It looks to the casual observer like there’s a lot of weight to the credulous views, because they can’t determine the quality of the research. Even second-order research, such as meta-analyses, is flooded with poor-quality reviews which again, make it look like the credulous viewpoint is more credible than it actually is.</blockquote>

So, what I think we need to push for is acceptance that science isn't a point of view. Rather, it's a means of determining reality, and scientific sources should be considered among the best [[WP:RS|reliable sources]]. We should also raise points about how it's best to judge the quality of a scientific paper - journal it's published in, citations, etc. - so that non-experts can check to see whether a certain paper is good or not. When it comes to sources, we want quality, not quantity. --[[User:Infophile|Infophile]] <sup>[[User_talk:Infophile|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Infophile|(Contribs)]]</sup> 19:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

:Those things are already codified in our existing policies. Good scientific sources are highly prized per [[WP:V]]; people should not be quoting individual studies out of the context of expert opinion per [[WP:NOR]] and [[WP:WEIGHT]]; and ArbCom has affirmed that [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Serious_encyclopedias|Wikipedia's goal is to become a highly respected reference work providing views of scientific topics in line with mainstream scientific thought]]. But I think you're right on the money - fetishizing science makes it too easy to paint the "SPOV" as a POV to be balanced with others. Science is a method, not a POV, as you said. It's very useful for describing physical, chemical, and medical facts; not so useful, perhaps, for discussing Kant or the causes of the Thirty Years' War. I agree that we should move away from the idea of "SPOV" as a subset or superset of NPOV, and emphasize the issue of good sourcing. On topics which are, or claim to be, scientific, good sources will largely be scientific ones, or at least high-quality coverage of science in the media. '''[[User:MastCell|MastCell]]'''&nbsp;<sup>[[User Talk:MastCell|Talk]]</sup> 19:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
::::Well, I tried to get people to base the tone and content of the Homeopathy article on the AMA, NIH, and American Chemical Society (I think it was, something like that last- anyway, the most mainstream sources avaliable).  No go.  Attacked the sources as POV.  ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#FFFFFF;">Martin<sup>phi</sup></span>]]'''    [[User talk:Martinphi|☎]] Ψ [[Special:Contributions/Martinphi|Φ]]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 01:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

::Yeah, I realize that the rules actually support a lot of what we're trying to accomplish here, the problem isn't with them. It's with the people who are supposed to be enforcing them. Perhaps they don't properly understand this. In any case, I think it might be a good idea to make it clear in some essay/guideline/policy that science isn't a point of view. This, more than anything, should help us stop people from trying to balance their own, anti-reality positions against science in articles. --[[User:Infophile|Infophile]] <sup>[[User_talk:Infophile|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Infophile|(Contribs)]]</sup> 20:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

:::I'd not not heard of this ''SPOV'' before now, but I agree that where it exists, then it displays a very deep misunderstanding of what science is actually about. As it happens I think that the scientific method probably ''could'' be applied to the causes of the Thirty Years' War, but that's another story.

:::Perhaps the general problem is that not every question that can be asked - Is there life after death? - either necessarily makes sense or is amenable to any kind of a plausible resolution. Just because we can put the words together to ask such questions gives them no more worth than asking "Is all blue poetry really hilly?". But I digress :-) --[[User:Malleus Fatuarum|Malleus Fatuorum]] ([[User talk:Malleus Fatuarum|talk]]) 22:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

::::[[Colorless green ideas sleep furiously]]. ;) As for questions that make more sense, best test to see if they're scientific is [[falsifiability]]. --[[User:Infophile|Infophile]] <sup>[[User_talk:Infophile|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Infophile|(Contribs)]]</sup> 22:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

:::::Chomsky got it right, and I agree with what you're saying. But you've mentioned what people outside of the scientific world find difficult to understand. They want answers to questions like "Is there life after death?" The words seem to make sense to them, but the concept of life after death is both illogical and untestable. All compounded because scientists largely ignore controversial areas of research for reasons that are all too apparent. I'm thinking of Rhine's experiments in parapsychology for instance, and all of the hoo-hah over homeopathy. --[[User:Malleus Fatuarum|Malleus Fatuorum]] ([[User talk:Malleus Fatuarum|talk]]) 22:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

:::::In the context of Wikipedia, SPOV is not a negative, because what we "mean" is that the weight of scientific understanding is thus and such.  The best part of science is that it is revolutionary and evolutionary (not speaking politically or biologically, respectively).  For example, the [[Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event]] was first unknown, then it was a giant asteroid uncovered through the study of the geology of the event, now there is discussion about something else causing it--probably it will be a combination of numerous factors.  The problem with the anti-SPOV is that it does not give any credence the possibility that it could be wrong.  This culture of anti-science that pervades Wikipedia is troubling.  [[User:Orangemarlin|<span style="color:orange;">'''Orange'''</span><span style="color:teal;">'''Marlin'''</span>]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Orangemarlin|Talk•]] [[Special:Contributions/Orangemarlin|Contributions]]</sup></small> 22:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

:::::: If I understand you correctly, the problem with the pro-SPOV is that it does not give any credence the possibility that it could be wrong. [[User:Anthon01|Anthon01]] ([[User talk:Anthon01|talk]]) 23:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
:::::::I think you are describing the ASPOV more accurately.  The one that wishes to have all the information, regardless of how minor or discredited, added.  Remember, "science" is self correcting.  Prove it wrong, and then, all of a sudden "science" is right again.  By definition "science" can never be wrong, because when you do prove it wrong, that becomes the accepted paradigm and hey presto "science" is right ... again.  Unfortunately AS is almost always wrong, because when it is proven correct, it is gobbled up by the SPOV.  Ain't science grand :-) [[User:Shot info|Shot info]] ([[User talk:Shot info|talk]]) 23:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

:::::::: Yea. Science was right when it decided that [[Semmelweis]] was wrong. And then it remained right when it proclaimed him right. NPOV requires a narrative that reflects the evolution and revolutions that occur in science. [[User:Anthon01|Anthon01]] ([[User talk:Anthon01|talk]]) 00:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

:::::::::It's quite possible that I'm being a little bit dense, but my understanding is that science is never "right" or "wrong", it's simply a method that takes us closer to the "truth". --[[User:Malleus Fatuarum|Malleus Fatuorum]] ([[User talk:Malleus Fatuarum|talk]]) 00:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

:::::::::: Yes, but some editors use science as it where truth as in ''X is not plausible''. [[User:Anthon01|Anthon01]] ([[User talk:Anthon01|talk]]) 00:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

← Anthon1 making a very common mistake about NPOV. It requires that we describe evolutions in science ''after'' they happen. A lot of people seem to want Wikipedia to describe things that are ''just about'' to happen in science, or right around the corner, or beyond the cutting edge. And they invariably bring up things like Galileo and Semmelweiss. If Wikipedia were around when Semmelweiss was first mentioning handwashing, then it would ''quite properly'' have regarded it as a fringe view. ''After'' handwashing became accepted by experts in the field, Wikipedia would be updated to reflect that. Wikipedia is not the place to bring more attention or credibility to a fringe or protoscientific idea. If that idea becomes mainstream, then Wikipedia will reflect it, but it should never try to ''anticipate'' that an idea will be proven right or wrong in the future. Because for every Semmelweiss, there are 5,000 [[Trofim Lysenko|Lysenkos]] and [[Lamarck]]s - and that's a conservative estimate. '''[[User:MastCell|MastCell]]'''&nbsp;<sup>[[User Talk:MastCell|Talk]]</sup> 00:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

:: You know the joke about "if you're on the cutting edge, you're on the wrong side of the knife." That applies in science (the quacks are always claiming to be on the cutting edge) and to editing here. We only deal in well-used knives here, not in OR....;-) -- <i>[[User:Fyslee|<b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b>]]</i> / [[User talk:Fyslee|<b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b>]] 06:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC) 

:Actually, I am suggesting that ''No plausible explantion exists...'' is better that ''X is not plausible'' and would resolve at least some of the endless circular debates that transpire on WP. I am suggesting this as a partial solution to so much time wasted. ''No plausible explantion exists...'' leaves room for both evolution and revolution. [[User:Anthon01|Anthon01]] ([[User talk:Anthon01|talk]]) 00:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

::That sounds like a purely semantic distinction, since anyone who understands the concept of plausibility also understands that it's based on our ''current'' state of understanding. As we learn more, our concept of what's "plausible" and what's not changes. That is equally evident from both sentence structures. '''[[User:MastCell|MastCell]]'''&nbsp;<sup>[[User Talk:MastCell|Talk]]</sup> 00:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

:::Eh? Semantic = meaning, why is the meaning of words unimportant? --[[User:Malleus Fatuarum|Malleus Fatuorum]] ([[User talk:Malleus Fatuarum|talk]]) 00:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

::: I don't agree. Not with your distinction, but in the practical use of the distinction I am making. ''X is not plausible'' requires the reader understand ''the concept of plausibility.'' To you or I it may be just semantics but not to the average reader and not to many editors on wikipedia. If its just semantics then let agree to use ''No plausible explantion exists...'' [[User:Anthon01|Anthon01]] ([[User talk:Anthon01|talk]]) 00:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

::::The great thing about science is that it does change, ideas change, everything.  No real scientist rejects the possibility that they may be wrong on something.  The problem with anti-science people is that they either A) reject the possibility that they are  wrong, and B) they always misinterpret science, especially the fact that science is not a fact, is not black and white, and tests theories.  But what scientists do reject is non-science presented as science, without testing.  So yes, every scientist rejects Homeopathy as not possible, because most scientific tests of the theory have failed.  And searching for the one out of million cases where science was wrong is fun, but in today's world rare.  [[User:Orangemarlin|<span style="color:orange;">'''Orange'''</span><span style="color:teal;">'''Marlin'''</span>]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Orangemarlin|Talk•]] [[Special:Contributions/Orangemarlin|Contributions]]</sup></small> 00:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

:::::There comes a time where the plausibility in ''No plausible explantion exists...'' approaches zero and becomes ''No explantion exists...'' and the "science" is exposed as what it is...belief masked as science.  As we all know what that is...  [[User:Shot info|Shot info]] ([[User talk:Shot info|talk]]) 01:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

::::::<small>(Hush now.... can't use the p-word or you'll get arbcommed.)</small> The plausibility argument is a riff on the classic "because we don't know everything, we don't know anything" gambit. Yes, scientific knowledge evolves by its very nature. But it doesn't follow that we must leave open the possibility that the moon is made of green cheese, or that dogs operated a ham radio network in Atlantis, or whatever else is in the latest issue of ''Weekly Woo-Woo.'' [[User:Raymond arritt|Raymond Arritt]] ([[User talk:Raymond arritt|talk]]) 01:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

:there is an incredible difference between Lysenko and Lamarck, and pairing them together as incorrect science is altogether ahistorical. Lysenko was an example of ignorant attempts at science being taken seriously for purely  political reasons, and used to promulgate ignorance and repress knowledge. It was known to be wrong from day 1, and never had a basis in either theory or experiment. Its pretty much in the same category as orgone boxes. Lamarck was a major serious scientist, a great systematic biologist, author of the encyclopedic treatise for his generation, doing the best to try to form a coherent theory out of unsystematic observations. it contradicted no known theory, and was not opposed by any experimental evidence. As experimental biology accumulated it was gradually seen as inadequate, but was not really replaced until there became both a more comprehensive theory of biological change, and finally a structural basis for it.  If anything, it resembles homeopathy, which was not necessarily more absurd than other theories of medicine at the time it was invented--the difference being that nobody is going around trying to propagate the now disproven ideas of Lamarckian evolution. This is a talk page, and this is my POV, and I freely use the word "mistaken".  Homeopathy is fringe, larmarckianism is historical, and lysenkoism is falsehood. That's the distinction.  '''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG|talk]]) 03:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

::Yes, you're correct. Those were poorly chosen examples. I hope that doesn't obscure my point, which was that Wikipedia is meant to err on the side of lagging behind the envelope a bit, rather than being a forum to push it. '''[[User:MastCell|MastCell]]'''&nbsp;<sup>[[User Talk:MastCell|Talk]]</sup> 06:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

== The problem ==
The problem is that no one is charged with enforcing NPOV. Or rather, we all are. Admins don't have any special claim or role as standard-bearers of NPOV; they just have blunt tools for dealing with behavioral issues. There is no higher body or "content ArbCom" that will bestow victory to the "right" side. For better or worse, it's the community of uninvolved editors who need to be convinced that a given interpretation of NPOV, or a given source, or whatever is the most encyclopedic. Thye will listen to reason, but they will even more rapidly be put off by flagrant incivility or incessant bickering and negativity. Regardless of whether this is the "right" way to build an encyclopedia, it's reality. We (meaning people who would like the encyclopedia to be a useful reference work on scientific topics) need to recognize that the community ultimately upholds [[WP:NPOV]] and [[WP:V]], and that in this environment rudeness, pettiness, or incivility can and do outweigh the "rightness" of the underlying argument. Some editors who are interested in emphasizing fringe or unscientific coverage of scientific topics have already recognized this, to their advantage. Admins are not going to suddenly start "enforcing" NPOV by blocking people (which is really the only extra tool they have available); we need to make a better case to the community. '''[[User:MastCell|MastCell]]'''&nbsp;<sup>[[User Talk:MastCell|Talk]]</sup> 22:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

:Because of the poor quality of admins being elected these days, they are enforcing their own POV by blocking.  I think the democracy of Wikipedia is starting to fail.  [[User:Orangemarlin|<span style="color:orange;">'''Orange'''</span><span style="color:teal;">'''Marlin'''</span>]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Orangemarlin|Talk•]] [[Special:Contributions/Orangemarlin|Contributions]]</sup></small> 23:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

::The children will ultimately succeed in their mission to take wikipedia over IMO, and then you can wave goodbye to any last remnants of democracy. Gang allegiances is what you can look forward to instead. --[[User:Malleus Fatuarum|Malleus Fatuorum]] ([[User talk:Malleus Fatuarum|talk]]) 23:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
:::Heh, according to WR, the "gangs" have been here for a few years.  [[User:Shot info|Shot info]] ([[User talk:Shot info|talk]]) 23:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
::::You took the words out my mouth. People have been making those same complaints since long before I started here in mid-2006. In my opinion, the situation in is actually better now than it used to be, in regard to "gangs" of POV-pushers. The maturity and quality of admins are determined at RfA; I would suggest we all be involved there. In any case, until Wikipedia's culture changes, we probably ought to try to enjoy the life designed for us by the creator <s>evolve and adapt to it, or go extinct</s>.<sup>Of course, evolution is only a "theory" and no one has ever seen it happen, per NPOV.</sup> '''[[User:MastCell|MastCell]]'''&nbsp;<sup>[[User Talk:MastCell|Talk]]</sup> 23:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

:::::The more editors that get involved in RfA the better, as it seems at present to be a bit of a closely knit club. I'd suggest deciding on a few well-chosen optional questions to ask each candidate and take it from there. Who knows, it may even make a difference. --[[User:Malleus Fatuarum|Malleus Fatuorum]] ([[User talk:Malleus Fatuarum|talk]]) 23:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
::::::I can tell you that from the inside, "close-knit" is not the first word that comes to mind regarding the admin community. But yes, go to RfA and ask questions and !vote. Once someone's an admin, there's very little (short of a "test case") that will undo it, so RfA is the place to intervene. Welp-considered questions and rationales for supporting or opposing a candidate can carry a lot of weight. '''[[User:MastCell|MastCell]]'''&nbsp;<sup>[[User Talk:MastCell|Talk]]</sup> 00:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
:::::::The problem with the RfA is that a bunch of people jump on the supports, and nothing changes.  However, I have been involved in (or probably the cause of) the failure of two or three RfA's which were going well over to the support side.  In each case, I believe they were POV-warriors who nearly got through.  But I don't have time to scan through dozens of diffs, talk pages, etc. to uncover it.  The system is a mess.  [[User:Orangemarlin|<span style="color:orange;">'''Orange'''</span><span style="color:teal;">'''Marlin'''</span>]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Orangemarlin|Talk•]] [[Special:Contributions/Orangemarlin|Contributions]]</sup></small> 00:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

::::::::It certainly is a mess, but only because it's asymmetric. Once an admin, always an admin, with very few exceptions. Being an admin is no big deal? Yeah, right. --[[User:Malleus Fatuarum|Malleus Fatuorum]] ([[User talk:Malleus Fatuarum|talk]]) 00:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

:::::::::It's way too big a deal.

:::::::::As to sources, the problem is that when the most mainstream and authoritative sources do not support the case that the SPOV advocates are trying to make, they are summarily ignored and attacked.  If the SPOV people were fair, and actually followed the sources, there would be little problem.  Certainly no one would have a problem with me, or call me a POV pusher.  It is indeed a matter of following the sources.  And though I have seen people not want to follow the tone and content of sources on both sides of debates, I have seen far more of this on the purportedly scientific side. And I'm talking about the best sources here.  I've seen Nature ignored and attacked.  The AMA.  The NIH.  I've seen the ''main scholarly critics of a subject'' ignored and twisted, when they didn't say things in as derogatory a way as the SPOV people desire.  ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#FFFFFF;">Martin<sup>phi</sup></span>]]'''    [[User talk:Martinphi|☎]] Ψ [[Special:Contributions/Martinphi|Φ]]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 01:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::Just as well this is a nice sweeping generalisation.  Otherwise anybody would think that you are describing a majority of SPOV advocates, rather than the one or two you regularly edit war with.  [[User:Shot info|Shot info]] ([[User talk:Shot info|talk]]) 02:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

:::::::::::No, meant exactly as stated. ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#FFFFFF;">Martin<sup>phi</sup></span>]]'''    [[User talk:Martinphi|☎]] Ψ [[Special:Contributions/Martinphi|Φ]]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 02:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::::Anyone can read what you have written, but it is inaccurate as you make a sweeping overgeneralisation, hence my comment :-).  Anybody can read the ArbCom and see who the particular SPOV advocate you are overgeneralising about mind you.  [[User:Shot info|Shot info]] ([[User talk:Shot info|talk]]) 03:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

:::::::::::::Heh, I can see why you might think that, but I'm not overgeneralizing to that extent (and are you admitting?).  Yes, SA is one.  But -just as a very small example- see Homeopathy talk page.  Users rejected the NIH and AMA and a mainstream pharmacology journal as POV sources.  Actually, that is exactly the kind of source we should follow, if possible, both in tone and content.  ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#FFFFFF;">Martin<sup>phi</sup></span>]]'''    [[User talk:Martinphi|☎]] Ψ [[Special:Contributions/Martinphi|Φ]]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 03:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

::::::::::::::''see Homeopathy talk page'' Um, somebody hasn't being reading this [[User:Raymond arritt/Expert withdrawal‎|page]] in any great detail.  Without diving in that cesspool of woo-promotion, I can speculate on the reasons behind what has been rejected though, mainly because I view it in various other fringe topics - a dodgy XYZ is published in a reputable journal and hey presto, Fringe = Normality.  Let's forget everything that still says Fringe = Fringe (you know, things like Physics :-).  But anyway, you are still overgeneralising, how do I know this?  Because in your example you are only dealing with (and have only dealt with) a minority of those you would identify as "SPOV advocates".  Nevertheless for a political public statement, your edit has merit - even though it can be summarised even further as "SPOV advocates are the real villains here" :-)  [[User:Shot info|Shot info]] ([[User talk:Shot info|talk]]) 04:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::Hmmm, to answer that I'd have to go into detail.  But DGG already said everything I'd say. And no, the sources do not promote fringe.  But, FYI, "fringe" does = normality, or mainstream, much of the time.  Go figure. ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#FFFFFF;">Martin<sup>phi</sup></span>]]'''    [[User talk:Martinphi|☎]] Ψ [[Special:Contributions/Martinphi|Φ]]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 04:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::And there you illustrate precisely the problem we're facing. What's fringe in science isn't fringe among the lay. So which should we do? If we want to be a respectable encyclopedia here, we have to go by the scientific perspective when attempting to discuss matters that can be investigated scientifically. If we went by the popular weighting... well, I'll just let you picture what [[Evolution]] would look like. --[[User:Infophile|Infophile]] <sup>[[User_talk:Infophile|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Infophile|(Contribs)]]</sup> 06:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

outdent.  It would look like more or less what it does: evolution is a scientific theory.  And nearly everything, including life after physical  death, the existence of God etc., can be investigated scientifically.  The problem is POV pushing: from the fringe, yes, but also from those who incite the fringe by trying to speak of people's false beliefs and fringy ideas in a manner which frankly shoves the scientific POV down their throats rather than simply makes it available.  That not only screws the scientific POV by making everyone hate it, it is against ''current'' WP policy.  ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#FFFFFF;">Martin<sup>phi</sup></span>]]'''    [[User talk:Martinphi|☎]] Ψ [[Special:Contributions/Martinphi|Φ]]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 07:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
:''"And nearly everything, including life after physical death, the existence of God etc., can be investigated scientifically."'' You may as well have written in caps and boldface "I have no understanding whatsoever of science or the scientific method."  [[User:Raymond arritt|Raymond Arritt]] ([[User talk:Raymond arritt|talk]]) 15:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
::Backatcha on that one, 135%. ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#FFFFFF;">Martin<sup>phi</sup></span>]]'''    [[User talk:Martinphi|☎]] Ψ [[Special:Contributions/Martinphi|Φ]]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 21:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

::And finally, one of the anti-science cabal admits to what I've been saying for years.  Creationism=Alternative Medicine.  Both require denial of science and scientific methods, but require belief in magic, faith in the supernatural, or just plain ignorance of science.  The perfect merger of the two is Lourdes.  Drink the water created by a vision of someone who never existed and it will cure you.  Oh well, Raymond and I will now be railed against for attacking someone or something.  It is so sad that science is under attack.  Well, when the Creationist/Alternative Medicine (the real CAM) types need to be treated for an infection or a heart attack, they'll probably come to a real physician, using real scientifically based medicine and be treated and maybe cured.  The Creationist will say some supernatural entity got involved (probably an Alien from Alpha Ceti Prime) and the Alternative Quack Believer will think it was his tincture of the Berlin Wall that he got from the same Alien.[[User:Orangemarlin|<span style="color:orange;">'''Orange'''</span><span style="color:teal;">'''Marlin'''</span>]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Orangemarlin|Talk•]] [[Special:Contributions/Orangemarlin|Contributions]]</sup></small> 15:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
:::There is another distinction, science works with the body of evidence, fringers use evidence that supports their case.  Another fundamental difference is that scientists change their models as the body of evidence changes. I have not seen this from fringe groups. Unfortunately such changes in models is often used as evidence that scientists don't have all the answers, as if that was even in doubt. Fringe science often has all the answers and that is the problem. [[User:David D.|David D.]] [[User talk:David D.|(Talk)]] 17:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
::::Martinphi, you remember one section ago when I was talking about the phrase "Scientific POV"? If not, you might want to read it. Others: This is what I was talking about. By trying to shoehorn science into being just a POV, people attempt to then argue that it should be balanced against the anti-science POV. Face it, reality has a pro-science bias (or is it the other way around?). --[[User:Infophile|Infophile]] <sup>[[User_talk:Infophile|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Infophile|(Contribs)]]</sup> 19:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

:::::You won't find any disagreement from me on these things- except of course the pseudoscientific statement by Arritt.  I have no idea what OrangeMarlin might be talking about, but if it makes a difference, I know at least one person he thinks is a "fundamentalist POV pusher" who isn't even Christian.  The rest of it might be true for someone or other, I wouldn't know. And I don't see what this has to do with what I said, either.  I said, it is bad psychology and against WP rules to shove SPOV down people's throats. ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#FFFFFF;">Martin<sup>phi</sup></span>]]'''    [[User talk:Martinphi|☎]] Ψ [[Special:Contributions/Martinphi|Φ]]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 21:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

::::::Alright, that's it. [[User:Infophile/SPOV|SPOV]]. There. Feel free to wikilink as necessary whenever someone brings it up. --[[User:Infophile|Infophile]] <sup>[[User_talk:Infophile|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Infophile|(Contribs)]]</sup> 22:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

:::::::Thanks Infophile, very cool.  I prefer to use this one [[WP:SPOV]], where the community has had time to give more input.  [[Wikipedia:SPOV]]. ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#FFFFFF;">Martin<sup>phi</sup></span>]]'''    [[User talk:Martinphi|☎]] Ψ [[Special:Contributions/Martinphi|Φ]]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 22:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

::::::::Infophile, you're my hero!!!!!!  And Martinphi, I really don't give a crap one way or another.  I don't have an SPOV.  But I know who has an anti-science POV (not anti-SPOV, just anti-science).  [[User:Orangemarlin|<span style="color:orange;">'''Orange'''</span><span style="color:teal;">'''Marlin'''</span>]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Orangemarlin|Talk•]] [[Special:Contributions/Orangemarlin|Contributions]]</sup></small> 22:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The SPOV (science point of view) is the point of view that the scientific community can be trusted to accurately represent present day understanding of logic and evidence and reality. Other points of view insist that the scientific community is biased in some way so that there is some aspect of reality that the scientific community is wrong about and some other person or community is right about. Personal revelation, subjective truths, revealed religion, secret truths, secret societies, belief in corruption in the scientific community (who pays their salaries?), mysticism, and emotion based certainty all play a part in people deciding to reject some specific scientific consensus and instead believing something else. [[User:WAS 4.250|WAS 4.250]] ([[User talk:WAS 4.250|talk]]) 18:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

: Very well put. -- <i>[[User:Fyslee|<b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b>]]</i> / [[User talk:Fyslee|<b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b>]] 18:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

===Game over===

[[User:AlexanderSaxton|AlexanderSaxton]] has been confirmed as a sockpuppet of Davkal. Details [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RFCU#Davkal_.282008-02-16.29 here.] [[User:Raymond arritt|Raymond Arritt]] ([[User talk:Raymond arritt|talk]]) 17:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

:... and [[Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Davkal|here]]. He was quacking quite loudly, but of course if I'd blocked the account without jumping through the hoops of fire and standing on my head first, I'd probably have been desysopped by ArbCom as a "test case" - after all, "Alexander Saxton" is the name of a real, semi-notable person... '''[[User:MastCell|MastCell]]'''&nbsp;<sup>[[User Talk:MastCell|Talk]]</sup> 22:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

::And  The Rationalist is a sock of whom?  ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#FFFFFF;">Martin<sup>phi</sup></span>]]'''    [[User talk:Martinphi|☎]] Ψ [[Special:Contributions/Martinphi|Φ]]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 23:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

:::All I can say is BOYAH!  Picked that one like a broken nose :-)  Davkal, since you seem to enjoy reading this, you gotta change your MO dude :-)  [[User:Shot info|Shot info]] ([[User talk:Shot info|talk]]) 02:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

:::: ''([http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:Raymond_arritt/Expert_withdrawal&diff=192091466&oldid=192090461 Comment] by sock of banned user Davkal deleted. -- <i>[[User:Fyslee|<b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b>]]</i> / [[User talk:Fyslee|<b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b>]] 17:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC))''

=== What's the story? ===

Hello.  You see from my user page I just joined, though I have been lurking on this debate for a few months.  I hope it is evident which 'side' I am on from my user page.  What is the current view of the 'scientists' now?  (The debate got so painful I haven't followed it in recent weeks).  Best [[User:The Rationalist|The Rationalist]] ([[User talk:The Rationalist|talk]]) 10:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

:So what do you do with those parts of your life that are not verifiable, yet exist anyway? [[User:Anthon01|Anthon01]] ([[User talk:Anthon01|talk]]) 13:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

::You don't write an encyclopedia about them. [[User:Jefffire|Jefffire]] ([[User talk:Jefffire|talk]]) 13:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

::: Although I welcome you response, I think you may have misinterpreted the question, as it relates to a comment on the top of [[User:The Rationalist|The Rationalist]] talk page. [[User:Anthon01|Anthon01]] ([[User talk:Anthon01|talk]]) 13:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

::: Perhaps I misinterpreted his statement.''The Rationalist: believe nothing that is not based on what is verifiable.''  I took ''verifiable'' to mean science. [[User:Anthon01|Anthon01]] ([[User talk:Anthon01|talk]]) 13:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

::::Perhaps his talk page is the appropriate forum for your metaphysical conundrum. [[User:Jefffire|Jefffire]] ([[User talk:Jefffire|talk]]) 13:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

::::: If that were the case I would agree. [[User:Anthon01|Anthon01]] ([[User talk:Anthon01|talk]]) 17:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

:::::: I don't see anything at the top of his talk page that seems to be relevant to your comment. What is it you're referring to? I'm trying to make heads and tails of this matter. Can you provide a precise quote and location? -- <i>[[User:Fyslee|<b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b>]]</i> / [[User talk:Fyslee|<b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b>]] 18:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

::::::: I wrote at the top of my ''user page'', '''believe nothing that is not based on what is verifiable, and what can be inferred from this. Write an encyclopedia accordingly'''.

:::::::: Ah ha! That makes sense. Anthon01 had written "talk" page. The statement at the top of your user page is easily overlooked since it is above the TOC. How about moving it or making a colored block to highlight it? -- <i>[[User:Fyslee|<b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b>]]</i> / [[User talk:Fyslee|<b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b>]] 21:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

::::::::: Well notice I have just joined.  I have no idea how to make a coloured block to highlight the statement.  Is it important?  [[User:The Rationalist|The Rationalist]] ([[User talk:The Rationalist|talk]]) 12:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

:: ''So what do you do with those parts of your life that are not verifiable, yet exist anyway?'' - not believe in them, of course.  Which parts of my life did you have in mind? [[User:The Rationalist|The Rationalist]] ([[User talk:The Rationalist|talk]]) 14:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

::: I hope I'm not missing the point, but here's at least one way of looking at it. I have previously believed (and thus "experienced") many things which I have later learned were impossible or highly unlikely, given the scientific facts that are related to the subject. As a former practitioner, user, and believer of various alternative medicine methods and ideas, I have later had to reevaluate and repudiate my old interpretations in order to bring them into line with what is actual verifiable reality, rather than persist in retaining a belief in what was obviously anecdotal and belief-inspired interpretations of my experiences at the time. Personal experience ([[empiricism]]) can be very deceptive. Since it is very "real" at the time, it's nearly impossible to change one's mind at the time, even in light of scientific evidence that shows the interpretation of the experience to be a self-delusion, often shared by thousands and millions of others who believe the same way based on the same mindset and lack of knowledge of how the world and human body really work. If we don't reevaluate the interpretations of a our previous experiences once in awhile, and recalibrate them in light of currently objectively verifiable and reliable evidence, then we will persist in our delusions and fail to keep up to date. That can have fatal consequences for ourselves and for those we deal with. Sharing such beliefs can delude others. I often wonder how many deaths I am partially responsible for because of my previous sharing of what amounts to home cooked (by the whole alt med world) alternative medicine ideas. Keep in mind that even though empirical evidence has great value at times, it can be extremely deceptive when it stands alone. Therefore, we must continually search for clarity through good research. If it is revealed thereafter that a technique only "works" because of the placebo effect, we must take the consequences and quit using it and advocating it. Anything else would be dishonest and unethical. -- <i>[[User:Fyslee|<b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b>]]</i> / [[User talk:Fyslee|<b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b>]] 18:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

''So what do you do with those parts of your life that are not verifiable, yet exist anyway?'' - Define "exist" and "verifiable" and "parts of your life". These kinds of philosophical questions are about confused terminology. [[User:WAS 4.250|WAS 4.250]] ([[User talk:WAS 4.250|talk]]) 18:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

: His (or her) question was well-meant.  'Exist' means, whether there is such a thing or not.  'Verifiable' means not just that you think it, or believe it, or even know it, but that there is also some piece of evidence that everyone else can see or be shown. Anthon01's point was perhaps there are events in your life that you believe happened, but which are not verifiable in the sense that you can prove to the world that these things happen.  And you believe they happened, nonetheless.  Anyway, my question was, what has happened to this debate?  I followed the beginning of it, but what has happened?  Are the pro-science group leaving Wikipedia?  Going on strike? Or what?  I'm happy to help on science-related articles, and if anything needs defending, happy to defend.  [[User:The Rationalist|The Rationalist]] ([[User talk:The Rationalist|talk]]) 19:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[''outdent''] The simple answer is to reinterpret those experiences. That's the scientific thing to do. We should be prepared to reevaluate our experiences and change our minds. That's the only way to make progress, and which is what happens in science all the time. Just recalibrate your mind. -- <i>[[User:Fyslee|<b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b>]]</i> / [[User talk:Fyslee|<b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b>]] 21:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


:A lot of this philosophy is great. But does it belong on an encyclopedia? If it does, how should it be characterized?--[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 00:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

== Proposed solution: WikiHelpers ==

Having to deal with issues like cranks and trolls diverts experts' time, and I think the large amount of policy in place to deal with conflicts can make experts feel helpless against Wikipedia's "system" (as evidenced by the call for a boycott — my initial reaction was, "why don't you just fix it?!").  Here's a proposed solution to this problem:

Identify experts, and if they want to, assign a '''"WikiHelper"''' to them (perhaps after verifying their credentials off-record to avoid diversion of volunteer time).  A WikiHelper is like an assistant/clerk/mentor/lawyer to the expert; he or she supports the expert in making substantial contributions and helps keep cranks and other issues off the expert's back.

In particular, this is what a WikiHelper could do:
*Protect the expert's changes, so the expert doesn't have to [[WP:watchlist|watch]]-and-revert.
*Watch articles the expert cares about.
*Deal with trolls/vandals/sociopaths (revert where necessary; report [[WP:three-revert rule|three-revert rule]] violations, write [[WP:RCU|RCU]]s to combat [[WP:sockpuppet|sockpuppet]]s, write reports on [[Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism|Administrator intervention against vandalism]] and [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents|Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents]]).
*Deal with [[WP:fringe|fringe]] theorists and crackpots (support the expert on talk pages by pointing out policies like [[WP:NOR|NOR]] to other users; write reports on [[Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard|Fringe theories/Noticeboard]] and [[Wikipedia:No original research/noticeboard|No original research/noticeboard]], where necessary).
*Warn the expert of potential trouble and give advice ("article X is a battleground, be sure you know what you're getting into"; "be careful not to revert more than three times"; "finding a source for your claim will end the discussion at X immediately").
*If the expert gets involved in conflict-resolution processes (such as [[WP:ArbCom|ArbCom]]), be his/her "lawyer" and deal with the formalities (summarize the case by digging up diffs; if necessary make the case for the for the expert based on Wiki-behavior of other users; propose solutions).
*Polish the expert's contributions in terms of formatting and wiki markup.
*Offer help ("user X seems to be a crackpot; you don't have to discuss with him, I can deal with him").
*Answer questions.

WikiHelpers will need some sensitivity to avoid being the expert's [[WP:meatpuppet|meatpuppet]], but I think it's possible to handle this problem appropriately with some good common sense on the WikiHelper's side.

The idea behind this is that there are probably many users like me who don't have a substantial knowledge in any specific area (I'm a college student), but are well-acquainted with Wikipedia's policies/processes and are able to handle issues really quickly.  For instance, I'd be happy to be the WikiHelper of one or several science experts.  Any comments? -- [[User:LeaW|Lea]] ([[User talk:LeaW|talk]]) 00:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

:I wouldnt mind having a wikihelper sometimes. It just gets tedious answering the same complaint for the 500th time. I prefer to write new things, not to fight with someone who believes that Wikipedia should help promote their weird religious sect, or that it should promote their unproven medical treatment.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 01:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

::Well, first, this is already done to a very large extent.  Second, more formalization than already exists falls right into the definition of [[WP:SOCK|"meat puppet"]].  Third, people here don't genuinely want mere "experts," only experts who believe what they believe.  The problem is that you can get an expert to say just about anything.  I recall being told how time travel is pseudoscience, and I said, ''well, Stephen Hawking doesn't think so,'' and now I'm just reading in ''Discover'' how such speculations are becoming mainstream in peer reviewed journals.  Anyway, do you have a suggestion which is within policy, and which doesn't simply turn into a matter of which expert can gather the highest number of meat puppets?  ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#FFFFFF;">Martin<sup>phi</sup></span>]]'''    [[User talk:Martinphi|☎]] Ψ [[Special:Contributions/Martinphi|Φ]]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 01:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

:::"Has a PhD" or "is tenured faculty at a university" could be good "expert" criteria.  I think it's important that such credentials are verified (off-the-record), since being WikiHelper for someone who is a fan of crackpot theories or simply not a real expert in their field could do quite a bit of damage. -- [[User:LeaW|Lea]] ([[User talk:LeaW|talk]]) 01:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

::::So, for example, anyone who said that Remote viewing has so much proof behind it that in any other field besides [[parapsychology]] it would be accepted as fact wouldn't qualify? ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#FFFFFF;">Martin<sup>phi</sup></span>]]'''    [[User talk:Martinphi|☎]] Ψ [[Special:Contributions/Martinphi|Φ]]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 05:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
:and here we are back in the circle again. personally, I trust the ordinary WPedian to detect nonsense. '''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG|talk]]) 06:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
::I agree; I think that ordinary Wikipedians can, and should, fulfill most of these functions as a matter of course (polishing up useful contributions, calling people on OR and POV-pushing, explaining policy to newer users, etc). We could all do better, and we should encourage people who are willing to do these things, because they're important. I'm certainly happy to help in any of these areas, as I think many experienced users and admins are. As far as assigning a "helper" to watch and revert another editor's changes, that's [[WP:MEAT|meatpuppetry]], and we've already got more than enough of that. The problem with a Ph.D. as credentials is that 90% of the fringe/pseudoscientific nonsense out there is being pushed by people with Ph.D.'s. '''[[User:MastCell|MastCell]]'''&nbsp;<sup>[[User Talk:MastCell|Talk]]</sup> 07:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

:::Agreed.  But go on and take the bait, won't you? ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#FFFFFF;">Martin<sup>phi</sup></span>]]'''    [[User talk:Martinphi|☎]] Ψ [[Special:Contributions/Martinphi|Φ]]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 07:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

::::DGG: Experts are not there to detect nonsense (which in many cases normal Wikipedians can do just fine), they're there to make substantial improvements — see [[WP:WikiDragon|WikiDragon]].  My proposal is to assign helpers to them so they can focus on making substantial contributions rather than fighting with various internet creatures (trolls, ...)
::::MastCell, Martinphi: I'm assuming that people with PhD's are not likely to push fringe theories.  MastCell, can you provide me with references where a PhD pushes fringe theories (verifiable, please, not just some dubious "I have a PhD" claim on the user page)? -- [[User:LeaW|Lea]] ([[User talk:LeaW|talk]]) 07:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
:::::LeaW, a friend of mine (with a PhD in chemistry) is a passionate believer in creationism.  In his science field, he is a respected and talented scientist.  It just so happens that he is also extremely religious.  He once lent me a book (written by two other PhD'd authors) on why science is wrong about creationism.  I have absolutely no idea why he couldn't see through some of the utterly absurd arguments advanced, but he couldn't, because of his faith.  I wouldn't trust any opinion of his in an area like evolution, but in his specialty I would (and do) accord him the same credit as I would give any expert.  To offer a specific example, look up [http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/faculty/behe.html Professor (of Biochemistry) Michael Behe] - who has a tenured academic position in biological sciences.  His Department has a [http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/news/evolution.htm notice] on its [http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/ website] distancing itself from his views, which are in support of Intelligent Design (he's the principal advocate of irreducible complexity): The Faculty "are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of 'intelligent design.' While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific."  It is unfortunately true that lots of people with PhD's hold questionable views.  Most of them do not end up in academic positions, but some do. [[User:Jay*Jay|Jay*Jay]] ([[User talk:Jay*Jay|talk]]) 09:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

:::::: Ahem.  I just joined after watching this show from the sidelines for a few months.  I have already offered help to ScienceApologist, and am willing to provide help of the kind suggested here.  I don't have any qualifications in science, however do have an extended education on the humanities side.  Someone said of humanities education that its sole purpose was to allow its student to detect patent nonsense when he or she saw it.  On the PhD thing, more of a failing in 'science' subjects in my view, due to the reason that science education tends to be very narrow, excessively focused on numerical ways of doing things, and not on the skills which a humanities background cultivates (such as using sources correctly, wide 'reading around' a subject, strong general knowlede, literary and presentational skills &c).  I've probably offended my entire audience by these remarks, for which apologies - tongue in cheek only.  Perfectly willing to help, if anyone points me in the direction of the right articles.  That said, I checked through SA's recent edits, and most of his work is on talk pages, not on articles.  Edits to articles I checked and all of them are still there.  So something is working, surely?   Can also someone help me with how I watch an article I want to keep an eye on.  Does the system email me?  Or do I get a message on my talk page?  [[User:The Rationalist|The Rationalist]] ([[User talk:The Rationalist|talk]]) 12:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

:::::::Complaining that science is number oriented is like complaining that humanities is word oriented or that sports is activity oriented. [[User:WAS 4.250|WAS 4.250]] ([[User talk:WAS 4.250|talk]]) 14:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

::::::::[[user:The Rationalist|The Rationalist]]: To watch a page, click on the tab at the top of the page marked 'watch' - same line as the 'discussion' and 'histoty' tabs, etc.  Watching a page will automatically include the related talk page.  Now, at the very top of the screen when logged in there are links to your user page, talk page, etc. One of these is to your watchlist, which will show who made the most recent edit to watched pages, plus the edit summary, when it was made, and links.<br />
::::::::As for educaiton in humanities v. sciences, I would argue that the purpose of education in any area is to develop your ability to think critically, to analyse, to self-direct future learning, and to present and share knowledge.  Acquisition of specialised knowledge is also important, but much less so than the above thinking skills - because someone who is sufficiently self-aware to recognise a knowledge deficit and is able to learn independently can address a knowledge deficit.  Like many areas, the sciences used specialised language and have unwritten (but nonetheless fairly strict) standards for acceptance within the community of practice.  Communication with non-scientists can be problematic when there are differing expectations - especially when terminology has specialised meaning within the community, but is used more broadly ("theory" is a good example of such a term).  Modes of communication amongst scientists can also be mis-interpretted by non-scientists.  For example, scientists tend to be quite direct and often brusque, which would not concern another scientist, but can be taken as offensive by someone unfamiliar with the communication norms of the community.  I believe this is one reason that [[WP:CIVIL]] can lead to problems - ScienceApologist, for example, is sometimes accused of incivility when he is just communicating as if to another scientist.<br />
::::::::Many scientists would take issue with some of the 'neglected' areas you have listed - "such as using sources correctly, wide 'reading around' a subject, strong general knowlede, literary and presentational skills &c" - correct use of sources, broad knowledge of an area, and presentation are all strongly emphasised skills, and expected of a science-trained graduate.  A good friend of mine (also a scientist) had a humanities academic comment on a general interest article that he had written; the academic said that he "doesn't write like a scientist", with the comment intended as a complement.  He responded that he thinks like a scientist, and thus writes like one, but perhaps one who is more broadly literate than is the norm.  I suspect you are making a similar comment.  For me, the hallmark of a well educated argument (in any field) is a logical flow of ideas, with a balanced consideration of the issues, all connected and building to a conclusion.  It is simply that scientists have a tendency to use more specialised materials (be they mathematics, or statistics, or symbology and theory which is poorly understood beyond their domain) in advancing such arguments, making those arguments more opaque to the outsider. [[User:Jay*Jay|Jay*Jay]] ([[User talk:Jay*Jay|talk]]) 15:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

::::::::: Thank you for the help in setting up.  (Btw I'm a little offended by the remark above suggesting that my account was set up by another of the scientists here - as I said, I am not a 'scientist', nor am I related to or know or have had anything to do with any of the characters involved in the debate up until now - perhaps it was my fault for copying some of the stuff from SA's page to my user page, which I only did so as to get up to speed on the current debate).  Apologies for offending the scientists here - it was tongue in cheek.  That said, my experience of university days was that the people who tended to get involved in fundamentalist sects, weird cults and all that, were almost exclusively mathematicians, physicists and especially engineers.  I'd say [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook this guy] would be fairly typical.  And what about [http://www.icr.org/research/index/research_physci these] or [http://www.icr.org/research/index/research_sci_faq these].   In my experience, it was the historians, the economists, the lawyers, who tended to be the hard-bitten sceptics.  [[User:The Rationalist|The Rationalist]] ([[User talk:The Rationalist|talk]]) 15:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::: On which subject, I've made a change to the introduction to the [[Creation science]] article.  Nothing of any scientific impact, merely an improvement to the logic and structure of the opening.  [[User:The Rationalist|The Rationalist]] ([[User talk:The Rationalist|talk]]) 15:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

:::::::::::To illustrate the problem, it's worth noting that your change survived for 8 minutes. [[User:Jay*Jay|Jay*Jay]] ([[User talk:Jay*Jay|talk]]) 16:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::::: Not a problem.  Look at the talk page and you see we agree that there is now a change for the better.  [[User:The Rationalist|The Rationalist]] ([[User talk:The Rationalist|talk]]) 16:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

<undent>Actually in my experience, to state that almost no scientists believe in things like creationism is pretty close to correct. If you look at the general public, about half of the general public in the US subscribe to it. The more a person knows about the subject, however, the less likely they are to express a belief in creationism. So among engineers, it is no longer about 50%, but about 5%. If one moves to biologists, it is no longer 50% or 5%, but about 0.01% or less. 

So it is not true that getting a PhD means you are immediately stupid and unskeptical about some of these fruitcake ideas; quite the opposite. However, a belief in such irrational things stands out in such sharp contrast that people notice it when someone with a PhD in science or engineering or mathematics states that creationism is superior to evolution. It is not the PhD that makes them have these stupid ideas, but it is the PhD that makes us notice them.

On [[remote viewing]] etc: I do believe that there is a place for describing this material from both a skeptical and a less critical point of view on a Wiki. It just is unreasonable to expect that one Wiki, this one, Wikipedia, can be all things to all people. This is clearly impossible.  It is not possible to have one article that includes debunking material, and does not include debunking material at the same time. And this does not follow the rules of NPOV. 

What happens is that purveyers of "fringe science" want there to be no debunking material in these fringe science articles. It is not possible to be a serious encyclopedia, and to follow NPOV. However, I personally enjoy reading about these fringe science areas from different perspectives. And I think that if we can organize this enterprise in a better way we can all be more effective and productive. 

That is why I have suggested things like people trying the [http://paranormal.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page Paranormal Wiki] (one of the [[Wikia]] Projects). It is dying for content. But none of the fringe science people want to consider the Paranormal Wiki, maybe because of the name, or maybe because it is some perceived slight. Maybe it should be called Alternapedia? Or some other name, to make it more palatable? 

It is obvious that this Wiki cannot both include  skeptical rational  material, and not include it, at the same time. People try to redefine NPOV to get away from this. People wikilawyer things to death. Science Apologist is attacked over and over by purveyors of pseudoscience who want to get rid of him. This is a complete waste of time for all concerned. Either we change how we do business here, or we will continue to have trouble, and the trouble might even get worse.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 16:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


== On alleged misuse of account ==

JJ left a comment on my talk page which deserves a full reply.  (He queried a comment of mine on account abuse).  1.  Shotinfo said in a reply to a message I left on his page that 'I think those-that-should-know-better-but-don't probably have penciled you in as a sock'.  I honestly have no idea what he means here, or who he is talking about.  2.  I then noticed a comment by Martinphi asking 'And The Rationalist is a sock of whom?' on this page, which is quite explicit.  All I can say is, most of the protagonists on the 'pro science' side seem actually to be scientists, and I'm not a scientist, so why am I being called a 'sock'?  I have had nothing to do with this debate so far, except for studying it for a while, and, frankly, I'm still a little mystified about this whole thing.  Clearly a lot more has been going on than I have been able to follow from this page alone.  [[User:The Rationalist|The Rationalist]] ([[User talk:The Rationalist|talk]]) 15:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
:FYI, ScienceApologist and Martinphi ended up both being sanctioned by the [[WP:Arbitration Committee]], and there is some degree of tension between them.  Earlier today, [[WP:AE|SA has moved for MP to be blocked]] for violation of the ArbCom sanctions.  We have also just had another ArbCom case end with the departure of a well-regarded editor and sometimes controversial admin who held strongly pro-science views - that editor clashed with several others, including (at various times) Martinphi, Whig, and Abridged.  That case has (in the opinion of some of us) sent a strong signal that admins who try to clear up conflict, but in doing so make mistakes, will nonetheless be offered no protection or consideration.  This discussion began whilst that case was unresolved, and is an essential part of the background to where we are now.  It also explains why some might be suspicious of you being a [[WP:SOCK|sock puppet]]. [[User:Jay*Jay|Jay*Jay]] ([[User talk:Jay*Jay|talk]]) 16:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
:: Who was the 'controversial admin who held strongly pro-science views' - or can't you say?  [[User:The Rationalist|The Rationalist]] ([[User talk:The Rationalist|talk]]) 16:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
:::The editor in question has now left, and I would prefer to respect his wishes that his name be left off WP. However, if you want to look at the case, go the [[WP:RfAr]] and look for the cases (on the right hand side, part way done).  There are two recently closed cases: one relating to waterboarding, the other to a user MH who was blocked by the admin in question.  If you want the flavour, just look at the proposed decision page and its talk page, and maybe the associated user request for comment (RfC).  There was (and is) a ''lot'' of consternation about this case.  There is even a thread on the [[user talk:Jimbo Wales|talk page of Jimbo Wales]] about the case, asking about his power to dissolve the entire Arbitration Committee. [[User:Jay*Jay|Jay*Jay]] ([[User talk:Jay*Jay|talk]]) 16:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

<undent>This is exactly the kind of trouble I am discussing above. We will have more and more of this if we cannot organize ourselves better. So I have stated over and over on this page and its talk page that we need to consider other more productive options. I am pleading with people; let's see if we can figure a way out of this mess.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 17:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
: I'm still in the dark about what this case is (WP software is very unfriendly in allowing an insider to follow the thread of a discussion.  In a nutshell: what are the main issues involved in the 'case'? [[User:The Rationalist|The Rationalist]] ([[User talk:The Rationalist|talk]]) 17:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

In this case, a purportedly new user showed up at [[irreducible complexity]]. He was extremely combative and appeared quite knowledgable about Wikipedia, although he had supposedly not edited here before, so people were suspicious. He was blocked by an admin, first for a short period, and then for a longer period on suspicion that he was a banned sock puppet, and other admins signed off on this. This banned user wrote to be allowed back on, and his email was lost. Eventually someone on the Arbcomm was contacted and decided to make a test case out of the admin. The Arbcomm case went on for more than 2 months. Voting started even before there was any evidence, after less than 12 hours. Some of the Arbcomm members made negative statements about the editors on Wikipedia (we are supposedly "dogs" and worse) and the Arbcomm members did not distance themselves from these remarks. The admin asked for time off for his exams and for Christmas and this was only very grudgingly granted. This case did not follow normal procedure where an RfC was held first, so an RfC was created. The community overwhelmingly supported the admin, except for a  group who push anti-science agendas who do not like this admin (for obvious reasons). Some of these anti-science editors opened a second RfC condemning the admin for calling one of them a "homeopathy promoter" and claiming that was uncivil and wanting him sanctioned or worse for using such uncivil language (this second RfC was not certified so it disappeared). The Arbcomm appeared to ignore the RfC where the community supported the admin and would not compromise on the wording of one or two of the findings. So finally after 8 or 9 weeks of sheer hell, the admin decided he had had enough and would leave. 

There is a lot more to the story, but this is some of it.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 19:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
: That's very helpful, thanks.  [[User:The Rationalist|The Rationalist]] ([[User talk:The Rationalist|talk]]) 19:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

:: A few more points. The admin was guilty of misusing his admin tools, and the blocked editor was exonerated. [[User:Anthon01|Anthon01]] ([[User talk:Anthon01|talk]]) 19:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

:: I can speak only to what I have seen on a few fringe articles, including [[Quackwatch]], [[Homeopathy]], and [[What the bleep]]. This case is about pro-pseudoscience editors wanting to tag fringe articles with a scarlet letter and pro-fringe editors wanting no criticism in the article.(Scroll down to the bottom of the first section to view the pseudoscience box)[http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Homeopathy&diff=188534851&oldid=188534168] Reasonable arguments are often ignored.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Quackwatch/Archive_11#.22In_discussing_the_site.27s_limitations.22_vs._.22Nguyen-Khoa_went_on_to_recommend.22]
::I don't think pro-science clearly demarcate the science extreme wings of this debate. Pro-pseudoscience is more accurate. In the middle there some more moderate editors with different POVs, looking to write articles based on [[WP:V]], [[WP:RS]], [[WP:WEIGHT]] and are more willing to write according to policy. The leads in these articles are often a point of great contention as they are a readers first exposure to the subject on wikipedia. IMO, both extremes are non-encyclopedic. Potentially derogatory labels like "pseudoscience, quackery" and absolutes like "X is not plausible" are opposed by pro-fringe editors, especially in the lead. More moderate voices are willing to leave out or minimize the derogatories in the lead and place them in the body of the text. IMO, the pro-pseudoscience side is more concerned about slapping the pro-pseudo label in the lead of the article than they are with having the article read. Here is another example of that.[http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Complementary_and_alternative_medicine&diff=180792005&oldid=180790874] Although I am relatively new to these articles, I have been told that the pro-fringe extreme prefer no criticism at all; I have seen little of this in recent talk page discussions. Another issue is the MoS. Neither extreme seems to be particular concerned about it.  Getting their POV into the lead is more important. Here is an example of an attempt to improve the lead that fell by the wayside.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Homeopathy/Archive_28#Improving_the_lead] [[User:Anthon01|Anthon01]] ([[User talk:Anthon01|talk]]) 18:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

::Also moderate voices get drowned out by the extremes. [[User:Anthon01|Anthon01]] ([[User talk:Anthon01|talk]]) 18:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

:::I think I'm with you here.  The main thing I want to get from an article is whether it is about some load of old tosh, perhaps entertaining tosh, for all that, and I want to get this as soon as possiblem, with as little delay.  Thus in my view the best of the many reviews of the 'Bleep' film was the one that begins "Madonna has called it "incredibly thought-provoking and inspiring". Meanwhile the film has been widely criticised for mixing established scientific theory with mysticism and speculation.".  Very quickly and cleverly it tells me two important facts both of which confirm the fact it is a load of old tosh.  

:::By contrast the Wikipedia introduction has a ham-fisted edit at the end of the lead as follows:

::::"For example, the film asserts that quantum physics implies that "consciousness is the ground of all being"; this idea is part of the New Age belief of quantum mysticism, and is not accepted by the scientific community. The film also includes more specific pseudoscientific assertions: it implies that water molecules can be influenced by thought and that Transcendental Meditation can reduce violent crime."

:::Clearly this was by a pro-science editor who felt that as well as communicating the fact that the film has been widely criticised, he or she must give some specific examples.  This comes across as clumsy, moreover could have the opposite effect, suggesting some sort of conspiracy theory by scientists to subvert the truth.  There are much better ways of achieving this (for example, by saying that Madonna has called it "incredibly thought-provoking and inspiring".  Let me think some more about all this.

::: Some other thoughts: I have made a few comments on the [[Creation science]] talk page.  Some of the replies have been verging on rude, even though I am quite clearly on the same side.  By contrast, the lady on the ''Bleep'' page, the one who likes cats, is clearly going to be a nice New Age fluffy type who will probably be a pleasure to work with, even though we are clearly going to disagree at some fundamental level (e.g. I don't like cats).  [[User:The Rationalist|The Rationalist]] ([[User talk:The Rationalist|talk]]) 18:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

:::: You comments on the [[What the bleep]] lead, that it ''comes across as clumsy, moreover could have the opposite effect, suggesting some sort of conspiracy theory by scientists to subvert the truth. There are much better ways of achieving this (for example, by saying that Madonna has called it "incredibly thought-provoking and inspiring".'' is IMO, dead on. I have made similar suggestions and have been labeled a pro-fringe editor as a result. The ''Madonna has called it "incredibly thought-provoking and inspiring". Meanwhile the film has been widely criticised for mixing established scientific theory with mysticism and speculation.'' lead is an excellent way to frame two POVs on the film without any derogatory comments. Modanna's POV is just as important as the science POV, obviously for different reasons. The current lead comes off like a desperate attempt to convince the reader that science POV is the most important POV. [[User:Anthon01|Anthon01]] ([[User talk:Anthon01|talk]]) 19:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

:::: Another point: The lead that begins with the Madonna quote allows readers to make up their own minds. Some will believe Madonna more than the scientist, and that's ok. Also SA was largely responsible for piling it on in the lead of Bleep!. [[User:Anthon01|Anthon01]] ([[User talk:Anthon01|talk]]) 19:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

:::::A further point: The arbitration committee is currently up on charges for destroying numerous irony meters when it was found that this blocked user never returned to contribute productively and they lost the productivity of this admin, when the entirety of their arguments hinged on the fear of losing good editors. --[[User:Infophile|Infophile]] <sup>[[User_talk:Infophile|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Infophile|(Contribs)]]</sup> 02:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

::::::A very good observation Infophile. There is some sort of unwritten rule that experienced editors and admins are unwelcome here, and only newbies are welcome, no matter how they behave. It is sort of discouraging.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 02:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

:::::::Also, a lot of the claims of "misuse of tools" were inaccurate, or so broad that no admin would ever be allowed to edit Wikipedia, ever, or use their tools, ever. These charges of tool misuse were mainly mounted by antiscience zealots and those who are more interested in wikilove than building an encyclopedia.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 02:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

::::::::Filll, if some members of the anti-science crowd didn't have [[WP:CIVIL]] to misuse, they wouldn't have any way to force their POV into articles.  And, since this is the only policy that many uninvolved admins will try to apply - things like WP:RS and WP:V often require you to know something about the broad area - the damage from the case was particularly egregious, unfortunately. [[User:Jay*Jay|Jay*Jay]] ([[User talk:Jay*Jay|talk]]) 05:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

:::::::Well Jay*Jay, I beg to differ. Having been involved in this kind of discussion quite extensively for the last 15 months or so, I think I can say that anti-science types will use ''anything'' that they can to get their POV into articles, not just [[WP:CIVIL]]. It just happens that [[WP:CIVIL]] works fairly well since it is easy to apply. But I am pretty sure from what I have seen that if they couldn't use that, they would use something else. And although I think it is an extreme stretch to claim that the phrase "homeopathy promoter" is akin to an expletive, malediction or other uncivil imprecation, this claim was made and actually fairly seriously entertained by a large group. It was only stopped because those trying to make the case were not sufficiently skilled in wikilawyering to complete the procedure. So one does not have to be uncivil to be charged with incivility on trumped up charges, and for it to stick in many cases. Until we think of a different way to organize ourselves, we will continue to have this problem. That is the entire reason for these pages here; to think of other ways to deal with what is a basically ugly mess, since our current methods seem to work very poorly, if at all.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 05:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

::::::::Filll, point taken - I am overstating, because you are correct that [[WP:CIVIL]] is not the only weapon, but it is the weapon of choice, in part because uninvolved admins lack the knowledge to recognise the issues that call for resolution under [[WP:RS]], [[WP:V]], [[WP:FRINGE]], [[WP:WEIGHT]], etc.  I agree that we have a big problem requiring a solution, but I can't see that anything will work without the support and active effort of the admin core and the bureaucracy.  ArbCom also deserve a fair amount of blame here.  The notion that their actions encourage newcomers does not withstand critical scrutiny.  It certainly is one factor in my considering leaving.  As for the incompetent wikilawyering around ''uncritical homeopathy promoter'', I doubt that that RfC would have gone anywhere even if certified - or else, the situation around here is even worse than I presently believe.  [[User:Jay*Jay|Jay*Jay]] ([[User talk:Jay*Jay|talk]]) 06:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

You are hitting on another problem that is related; accessibility. Both pseudoscience proponents and science proponents have a tendency to use too much jargon in the LEAD and make the article hard to read for nonspecialists. For example, in homeopathy, no one but a homeopath is going to know what "potentization" or "succussion" or "trituration" or "remedies" are, or what 10X or 100C or 3M means. And the same is true of science types, who might want to go into great detail about metastatistics and double blind tests and hypothesis testing and confirmation bias and so on. In both cases, this kind of material makes the article inaccessible for the average reader. 

In the case of "bleep", I have studied a lot of quantum mechanics, up through graduate level quantum field theory. I personally found the movie not that horrible, at least the first half an hour or hour or so. I think that the last part is just crazy, but that is ok; it does present a lot of interesting and state of the art physics to a general audience. We have to be able to produce articles that (1) include the mainstream views of the science community (2) are accessible (3) present the pseudoscience claims as clearly as possible. Unfortunately, we have various elements here that want to discard (1), (2) or (3), or possibly more than one of these requirements.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 19:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

: We agree. [[User:Anthon01|Anthon01]] ([[User talk:Anthon01|talk]]) 19:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

In response to the comment above that ends:
:"''There is a lot more to the story, but this is some of it.--Filll (talk) 19:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)''"
My perception was that an admin, who is part of a group of admins that uses bullying to maintain ownership of articles (but I almost always agree with the end result in terms of article content), responded to an aggressive new editor with equal aggression and in the end banned him for the thought crime of agreeing with other banned editors using the excuse of "sock/meat puppet". The problem is that we need a content arbcom, so we don't have to spend literally unlimited amounts of time arguing the exact same points with every new editor (or be forced to use bullying or thought crime to end the endless debates). It also would have helped if the admin had not ignored an arbcom member who questioned his indef block. [[User:WAS 4.250|WAS 4.250]] ([[User talk:WAS 4.250|talk]]) 10:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
:Well, I'm sure that's a perception that some ArbCom members would like.  Mine is a little different.  It starts with an ArbCom member emailing out of the blue with a fairly cryptic message, failing to mention that he's even another admin, let alone an ArbCom member.  When the ArbCom member lists a case and it opens, one member lists sanctions within 12 h - without any evidence submitted in response.  The 'new' editor was blocked with the concurrence of other admins, none of whom are sanctioned at all; ArbCom declares that the evidence available was insufficient for the block.  The listing ArbCom member recuses himself from the case, but still provides evidence include utterly inappropriate material - ArbCom circles the wagons and refuses to even consider whether this action is acceptable.  ArbCom ultimately realises that without an RfC they will have zero credibility.  The RfC is strongly supportive of the admin, which almost everyone on ArbCom ignores, and they proceed to sanction the editor.  Net effect: widespread community dissatisfaction, the loss of a triple-crown winning editor, and a chilling effect on admins with any inclination to try to actually resolve problem areas. [[User:Jay*Jay|Jay*Jay]] ([[User talk:Jay*Jay|talk]]) 12:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
::Yes, I agree with everything you just said. [[User:WAS 4.250|WAS 4.250]] ([[User talk:WAS 4.250|talk]]) 12:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

My perception of the situation is closer to Jay*Jay's. I was the editor who was mainly dealing with this "newbie". I will eat my hat if that "newbie" is not some sort of sock of someone blocked. He was abusive and obnoxious and knew way too much about WP rules right from his first couple of edits. The Vanished User, the admin who blocked this "newbie", was protecting ''me'', '''not''' bullying anyone. Frankly, this "newbie" was bullying me and being a complete jerk (I could say worse, but I will hold off). 

Is protecting this "newbie" more important than protecting me? If so, why? I have over 25000 edits and have created well over 1000 articles in about 15 months. Am I not of any value here? Give me a break...

And after all this nonsense, where is the esteemed "newbie" MH? What has he contributed after begging and pleading to be allowed back on for months? And what has happened to the Arbcomm member who called the editors on Wikipedia dogs and worse? 

I have started dealing with these sorts of disruptive editors by repeatedly inviting them to create some new articles or content. Almost always they vanish. They are usually not interested in creating anything, but just in destruction and obstruction. 

We need to reorganize ourselves and new mechanisms. And that is the purpose of this page; to stimulate the creation of some new ideas that might be worth trying.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 16:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

:What's really going on here? I often see it mentioned that the ''Vanished User's'' RfC was supportive, but of those who were independant who supported his use of blocks wrt to articles he was actively editing? Frustration leads to admins taking the law into their own hands, that is understandable, but is exactly the reaction the fringe groups depend on to be heard.  How often has such heavy handed policing actually helped these articles or deterred the fringe editors? Rarely if ever, and I believe this is why arb com acted the way they did. If you could figure out a way to make more use of AN/I I believe there would be fewer problems. By rising for the bait each and every time the pro-science editors end up feeding the fringe fire not dousing it.
:As an aside, I have now been branded as a scientific fundamentalist [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User%3ARaymond_arritt%2FExpert_withdrawal&diff=191759155&oldid=191739437 above (now deleted)] because i [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User%3ARaymond_arritt%2FExpert_withdrawal&diff=191674906&oldid=191656434 support science]. This is the typical black and white garbage one can expect from this debate. I have not followed the debate with regard to the plant articles but I am not opposed to a mention of homeopathy in relevant articles in a medicinal section of a plant article.  I defended the mention of a homeopathic remedy in the [[potassium dichromate]] article too. I want to see the facts of homeopathy exposed but i also want to know what homeopathy is about. To understand homeopathy from an encyclopedic perspective does not have to be propaganda for homeopathy or continual criticism. Scientists do not need to defend against all descriptions of fringe science, they need to defend against propaganda. Sounds easy, but it's not and that is why this [age exists. Cynicism and suspicion means that many descriptive, and other useful edits get branded as propaganada.  Worse there is apparent need to criticise all descriptive passages, yet, in my opinion, scientists do not need to be insecure as long as the propoganda is absent.
:Is there a way forward? I think there is; 1) use AN/I to fight the battles against POV pushers and banned users in articles that you are involved with; 2) Don't lose your cool, this is what WP:CIVIL is really about.  Once you lose your temper the troll wins as the drama takes centre stage; 3) Be objective, listen to valid argumnets for text that is descriptive but not propaganda, who ever suggests it, even the most frustrating users have some good suggestions; 4) Avoid overly critical writing, it will not last in that form and does not help establish a consensus. [[User:David D.|David D.]] [[User talk:David D.|(Talk)]] 17:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

:: I don't think your POV reflects a fundamentalist attitude; but more that of a moderate editor. The fundamentalist label more closely fits the '''pro-pseudoscience''' editors that want to slap a pseudoscience box in the lead of some articles. [[User:Anthon01|Anthon01]] ([[User talk:Anthon01|talk]]) 22:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

:::Thank you. My point is that many don't take the time to listen. We are often judged on a few edits or a single opinion rather than a body of editing. This is a fault that both side have and results in many unnecessary labels and clashes. [[User:David D.|David D.]] [[User talk:David D.|(Talk)]] 22:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Well to me it appears like a rewriting of history and creeping rule changes, or problems with unwritten rules. So the Vanished User had edited [[irreducible complexity]] and was involved in a content dispute in this instance? I think if he did edit that article, it was many months previously. And the same was true of the other complaints; if he had edited an article 10 or 12 months earlier, people were crying foul. But those who supported the Vanished User saw through these ridiculous trumped-up charges and supported him anyway. 

Under those standards, FeloniousMonk and Raul654 should be immediately banned. Are you going to bring charges against them for this in front of Arbcomm? Go ahead. I dare you. 

About the homeopathy articles: I have no problem with a couple of hundred articles and miniarticles about homeopathy. I think few do. What I am nervous about is giving the green light to allowing 10,000 miniarticles about Homeopathy or even 20,000 or more. And allowing them all to be glowing accounts of this wonderful treatment known as homeopathy. For example, in the [[Charles Darwin]] article, one homeopath wrote a large section about what wonderful homeopathic treatments Darwin had and how they had cured him. The actual sources showed that he probably had steam baths and baths mainly, and they did not work. And Darwin wrote extensively about what a crock of $%^& homeopathy is. But with admin support, Darwin's biography was turned into a vehicle for uncritical promotion of homeopathy, when the sources did not support this, and in fact support the opposite. 

So, I have no problem with describing homeopathy clearly. But these pro-homeopathy elements are not interested in that. They want something far different; they want to promote their profession with the standard mumbo jumbo that is completely inaccessible and just serves to obscure the nature of the treatments. And so we come to my suggestion here; to let the pro-homeopathy editors go at it, and then evaluate the product after a few months. And see, is this what we want for Wikipedia, or not? Because with the current mechanisms that exist here, we have no way to stop a civil homeopath who wants 20,000 pro-homeopathy articles on Wikipedia. No recourse whatsoever. And anyone trying to stop him or slow him down will end up banned. That is our current situation.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 18:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

:You may be right that Felonius monk should be reprimanded too.  He has [[Talk:Jonathan_Sarfati#Letter_to_Nature|edit warred with me]] on issues where he has not even read the context of the edit.  He has a knee jerk response to revert anything he sees changed from a user he is unfamiliar with.  This is exactly the behavior that starts all the drama and needs to be avoided.  See my point 3 above (be objective). [[User:David D.|David D.]] [[User talk:David D.|(Talk)]] 18:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

And what about [[User:Raul654]]? --[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 19:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

:For the record, I have not edited many articles when Raul has also be active. Of the few edits I have seen, nothing made me think he was being anything but objective. [[User:David D.|David D.]] [[User talk:David D.|(Talk)]] 19:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Raul654 has done the same as FM and Vanished User. Over and over; believe me. --[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 19:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
:Well I disagree, with reverting on a whim. If one is not sure of the reason for an edit, or cannot find time to discuss the problem on the talk page in an objective way then those scenarios will often lead to bad blood. I don't objective to such edits if they truely understand the nuance of the point that is being made. In the case of both Adam and FM I have seen the objectiveness jettisoned possibly due to an overprotective guard mentality toward their watchlisted articles. [[User:David D.|David D.]] [[User talk:David D.|(Talk)]] 19:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

::Being objective also requires that you assume that the editor who reverted you ''did'' read all applicable posts and simply disagrees.  You are assuming that the reverts were done on a whim: the assumption of bad faith is subjective.  [[User:Jim62sch|<font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">&#0149;Jim</font><font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62</font><font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149;</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Jim62sch|dissera!]]</sup> 20:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
:::Read the talk page, judge for youself. I don't have to AGF when there is no constructive interaction from the other user. [[User:David D.|David D.]] [[User talk:David D.|(Talk)]] 20:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

::There's no requirement for a person rv'ing to post on the talk page.  Ei qui incumbit probatio affirmat, non ei qui negat. [[User:Jim62sch|<font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">&#0149;Jim</font><font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62</font><font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149;</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Jim62sch|dissera!]]</sup> 22:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

:::Of course FM should listen and use the talk page if his reverts are disputed. FM was reverted by three different users. Only after the third did he stop. And the comments on the talk page did explain why he was incorrect, so your latin is moot in this case, yet he was not willing to listen or converse.  Instead we heard the "''see the talk page/archives''" broken record; maybe he should have read them himself before edit warring since the actually contradict his point? If everyone here can defend this type of editing then i think I see why you cannot understand the arb com's perspective.  It certainly helps to explain why many contentious pages exist. [[User:David D.|David D.]] [[User talk:David D.|(Talk)]] 01:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

==SPA==

:And by the way, whatever happened to [[WP:SPA]]? Most of these people seem to be on Wikipedia for the sole purpose of promoting Homeopathy. Does no one in charge see a problem with that? --[[User:Infophile|Infophile]] <sup>[[User_talk:Infophile|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Infophile|(Contribs)]]</sup> 18:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
::Yes, i have a problem with that and its the way to get them to move on by working with independant admins. That was exactly the case with Illena and she no longer edits. I agree its a pain to go through the hoops each time but any time we don't the drama starts up all over again. This wastes far more time than actually jumping through the hoops to get rid of them.  In my experience the AN/I can be quite effective at shutting down returning troublesome users. Real POV warriors are often given indefinte bans. But if their edits are objective we must work with those users. [[User:David D.|David D.]] [[User talk:David D.|(Talk)]] 18:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

WP used to  not encourage [[WP:SPA]], but somehow there has been a change in culture on Wikipedia in the last year or so. And even though Jimbo made statements like "we will be cracking down around here" (and these statements sounded to me that we would be getting rid of disruptive editors), what has actually happened is a crackdown on established editors and admins (maybe this started with [[User: Durova]]?), not on [[WP:SPA]] and sockpuppets and newbies and POVandals and meat puppets and malcontents and so on. Somehow the mantra of "the encyclopedia that everyone can edit" has become stronger than everything else, to the point of even creating an environment so unpleasant that established productive editors want to leave. 

I wonder if there is some nervousness about growth of Wikipedia. This seems silly to me, since the number of articles continues to grow, the number of GAs and FAs continue to grow, the standards for GAs and FAs are higher now than ever before, and most articles that I deal with seem to have more and more frequent edits. So I am basically puzzled here...--[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 19:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

:Maybe we should try something then. Let's jump through all the hoops for an SPA (got plenty, just pick one), and see if anything actually becomes of it in this case. --[[User:Infophile|Infophile]] <sup>[[User_talk:Infophile|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Infophile|(Contribs)]]</sup> 19:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

:I agree that SPA needs to be discouraged, in general these users are the ones that are pushing the boundaries between useful encyclopedic information and propaganda. Not to mention they often have severe problems with introducing original research.
:Another strategy is to keep the FAQ for the most active talk pages.  This seemed to work well at the evolution article as way to shut down the cycle of repetitive, non-productive discussions. We should not have to keep reinventing the wheel for each new (or not so new) user that shows up. [[User:David D.|David D.]] [[User talk:David D.|(Talk)]] 19:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I am glad you like the [[evolution]] FAQ. It was my idea and I wrote the first version. It only works in combination with many other adjustments however. See my discussion at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Filll/essaydraft].

The thing about the SPAs is that the WikiLove Police are now favoring the SPAs over other editors.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 19:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

:The way to fight wikilove is to present a case that even they cannot smooch. Documentation to AN/I, as soon we self police then the wikilove brigade support the supposed underdog which increases the longevity of the SPA users. This is another reason why I support passing the dirty laundry to uninvolved admins to avoid giving the SPA users the chance to be embraced as down-trodden. But, again, we need to be able to distinguish between users who are truely unproductive and those that are reasonable.  Go to AN/I too soon and this distinction is not so clear. A clear pattern needs to emerge, especially edit warring and an unwillingness to reach consensus or be objective on the talk page. Just disagreeing with a scientist in itself is not a reason to go to AN/I, however, documenting a users insistance on adding propaganda and original research as NPOV should win the day. And if not the WP:SPA guidelines need to be rewritten. [[User:David D.|David D.]] [[User talk:David D.|(Talk)]] 19:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

== 10 minutes enough ==

After a bit of time on the 'What the bleep' page, I see where you guys are coming from.  I had hitherto believed that no problem was too great for men & women of good faith to get round together to solve.  Perhaps an idle dream.  It is all fighting over little bits of sentences, with no sense of the thread of the article, of how the ideas fit together, of the order in which an article is presented.  I wonder if the idea of 'anyone can edit an encyclopedia' really makes sense.  Anyway, enough for today, friends.  [[User:The Rationalist|The Rationalist]] ([[User talk:The Rationalist|talk]]) 18:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
:Yes it is a huge waste of time and the articles end up reading like a mess, because of the efforts of the pro- and anti-science forces just churning things up. I gave up on "bleep" because there is so much fighting one cannot edit there. I am at the same point with [[homeopathy]] as well. That is why I think we need to think of a different way to organize ourselves in these controversial areas. People do not know what NPOV is, or they willfully ignore it. And since that is not a priority, but civility is, then things just head into the weeds.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 19:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

:: Er, having said that I did go back to the talk page and [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:What_the_Bleep_Do_We_Know%21%3F&diff=192635578&oldid=192635431 asked a question].  I am now interested in the claim made about Libet's experiment, grateful if anyone with more knowledge of science could help with the answer.  Pure logic suggests that if Libet's experiment did have the implication it is claimed to have, there would have been a lot more mainstream science writing about this.  As it is, Google doesn't suggest any such thing (except when you hit on New Age site, of course).  [[User:The Rationalist|The Rationalist]] ([[User talk:The Rationalist|talk]]) 20:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

:::There are two key misunderstandings with regard to the section you linked.
#Time-reversal invariant equations in physics do not require the ability to move backwards in time. See [[T-symmetry]].
#It takes time for signals to move from the hand to one part of the brain, and from one part of the brain to another, and from the brain to the hand. Our experiences of consciousness and choice are illusions created by our brains. Measurements show that before we are conscious of experiencing something or of making a choice, parts of the brain have already registered changes that correlate with that experience or choice. The only "backwards in time" is in our imagination, not in any physical thing or effect. [[User:WAS 4.250|WAS 4.250]] ([[User talk:WAS 4.250|talk]]) 00:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
:::: Thanks for the details on this.  [[User:The Rationalist|The Rationalist]] ([[User talk:The Rationalist|talk]]) 18:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey Rationalist,  I'm a few days ahead of you; a similar thing happened to me last week on the same page, when I also started out trying to be reasonable and accommodating (as opposed to those unyielding and dogmatic science guys who weren't doing the cause of science any good by their attitude, I thought) and suddenly realized that my arguments were being twisted and repeated back to me as agreement with a point of view I didn't share and couldn't agree with.   The problem with WP:AGF is that it only works if everyone really is acting in good faith.  When the people on one side are fighting for an ideology, for legitimacy for ideas that can't possibly succeed on their own merits, for vested interests  (there is an enormous amount of money in the new age industry),  then assuming good faith only benefits those who are acting in bad faith.  

I stopped trying to contribute to the discussion after that, and it was about that time that I came across, by accident, information that led me to believe  that some of the vocal pushers of the pro-Bleep slant are on the faculty of [a new-age "college"]  Many of the "experts" featured in that movie have been identified as faculty members at  this institution, so it would be to the institution's advantage to have the movie presented as a reasonable representation of science.   And surely no one is naive enough to think that the Ramtha interests don't have editors working on the article?  JZ Knight may look a bit "out there,"  but as far as marketing and making money off her brand, she's no fool.  As long as this is the state of affairs on Wikipedia:  on one hand vested interests backed up with unlimited resources and the zeal of an army of true believers willing to work tirelessly for the cause,  on the other hand a few exhausted people who think an encyclopedia should be an accurate and objective reflection of reality,  and a regulatory bureacracy that gives both sides equal weight,  I can't foresee a good outcome, either for the encyclopedia (which is considered a joke in the circles I frequent, and has certainly not presented itself in a positive light to me as a newbie) or for anyone but the special interests and ideologues who seem to be winning the battle.   I can't think of any reason why it would make sense for me personally  to become involved, when it's so obvious that it's a lost cause.   [[User:Woonpton|Woonpton]] ([[User talk:Woonpton|talk]]) 18:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


:I gave it a try too, but it was obviously hopeless under our current rules, so I gave up. What worked a year or two ago might not work now, when Wikipedia is seen as the number one venue for promoting horse *&^%, particularly horse %$#@ that someone is making money off of.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 18:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

:: Agree on the commercial interests involved. Anyway, I gave it a last shot by a major change to the introduction (together with a justification for the changes on the talk page).  Any bets on how long it lasts?  [[User:The Rationalist|The Rationalist]] ([[User talk:The Rationalist|talk]]) 18:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

::: Wow it lasted 5 minutes, per [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=What_the_Bleep_Do_We_Know%21%3F&diff=192853629&oldid=192853232 this].
:::: PS I have reverted back, but here we face the other problem.  I have a paying job in which a company pays me a generous salary for my skills in compiling educational material, arguing business cases and so forth. I have about 5 minutes of my time per day to contribute these skills for free to this encyclopedia.  Now it is time for supper, a glass of sherry and bed, followed by a hard day's proper work.  Meanwhile, these clowns apparently have 24 hours free time.  Hopeless.  [[User:The Rationalist|The Rationalist]] ([[User talk:The Rationalist|talk]]) 18:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

You are hitting on the basic problem, the reason we created these discussions on these pages. We need to think creatively of other ways to organize ourselves, or things will stay in this current mess, or get worse. --[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 20:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
: It is ABSOLUTELY HOPELESS.  It's like the bit in [[Apocalypse Now]] where they get to the bridge at the end of the river.  'Where's the commanding officer'.  'There ain't no f---ing commanding officer'.  Meanwhile Charlie is out there, taking potshots and sniping. I'd like to give up, but what bugs me is if I Google 'What the bleep' a load of commercial promotional material pops up, including (as I see it) the Wikipedia article itself.  [[User:The Rationalist|The Rationalist]] ([[User talk:The Rationalist|talk]]) 18:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
::Seems fair enough, i think its great we've finally figured out that time can literally move backward. Not that this was ever in doubt, [[Dr Who]] has been doing it for years. [[User:David D.|David D.]] [[User talk:David D.|(Talk)]] 18:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not think it is hopeless. What I think worked reasonably well on WP a year ago or two years ago does not work so well now because of all kinds of changes that happen when you get high visibility on the web and many more people using the web etc. I think we have to brainstorm about things to try to improve the situation. Just edit warring with people who are commercially driven or ideologically driven to make some unencyclopedia edits will not work. There are way too many of them, and the current situation where wikilove is the paramount consideration means we do not have the administrative structure behind us, for the most part, but against us. So we have to be creative about suggestions to put forward, and ways to bring attention to the problem.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 19:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

:The key comes down the the SPA accounts as you mentioned before. One I remember was the [[bigfoot]] article being completely hijacked by one person.  I have seen the same with the [[crop circle]] article too. I suppose this also takes in COI, both need to be taken more seriously. I am heartened that AN/I does seem to act faster to ban problem users but COI and SPA alone are probably not enough.  Documenting tenditious editing might be the real solution in combination with COI and SPA.  There main issue is when to drop the hatchet. [[User:David D.|David D.]] [[User talk:David D.|(Talk)]] 19:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

:I'm afraid that I'm beginning to share David D.'s opinion; it's looking hopeless. Too many kiddie admins more concerned about wikilove and their childish perceptions of what constitutes "civility" than they are about building a quality encyclopeia. --[[User:Malleus Fatuarum|Malleus Fatuorum]] ([[User talk:Malleus Fatuarum|talk]]) 19:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
::I'm not saying its hopeless, more that reasonable lines need to be drawn. I agree that defining lines might feel like a hopeless task, yet as the problems get worse these lines are more likely to cement. [[User:David D.|David D.]] [[User talk:David D.|(Talk)]] 20:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

:::Ah well, it's just my opinion that it's hopeless then. :-) --[[User:Malleus Fatuarum|Malleus Fatuorum]] ([[User talk:Malleus Fatuarum|talk]]) 20:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

There are a lot of accounts on here that do nothing but argue, and create nothing. Methods for discouraging those accounts would be great. Like topic bans, or page bans. It is a real problem to compile the evidence necessary for an RfC, let alone an Arbcomm proceeding, and even an AN/I alert can be problematic. Maybe accounts that have been productive at a certain level should be given more leeway than these driveby sock puppets and meat puppets that create nothing. If you needed 10,000 edits and 3 GAs to be taken seriously, that would slow a lot of them down. Then in some sort of dispute with an established user, someone who has 100 edits, all to talk pages arguing that man never landed on the moon and it is all an evil hoax by extraterrestrial aliens disguised as world leaders, would not carry much weight compared to the established user. I agree with avoiding [[WP:BITE]], but if a new user is just being disruptive, let him work on a few articles and show he is productive first and keep him away from the articles where he is being disruptive. I am not sure if that would work, but we need to think of other ways to organize ourselves.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 20:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
:I certainly like the idea that encylopedia builders get more weight with respect to article content. That also deters the habit of skipping between accounts since users need to stay with one account to get more weight. You could call it [http://static.flickr.com/28/51922847_c674c1c6e9.jpg User Impact Factor] [[User:David D.|David D.]] [[User talk:David D.|(Talk)]] 20:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

== The elephant in the room ==

Well, I figure this particular issue deserves to at least be brought up. We've seemed to skirt around it for quite a while. Anyways, I think we can all agree that there are a fair share of pro-science editors who have definite civility problems (not naming any names, though it is interesting that I don't see them around here). In my opinion, this often seems to make the overall problem worse, as admins see a definite problem on one side of the issue. I think one thing that might help would be for us to raise our concerns with these editors and see if we can get them to lighten up a bit. --[[User:Infophile|Infophile]] <sup>[[User_talk:Infophile|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Infophile|(Contribs)]]</sup> 20:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

:I strongly agree. Giving the loonies ammunition by being "uncivil" (as defined by Wikipedia) makes no sense. [[User:Raymond arritt|Raymond Arritt]] ([[User talk:Raymond arritt|talk]]) 20:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

:That might be part of the problem. But another part is if you are a pro-science editor, and you have encountered the same anti-science nonsense 200 times in a row, you might be less pleasant for the 201st anti-science flake that shows up than you were for the 1st. It is worse when these anti-science flakes have neglected to read the article or the references and/or basically know nothing. Many are sock puppets or meat puppets who know their way around WP and can wikilawyer ad inifinitum. Since they are assumed to be newbies, they can get away with incredible nonsense, which established users cannot. And so on and so forth...--[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 20:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

::Thing is, being civil makes it easier to get rid of them. Almost inevitably they will screw up. Then you can act, knowing that their misdeeds will look even worse because they were clearly unprovoked. Yeah, it's tough, and sometimes I've lost it too.  But let's start making Wikipedia's civility obsession work ''for'' us rather than ''against'' us. [[User:Raymond arritt|Raymond Arritt]] ([[User talk:Raymond arritt|talk]]) 20:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

:::Fill has got it right (per normal :-).  It's time for Wikipedia to defend it's regulars, not the mythical "next big editor" who actually turns out to be a non-entity, POV-pusher, sock of a blocked user, or just a plain old troll.  Unfortunately pushing the civil button is just reflective of the poor lot of admins we do have who are just too lazy to look into the situation.  But Wikipedia is suffering, it's content is starting to slip and slipping everywhere not just in Woo-land.  [[User:Shot info|Shot info]] ([[User talk:Shot info|talk]]) 23:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
::::Raymond definitely got this one right. Shot info is correct that we must not enable anyone to use [[WP:CIV]] as a weapon, but this does not alter the fact that being unfailingly civil makes it easier to get rid of problem editors, and being uncivil makes is ''significantly'' harder. <p> As for what to do when the frustration reaches that point, we need to offer clearer support regarding how to get backup, and we need to get in the habit of using back up ''long'' before we start feeling hot under the collar. There is very little excuse for arguing until one loses one's temper when one could go get three other people to repeat one's argument for one. -[[User:GTBacchus|GTBacchus]]<sup>([[User talk:GTBacchus|talk]])</sup> 02:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

==Scientific sources==

I was thinking that we might need a new guideline to coach editors in judging the quality of scientific sources. As we know, with sources like, say, newspapers, it's relatively easy to judge whether a particular paper is reliable or not ([[New York Times]]: Reliable. [[National Enquirer]]: More reliable if you take the opposite of everything they say). But for scientific papers, it's a fair bit more difficult. Peer review is a fickle mistress, so sometimes bad papers slip into good journals, while other times good papers can only get into poorer journals. There are ways to judge how good a paper is, but the average editor doesn't know them.

So, I'm bringing this up here as the editors browsing this page are most likely to be interested in this and capable of helping. Do you think we should try to write a guideline (or at least an essay) to help editors judge the quality of scientific sources? --[[User:Infophile|Infophile]] <sup>[[User_talk:Infophile|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Infophile|(Contribs)]]</sup> 18:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)



:There is no good way to judge science claims unless you understand the science that is involved. This is also true for any expert claim that relies on extensive connected data, such as history or sociology or economics (i.e. the "soft" sciences). Typically, wikipedia deals with this by using sources that are written for the layman such as newspapers; and using better sources only when someone who has related training cares enough to edit the article. This happens a lot on math articles, a little less frequently on hard science articles, and almost never on soft science articles unless someone has a POV they are trying to push (which is why they are some of wikipedia's worst articles). [[User:WAS 4.250|WAS 4.250]] ([[User talk:WAS 4.250|talk]]) 19:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

:This came up when discussing sources on the [[Talk:Potassium_dichromate#Frass.2FCHEST_paper_is_not_currently_notable|potassium dichromate talk page]].  [[User:David D.|David D.]] [[User talk:David D.|(Talk)]] 19:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The best thing is to actually understand the content. You can find garbage even in Science and Nature and Cell and PNAS. But less garbage there than in more minor journals, and less garbage in minor peer-reviewed science journals than in mainstream respectable media like NYT, and so on. --[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 19:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
:Actually, Nature and Science can have garbage in their journals more often than you might expect. I think this is becuase the editors often choose to publish papers for their media impact (against the advice of reviewers). PNAS papers can also be substandard but for a different reason. Members can submit papers without review, or choose the reviewers and this subverts the peer review process.  As far as i know Cell is pretty tight with respect to quality. [[User:David D.|David D.]] [[User talk:David D.|(Talk)]] 19:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
::With respect to PNAS, this is obsolete--go see the guidelines at [http://www.pnas.org/misc/iforc.shtml] The requirements here have been progressively tightened over the years, partly in response to members such as Shokley & Pauling.  "An Academy member may submit up to four of his or her own manuscripts for publication per year. Members must secure the comments of at least two qualified referees. ... Reviews ...  should not be from the authors’ own institution. Members should follow NSF guidelines to avoid conflict of interest between referees and authors... These papers are published as ‘‘Contributed by’’ the responsible editor." I doubt Shockley would have found two such endorsers for his racist work. Nature--sure, it does want things that will produce wide controversy--the classic example is anomalous water.  '''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG|talk]]) 17:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
:::I'd like to think [[Peter Duesberg]]'s papers played at least ''some'' role in leading PNAS to tighten their requirements... :) '''[[User:MastCell|MastCell]]'''&nbsp;<sup>[[User Talk:MastCell|Talk]]</sup> 20:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

:And as you get away from hard sciences, peer review is less and less a guarantee of quality.  Recently I mentioned in passing on the Bleep talk page that a minor claim made in the movie wasn't supported by the data.  I  know  that the data don't support the claim because I analyzed the data myself (the data being publicly available, it was a simple task for a statistician to obtain them and run the analysis).  After I said that, someone sent me a reference  that led me to a a "peer-reviewed research report"  where those nonsignificant data were fed through statistical analyses til they yielded a significant result (if you put enough variables through enough statistical tests, you're likely to get something signficant eventually, simply by chance)  and depicted in misleading graphs (one of the graphs,  that purportedly depicted data from a particular year,  actually interposed data from two different years, for example) to make them appear as if they did support the claim. My curiosity engaged,  I did some more looking around and learned that the "peer reviewers" for the article were all associated with the same new age group that did the "research."  In this case, of course,  the claim that the paper has been peer-reviewed, in the sense of an independent,  critical review, is not credible.  So "peer review" doesn't seem to me a sufficient criterion for judging a source. 

:But I'm not sure how you could possibly write a guideline that could help editors judge the quality of a source like this either.   I've had 25 years of training, teaching and practice in statistics, research design,  data analysis and interpretation, but if I hadn't actually run the data myself, I couldn't have been sure (though I might have suspected, given the nature of the claim, the fact that no one outside this particular group has ever reported results supporting it, coupled with the misleading nature of the graphs) that this paper is not science  (an honest test of whether the data support the claim)  but a foregone conclusion (the data would be tortured until they "confessed" that the claim was true).  

:Since scientists aren't going to waste their time disconfirming something like this,  there's not going to be a credible source countering the claim, so how can you counter it?   If someone like me with the training and expertise to analyze the data independently and evaluate the "research" on its merits were to share my own judgement of the quality of the research,   that judgement  would be dismissed as "original research" by Wikipedia's rules as I understand them. So I'm not sure I understand what good it does us to be able to "judge how good a paper is"? [[User:Woonpton|Woonpton]] ([[User talk:Woonpton|talk]]) 22:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

::I usually assume that if something isn't published in an ISI-indexed journal, the "peer review" description is likely to be meaningless.  [[Energy and Environment | This journal]] is a good example in my field. Peer review can still fail in respectable journals but the requirement of an ISI-indexed journal is a useful and concrete first-line filter. [[User:Raymond arritt|Raymond Arritt]] ([[User talk:Raymond arritt|talk]]) 22:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

:::I'm afraid I must disagree, since the journal that published the paper I referred to above is listed there, and given the fringey nature of the topic, I would think a respectable journal would protect its reputation by being even more careful about being sure the paper was critically reviewed, instead of allowing it to be rubberstamped by other folks who hold the same fringe views.  [[User:Woonpton|Woonpton]] ([[User talk:Woonpton|talk]]) 01:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

::::Claims in articles must be possible to source to reliable published sources; but original research is not only allowed, it is indeed necessary for deciding which claims to put in the articles and how best to represent those claims. It is a frequent occurrence for a reliable published claim to be deleted from an article because it is believed to be a typo, a COI influenced claim, a retracted claim, or incorrect for some other reason. These reasons including original research are allowed on the talk pages. But no one is forced to believe an editor's claims. This is one place reputation at wikipedia or in real life is useful. If a real life expert makes a claim based on his original research and it is a not surprising claim nor a COI claim, then it will generally be accepted for use in deleting a claim that otherwise might have stayed in the article. [[User:WAS 4.250|WAS 4.250]] ([[User talk:WAS 4.250|talk]]) 12:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

==There is no hope==

In the area of guarding against pseudoscience, quackery, and cultism, Wikipedia is fundamentally irredeemable. The basic tenets of Wikipedia are that "expertise" and "fact" do not exist; rather, they are, first, that anyone--even the 15-year-old anime fans who comprise the majority of the editor base here--can have an equally valid opinion about how the world works as compared to a person who has studied chemistry for years, been awarded a PhD, been published in legitimate journals, or so forth. Second, that there is no such thing as "truth" and anyone who appeals to truth is breaking the rules; there is only "verifiability," and of course the Flat Earth Society and the Creationist Institute count just as much for citations as scientific journals do, since there is no such thing as expertise or objective fact. Such relativism and radical epistemological egalitarianism are the core principles of Wikipedia, and are of course in direct opposition to the scientific method and the Enlightenment philosophy that have brought us everything good in the world, and particularly have brought us a scientific understanding of physical reality. You can never change Wikipedia to acknowledge that science is the foremost, and only, legitimate method of understanding the physical universe, because then it would no longer be Wikipedia. All of the people who have drunk the Kool-Aid about Wikipedia being some sort of political or social achievement will resist a challenge to the fundamental principles of the encyclopedia--we see this in the administrators who the pseudoscientists already have in their pocket. In the unlikely event that a critical mass of admins ever understands that the project is doomed, the inside group, or Jimbo himself, will boot them out, because they will never admit that Wikipedia is founded on promoting a fundamentally anti-reason, anti-science, anti-truth philosophy. [[User:Randy Blackamoor|Randy Blackamoor]] ([[User talk:Randy Blackamoor|talk]]) 22:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

:While I make no claims to be a scientist, that's not the way I see it.[http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AInspectre&diff=194023435&oldid=193958317] . .  [[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk:Dave souza|talk]] 22:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

::I don't think that's quite right, either. Wikipedia is not fundamentally anti-science; in fact, its policies and guidelines ([[WP:WEIGHT]], [[WP:FRINGE]]) explicitly ''prioritize'' the mainstream scientific view on scientific subjects, and the Arbitration Committee has, at least historically, [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Serious_encyclopedias|reaffirmed this]]. To expand on your analogy: Wikipedia assumes that an expert has no more personal authority attached to him than a 15-year-old anime fan. If the expert is willing to leverage his expertise and understanding of a topic to convince the 15-year-old anime fan by referring to appropriate sources, then Wikipedia will at least theoretically support him. If the expert simply says, "Give it up - I'm a Ph.D. and you're a 15-year-old anime fan," then Wikipedia will not support him. Most experts don't have the patience or inclination to constantly argue with anonymous people who are less well-informed and, quite often, motivated to disregard or dispute the mainstream/reality-based view for a variety of reasons. That's life on Wikipedia. We can love it, leave it, or try to change it. '''[[User:MastCell|MastCell]]'''&nbsp;<sup>[[User Talk:MastCell|Talk]]</sup> 22:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is useful and every year more useful than the last. Wikipedia's rules do not remain the same; they have changed over time and will continue to do so. The basic tenets of Wikipedia are that "expertise" and "fact" ''do'' exist; but claims of expertise are not sufficient to tell everyone else to just shut up. We require ''evidence'' not authority based assertion. This ''is'' how science works. Second, there ''is'' such a thing as "truth" and appeals to truth to delete a claim from an article breaks no rule; but verifiability is required to ''add'' a claim to an article. Relativism and radical epistemological egalitarianism are not core principles of Wikipedia. [[User:WAS 4.250|WAS 4.250]] ([[User talk:WAS 4.250|talk]]) 12:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

:I wish people would stop bringing up the strawman "claims of expertise are not sufficient" argument. I agree 100% that claims of expertise are insufficient, and would go beyond that to argue claims of personal expertise shouldn't be made at all. The problem is that policies favoring the reality-based approach -- [[WP:V]], [[WP:WEIGHT]], and so on -- are enforced only indifferently, while [[WP:CIV]] is enforced with such fervor that the fringers have learned to pervert it to the detriment of the project. [[User:Raymond arritt|Raymond Arritt]] ([[User talk:Raymond arritt|talk]]) 15:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
::So be polite. And when they mis-characterize your politeness, accuse them of not AGF and a personal attack with an unjustified accusation. Then shut up and let others decide the personal conduct issue. [[User:WAS 4.250|WAS 4.250]] ([[User talk:WAS 4.250|talk]]) 15:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
:::Yes, I've been trying to persuade reality-based editors that there's no sense handing the civility bludgeon to the fringers so they can beat us with it. But that doesn't solve the larger problem of allowing the promotion of nonsense using lousy sources, or the tendency for a "some say the earth is flat, others say it is round" version of NPOV. [[User:Raymond arritt|Raymond Arritt]] ([[User talk:Raymond arritt|talk]]) 15:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I am a Ph.D. physicist, and I whole-heartedly support Wikipedia's core policies. In fact, I see them as the application of the scientific world view and method to a special regime. A good scientific paper may express an individual conclusion, but it will also be neutral in the sense of "writing for the enemy" and pointing out all the weaknesses of the hypothesis. A good scientific review article will present a balanced and neutral picture of the current state of the field, being very careful not to push the POV of the author or pretend to be a "crystal ball". I'll try not to let my Wiki activity get in the way of my job or my life, but I plan to stick around. --[[User:Art Carlson|Art Carlson]] ([[User talk:Art Carlson|talk]]) 12:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

←
So the civility issue is a ''significant'' issue that pro-science and pro-pseudoscience (support the pseudoscience inclusion ad-infinitum) editors are often tripping themselves up on. Until they ''get it,'' we won't know if a more substantive solution is reachable. [[User:Anthon01|Anthon01]] ([[User talk:Anthon01|talk]]) 16:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
:Interesting perspective since I thought is was the other way around. Pro-science editors getting frustrated too easily and then getting called on it. Thus, leading to significant drama and even more frustration. The key is to break the cycle. [[User:David D.|David D.]] [[User talk:David D.|(Talk)]] 16:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

::I think we are saying almost the same thing. The frustration you are talking of is leading to incivility on the part of pro-science and pro-pseudoscience editors. Maybe my pro-pseudoscience label is wrong or confusing. By pro-pseudoscience, I meant extremist editors that want to ''scarlet letter'' minority or fringe article with pseudoscience labels, info boxes etc ... [[User:Anthon01|Anthon01]] ([[User talk:Anthon01|talk]]) 07:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
:::Redefining labels is often par for the course in pseudoscience land...  [[User:Shot info|Shot info]] ([[User talk:Shot info|talk]]) 10:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

:::: This is silly. Just give me the proper label and I'll use it. [[User:Anthon01|Anthon01]] ([[User talk:Anthon01|talk]]) 13:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
:::::Alright, now I understand my confusion.  I was thinking pro-pseudoscience as in those that support "pseudoscience", not those that support labelling pseudoscience. So possibly the two sides are ''pro-science'' and ''pro-fringe''? Or the pro/anti pair of prefixes for either? Personally I try not to use labels since most people have varied views and as the discussion progresses the boundaries of each persons view becomes more clear. It's the same with the worthless deletionist and inclusionist labels that so many love to throw around here. [[User:David D.|David D.]] [[User talk:David D.|(Talk)]] 05:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

:::::: I agree. Sometimes the labels are temporarily useful. [[User:Anthon01|Anthon01]] ([[User talk:Anthon01|talk]]) 05:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
::::::: Definitely, if they are well definied. It all depends on your audience. [[User:David D.|David D.]] [[User talk:David D.|(Talk)]] 06:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
::::::There are two fringes. [[User:Anthon01|Anthon01]] ([[User talk:Anthon01|talk]]) 16:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

:: I don't understand what Anthon01 is doing on this page. He is a pseudoscience POV-pusher, and is the epitome of the type of person we are discussing here: someone who wants the scientific content of articles diluted in favor of representation for magic, and uses "civility" as a bludgeon to remove reasonable people from Wikipedia. Since this is a subset of one person's talk page, it is perfectly appropriate for the owner of the talk page to ask him to leave, and I believe that should happen. [[User:Randy Blackamoor|Randy Blackamoor]] ([[User talk:Randy Blackamoor|talk]]) 17:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

:::It's purely a tactical decision. It would make the reality-based editors look bad if we excluded people from the discussion, no matter how unconstructive their participation. [[User:Raymond arritt|Raymond Arritt]] ([[User talk:Raymond arritt|talk]]) 05:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we should demand that either (1) Anthon01 rewrite [[WP:NPOV]] completely to suit himself and those of his fellows since they disagree with it or (2) we scrap [[WP:NPOV]] completely. Both of these would be completely permissable under the current environment that has been established at WP and I believe the current powers that be would favor either of these.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 17:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

==Summary==
It might be time to take the essential points we all agree on and try to forumulate a plan of action. From what I am reading to date there are two main points.

1) Don't get drawn into drama. 
*You just get wacked with AGF and CIV.
*It extends the problem rather than solving the problem.
2) Deal with SPA and COI editors. 
*Establish patterns of tenditious editing.
*Use AN/I as an independent jury.
[[User:David D.|David D.]] [[User talk:David D.|(Talk)]] 16:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

==Better solution==
It seems to be that the solution is not to boycott the articles that attract fringe POV pushers. That would be giving them their fondest wish on a plate. The proper solution is to terminate the problem users - block them when they are disruptive or POV pushing, and escalate the blocks for subsequent relapses. And while it can be trying on your patience, be civil while doing it, so (as RA pointed out) as to not give them an important counter-claim of incivility. [[User:Raul654|Raul654]] ([[User talk:Raul654|talk]]) 19:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
:That is a great idea Raul654. Unfortunately, given the current climate on Wikipedia, this is not favored or even impossible. The powers that be including Arbcomm are dead set against this and have made it clear that they will desysop any admin who does this. So you are in a powerful position and might be able to do so, but I suspect that few if any other admins will be able to. If someone like you who has the ear of those higher up the food chain would notify them that we have a big problem down here with current attitudes and direction of Wikipedia, in the trenches, that would be great. Remember when we lost the admin A.C. ? (who does not want his name mentioned, but he was very helpful to us on creationism and intelligent design topics; if you cannot figure out who this is, email me and I will tell you). It was over this issue. And the Arbcomm members came down '''very strongly''' in stating that what you have advocated above will not be tolerated under any circumstances. So... we are heading for trouble.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 00:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
::I don't think that's necessarily the take-home message from that ArbCom case. And the current ArbCom is not the same one that handed down that decision. In any case, blocks of disruptive POV-pushers are almost invariably upheld. However, if two people are squabbling and appear equally disruptive to an outside user (and yes, civility is a major consideration here), then it's not really tenable to block one and not the other solely based on the respective content positions they've taken. Raul and Raymond are right. There are admins willing to do what they can, and believe it or not the community (and even ArbCom, I'm optimistic enough to believe) will side with them ''as long as the people defending [[WP:WEIGHT]] etc don't shoot themselves in the foot''. This is a dilemma that I often pose to people who feel so strongly about their cause that they get into trouble on Wikipedia: you can either yell about it - which feels good but won't accomplish anything - or you can figure out an approach that will achieve your ends. I have to say that the vast majority of people choose the former option, but since you're all empiricists like me I'm optimistic that you'll take the latter. '''[[User:MastCell|MastCell]]'''&nbsp;<sup>[[User Talk:MastCell|Talk]]</sup> 00:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Well maybe...--[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 01:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

:I think the cards are stacked so far against those on the pro-science and pro-rationality side in many areas on Wikipedia, that we need different mechanisms, or a change of principles and philosophy among the power elite on Wikipedia. If not, things are so dangerous in many areas for pro-science editors that some are considering withdrawing. And that is the reason this page was created. To claim there is no problem I think is naive.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 01:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

::Myself, I think MastCell has said it exactly the right way. Think of it as if you came upon an argument between people on an unfamiliar subject. How would you judge who's likely to be the POV pusher? True fringe is usually noticeable by irrationality of behavior as well as argument. This is in a sense unfair to the arguments of those who do understand a subject, but show intemperate behavior, but after all we have a cooperative work to build, and we need more than arguments--we need cooperation. People have to be not just right, but reasonable in order to work on a project like this. Some people will be better suited elsewhere.  Einstein would not have tolerated it--he withdrew papers if anyone suggested improvements. Feynman would have loved it. We just need a few people like Feynman , and we'll do very well here. '''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG|talk]]) 06:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

==In the current circumstances==
In the current circumstances, disagreeing with those who are irrational or who have FRINGE views is discouraged or even forbidden, as is arguing against them. I think maybe the best option might be to let the FRINGE elements rewrite NPOV as they see fit. And for everyone else just to let them because that is the civil thing to do. Let them destroy Wikipedia as quickly as possible because that is the only civil thing to do.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 07:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
:In the current circumstances, disagreeing with those who are irrational or who have FRINGE views is encouraged. I think maybe the worst option might be to let the FRINGE elements rewrite NPOV as they see fit. Letting them destroy Wikipedia as quickly as possible is nonsense.-- [[User:WAS 4.250|WAS 4.250]] ([[User talk:WAS 4.250|talk]]) 13:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Well you go ahead and disagree with them and see what happens. Ever come to the [[alternative medicine]] articles? Try it on [[homeopathy]] now. I would love to see how it goes.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 14:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
:Filll is absolutely correct.  ArbCom have made it crystal clear that they will not tolerate any admin actually trying to address the violations of [[WP:TE]], [[WP:NPOV]], [[WP:WEIGHT]], [[WP:FRINGE]], [[WP:RS]], if that admin commits any possible violation of [[WP:CIVIL]], especially if it involves a newbie obvious [[WP:SOCK]] - after all, that newbie might be the new [[user:Newyorkbrad]]...  As for MastCall's point that it is a not the same ArbCom that handed down the travesty that is the MH decision, just look at who is still on it, their recent actions, and then seriously try to tell me that at least one-third of the Committee shouldn't be removed immediately. [[User:Jay*Jay|Jay*Jay]] ([[User talk:Jay*Jay|talk]]) 14:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
:: "if that admin commits any possible violation of [[WP:CIVIL]]" '''So be polite.''' Geez, you guys say you can't do X, and when it is pointed out that you ''can'' do X, you say, but not if I do it in an insulting way. Learn some people skills and quite blaming arbcom for trying to create a pleasant working environment. [[User:WAS 4.250|WAS 4.250]] ([[User talk:WAS 4.250|talk]]) 14:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
:::I'd say the above counts as an incivil remark... --[[User:Stephan Schulz|Stephan Schulz]] ([[User talk:Stephan Schulz|talk]]) 14:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
:::::WAS 4.250, I agree with Stephan Schulz. You could be desysopped and banned for making such a comment.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 14:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
::::::I see your incivility and I raise you an AGF and a personal attack. :) [[User:WAS 4.250|WAS 4.250]] ([[User talk:WAS 4.250|talk]]) 16:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Now maybe WAS 4.250 is getting it. The threshold has been lowered so drastically for incivility that you are not allowed to disagree with [[WP:FRINGE]] elements, trolls and POV pushers. They however, are allowed to disagree with any established user and pro-science and pro-rationality editor in the interests of "fairness".--[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 16:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
::::::::Then let's raise it. Let's encourage a culture where we don't throw accusations of [[WP:CIV]] at each other like rocks. Let's encourage a culture where we're all very polite, not because we fear being rude, but because being rude is pointless, unproductive and not fun. It's not as if people are powerless here! -[[User:GTBacchus|GTBacchus]]<sup>([[User talk:GTBacchus|talk]])</sup> 02:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

::::The bar for what constitutes "people skills" keeps changing here at Wikipedia to the point of absurdity. What passes for a civility complaint now is almost ridiculous. My last block happened for saying that people who believe that ghosts are in their radios are morons. Immediately, an editor swooped in who was completely uninvolved in the discussion who believed that there were ghosts in his radio and filed a [[WP:WQA]] followed shortly after by a [[WP:AE]] which resulted in a 96 hour block that was eventually commuted to much protestation. There was a time on Wikipedia where people could be open about their beliefs, ideas, and generalized characterizations of the subjects of articles on talk pages. Analysis was aided by having some latitude in being able to write freely in discussions so that the best way to write an article, section, or sentence could be decided. I can understand not wanting to have an atmosphere where people feel free to insult other users directly, but these days, no one is even allowed to simply state that an idea is kooky lest someone take offense. The pendulum has swung so far in the civility direction that it is actually hampering the efforts of those best capable of writing a good encyclopedia because now we can't even [[WP:SPADE|discuss idiocy plainly]] on talk pages. [[User:ScienceApologist|ScienceApologist]] ([[User talk:ScienceApologist|talk]]) 14:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
:::::: [[User:ScienceApologist|ScienceApologist]], you are an asset to wikipedia, but I have seen you ''many'' times be pointlessly abusive in your language. Yes, many ideas are nonsense. But humans believe nonsense and rubbing their noses in it is counterproductive. I'm sure you yourself hold dear many ideas that lack scientific basis. Values for example are nonscientific. Science can tell us how to achieve a result but there is no scientific basis for choosing our ultimate values. If someone thought your behavior was stupid and illogical because you insisted on treating humans as if their emotions did not matter, would you say "thank you for that insight" or would you be angry at being called stupid and illogical? [[User:WAS 4.250|WAS 4.250]] ([[User talk:WAS 4.250|talk]]) 16:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
:::::::The problem is that "rubbing their noses in it" has been interpreted at Wikipedia to be "mentioning it at all". Even oblique, nonspecific critique has been labeled by the powers-that-be to be "uncivil" thereby making "civility", as a concept, a joke. So you think I've been "pointlessly abusive" ''many times''? Okay, tis a fair cop if "pointlessly abusive" means applying [[WP:SPADE]] from time to time, for example. If this is the point you are trying to make, you are certainly in like-minded company, WAS: This is the direction Wikipedia is taking. Plain-speaking editors are muzzled and censored from saying things like "people who believe ghosts are in their radios are morons". Are such statements blunt? Yes. "Pointlessly abusive"? Only if you've been hiding under a rock. Statements far worse than this are made in most "civil" of institutions to no great effect. The only exceptions that come to mind are institutions where people are supposed to bend-over-backwards to make every idiosyncratic weirdo feel "welcome". Like group therapy. Thing is, I didn't think until recently that Wikipedia was supposed to be a group therapy session. I thought we were here to edit an encyclopedia. Now I'm beginning to realize that most of the trigger-happy admins are here to run group therapy in their [[User:LaraLove/Bathrobe Cabal|bathrobes]]. You then go on to lecture me about some hypothetical ideas I hold that "lack scientific basis" and blithely assume that I have something called "values". I'd love to know what those "values" are, perhaps you can enlighten me. For the record, I enjoy it when people call me "stupid" and "illogical". When such things happen, I tend to ask for evidence and wait to hear them out. Interestingly, I'm pretty sure I could find a place where I thanked someone for calling me stupid and illogical, but I don't feel like sorting through the 20K edits to find it. [[User:ScienceApologist|ScienceApologist]] ([[User talk:ScienceApologist|talk]]) 01:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
::::::::I happen to think that psychology is a pseudoscience, for the most part. Does it make sense for me to begin a discussion by claiming that psychologists are morons? On values, WAS makes a good point. Morals are a great example of beliefs that are unscientific. Of course, there are plenty of examples. Furthermore, Paul Davies [highlights http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/davies07/davies07_index.html] the faith that all of science is based upon. The point? I guess the point is that insulting someone because of their faith has some built-in irony. [[User:Tparameter|Tparameter]] ([[User talk:Tparameter|talk]]) 22:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::Psychology is broad-ranging from [[neuroscience]] to [[psychoanalysis]] and everything in between. Whether the "psyche" exists as a measurable concept is debatable, but what is not debatable is that there are definitely questions actively asked about whether the psychoanalysis-side of psychology belongs, as a discipline, in the realm of pseudoscience. Arbcomm addressed this in their three-layer cake with frosting explicitly saying that categorization was inappropriate though discussion is appropriate. I tend to agree with their evaluation even though it was a content ruling. The rest of your [[WP:PEACOCK|posturing]] looks to me to be a lot of bluster with no substance. What makes you think I have any morals? What makes you think that Paul Davies has the be-all-and-end-all statement on the connection between "faith and science"? In short, your support of WAS's "good point" on values is naive and best and bordering on anti-academic at worst. If people find it insulting when it is pointed out that they don't understand basic concepts of reality such as the fact that ghosts are physically impossible as described in parapsychological literature, then these people are gaming the system plainly and simply. If I insult you by telling you that you are wrong, that is not an example of me being uncivil. Sometimes people get the wrong answer. That's life. [[User:ScienceApologist|ScienceApologist]] ([[User talk:ScienceApologist|talk]]) 04:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC) 

:::::WAS 4.250, you have missed my point. ArbCom is ''not'' helping to establish a pleasant working environment, they are actively discouraging new science editors from participation if they communicate in the typical manner of a scientist (i.e. not incivil, but typically direct) '''''and''''' they are saying that established editors are not worth anything at all.  That is the message that ArbCom's actions are sending - after all, remember that editors are just "dogs" - take a guess as to the Committee on which the editor who I am quoting here is presently serving.  [[User:Jay*Jay|Jay*Jay]] ([[User talk:Jay*Jay|talk]]) 14:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC) <sub>Note: edit conflict x2</sub>
::::::I do not miss your point. I disagree with your point. I disagree with your above assertions. As for the dog comment, the guy was being ''emotional'' and was expressing his emotions. So ''you'' want to be free to express yourself, but jump all over others for expressing theirs? Let's try giving ''everyone'' a break. ok? [[User:WAS 4.250|WAS 4.250]] ([[User talk:WAS 4.250|talk]]) 16:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

:::::WAS 4.250 I think you are not quite getting the double standard. Calling established editors dogs and worse is fine. Calling a troll or POV pusher or SPA a "homeopathy promoter" is not. Those are the current rules. We might not like them, but those are the rules. And this is a dictatorship. If we do not like these rules, we are free to leave. Or the admininistrative structure will make sure we leave.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 17:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC) 
::::::Nonsense. You take an incident and proclaim it a rule. Anyone who has contributed in good faith for a while can get away with anything ''once'' at wikipedia. And the longer you've been here the more you can get away with. Further, this is a lot closer to an anarchy than a dictatorship. Finally, if you really think you can edit with more privileges as a non-established user, then edit as an anon and abandon your established user handle. [[User:WAS 4.250|WAS 4.250]] ([[User talk:WAS 4.250|talk]]) 17:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Editing as an anon might be a good idea. Then when someone makes a specious civility accusation you can turn the tables and accuse them of [[WP:BITE]]. In contrast an established editor has no recourse to the unending drip-drip-drip of [[WP:CIV]] gamesmanship. [[User:Raymond arritt|Raymond Arritt]] ([[User talk:Raymond arritt|talk]]) 18:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
::::::::When the game playing gets unfun stop playing the game and do something else. [[User:WAS 4.250|WAS 4.250]] ([[User talk:WAS 4.250|talk]]) 18:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC) 
:::::::::Um, that is the theme of this page. It is called Expert Withdrawal. Perhaps you did not notice?--[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 18:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::Um, I'm ''agreeing'' with the general idea of withdrawing from specific situations and not agreeing with withdrawing from wikipedia altogether. Edit pages where it is fun and useful. Don't edit pages that are a waste of time. [[User:WAS 4.250|WAS 4.250]] ([[User talk:WAS 4.250|talk]]) 18:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

:::::::::Ok, ''now'' we are on the same page. Good. And if those "unfun" articles are destroyed in the process because they are too dangerous to edit under our current policies, so much the better, because then maybe we might consider some new policies which work a bit better. Glad to have you on board.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 18:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

:Perhaps WAS 4.250, you would sign up for the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Raymond_arritt/Expert_withdrawal#The_DGG_Challenge:_All_you_need_is_WP:AGF_and_wikilove DGG Challenge] and show us how it is done? We might all learn something. --[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 18:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
::See the edits at [[Factory Farming]] and associated pages made last year. [[User:WAS 4.250|WAS 4.250]] ([[User talk:WAS 4.250|talk]]) 18:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

:That was great WAS 4.250. However
:*that was last year. Policies are different now
:*That was not alternative medicine. You are probably not dealing with any owners of factory farms editing on that article. In alternative medicine, we are dealing with a large group of editors for who this is their livelihood, and if anything negative is said about it, we are taking food off the plates of their children. And they are FURIOUS about it. It is a matter of money, and life and death for these people
:*Different topic, different editors, different Arbcomm
:*I want to see this live so I can watch and learn
:*Several admins are on record as being anxious to promote this material now and you will go head to head with them
--[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 18:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
::Doesn't sound like fun. I try to not do anything at wikipedia that is not both fun for me and useful for wikipedia. If you care to pursue it, I suggest you start with evidence supporting your above claims. [[WP:COI]] has teeth if admins believe it is causing an article to become POV, especially if admins believe the article is being misused for commercial purposes. Look at what happened to Wikibiz. Many admins are very anti-advertising, anti-commercialism. Sell to what motivates admins. Science and factual accuracy motivate you and me more than the average admin so that does not sell as well. Science is doing what works. Do what works. [[User:WAS 4.250|WAS 4.250]] ([[User talk:WAS 4.250|talk]]) 19:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I have started an AN/I thread on this: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#SPA_User:_Anthon01_and_similar_accounts_on_homeopathy_and_WP:FRINGE_alternative_medicine_articles]--[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 15:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

: Is it possible that WP:COI applies to people who believe in a faith-type topic editing the article on that topic? E.g., people who think homeopathy works editing the homeopathy article, or devout Muslims editing articles on Islam? [[User:Randy Blackamoor|Randy Blackamoor]] ([[User talk:Randy Blackamoor|talk]]) 21:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

::(ec)I think that COI only applies when there's some perceived commercial benefit. I see absolutely no reason to assume that a devout Muslim would de facto be unable to contribute constructively to an article on Islam. --[[User:Malleus Fatuarum|Malleus Fatuorum]] ([[User talk:Malleus Fatuarum|talk]]) 22:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

:: The stated policy is not limited to commercial benefit; in fact, it says that "A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor. COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups. Where an editor must forego advancing the aims of Wikipedia in order to advance outside interests, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." I think that people who have a religious faith-like devotion to the notion of something false or unprovable being true (for example, a fundamentalist Christian who believes his religion prohibits him from admitting that the common descent of species through evolution by natural selection is a proven fact) are not coming to articles in good faith and cannot be expected to be honest or properly consider the evidence. Clearly, current enforcement patterns do not agree with my interpretation here, but perhaps they should; as long as we're discussing pie-in-the-sky notions that will never happen, like NPOV and Civility being enforced objectively rather than used as weapons against scientists, I thought I'd throw out another one. [[User:Randy Blackamoor|Randy Blackamoor]] ([[User talk:Randy Blackamoor|talk]]) 22:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I would doubt that, but the commercial part probably would work. I am going to try that approach a bit since we can nail at least a couple of the homeopaths on that one.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 21:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

===WP:COI and WP:COIN===

[[WP:COIN]] is for [[Wikipedia:Coi#What_is_a_conflict_of_interest.3F|obvious conflicts of interest]]:  Editors adding information about themselves or their specific interests.  Specific interests include employers, friends, family members, etc.  It does not apply to professions, areas of expertise, personal beliefs, etc.  Look through WP:COIN and you'll see that if the coi isn't obvious, the discussion will be closed or referred to another venue. --[[User:Ronz|Ronz]] ([[User talk:Ronz|talk]]) 23:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

:(ec)I'm afraid that it is not at all obvious to me that someone adding properly sourced information about themselves to an article about themselves is guilty of a COI. A conflict of interest, in my view, arises when there is some benefit to be gained by adding that information. --[[User:Malleus Fatuarum|Malleus Fatuorum]] ([[User talk:Malleus Fatuarum|talk]]) 23:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
::If it's properly sourced, then it will probably be fine, though it's always best for an editor to bring it up on the talk page first and ask someone else to add it to the article. --[[User:Ronz|Ronz]] ([[User talk:Ronz|talk]]) 00:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

As one of the creators of [[WP:COI]], I can assure everyone here that [[WP:COI]] is about not editing in a [[WP:NPOV]] way due to being '''too close to a subject'''. Both components are important. An editor editing in a NPOV way is not in violation of WP:COI; but if he is too close to the subject, then he is still not following its recommendations and he only has himself to blame if the appearance of COI gets him in trouble either at Wikipedia or in the real world. The second aspect, "too close to the subject" can refer to anything at all - it is about one's mind being biased - it is about ''thinking'' you are being NPOV yet you are not. AGF means that even someone deliberately POVing an article can be assumed to be biased rather than knowingly introducing a bias. Further, the right to anon means that we usually can't verify actual real life circumstances that cause bias, but use the actual edits to gather evidence of bias, which if when the bias is pointed out they are still blind to it becomes evidence of a WP:COI. Such persons are not supposed to edit those articles they have demonstrated that ''do not edit'' in a NPOV way. [[User:WAS 4.250|WAS 4.250]] ([[User talk:WAS 4.250|talk]]) 12:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
: The problem is that it's almost impossible to find editors/admins that will enforce NPOV as you suggest. --[[User:Ronz|Ronz]] ([[User talk:Ronz|talk]]) 17:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

==Evidence of an admin bias?==

Well, a few days ago I made [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Homeopathy/Article_probation/Incidents&diff=193750714&oldid=193748917 this] comment on the Homeopathy incidents page, meeting Jehochman's request for a supply of 3-5 diffs representing disruption. The case here is an obvious instance of stonewalling (with a little incivility thrown in). In the days since then, there's been zero action, or even discussion of it. If Jehochman (or any other admin) doesn't think it's worth banning over, they aren't even bothering to explain why.  Even Dana's mentor hasn't replied to me about this problem when I raised it with her. It's as if they hope they can just ignore it and hope it goes away... --[[User:Infophile|Infophile]] <sup>[[User_talk:Infophile|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Infophile|(Contribs)]]</sup> 23:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
:Of course, it's a symptom of the laziness of admins because they don't monitor anything other than [[Kool Aid|Civility]].  So the civil ASPOV pusher can continue to push, and push.  And the poor old admin is paralyzed by the rods of their own creation.  Nevertheless Infophile, I don't know why you bother with Woo-land to be honest.  Leave it for the admins to edit.  And if it just becomes advertising for Ullman's books - so be it - up to the admins to try another policy to enforce... [[User:Shot info|Shot info]] ([[User talk:Shot info|talk]]) 23:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

::Most admins appear to be children, so they don't have the knowledge or experience to do anything else. Perhaps the fact that wikipedia is run by hormonal teenagers is the real problem that needs to be addressed. --[[User:Malleus Fatuarum|Malleus Fatuorum]] ([[User talk:Malleus Fatuarum|talk]]) 23:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
:::That's true, especially for the ones who act solely on vindictive personal feuds. ~ [[User:UBeR|UBeR]] ([[User talk:UBeR|talk]]) 23:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Admin culture at the English language Wikipedia has over the last two years increasingly moved in the direction of treating Wikipedia as a multi-player game. But some admins still are more concerned with creating a credible encyclopedia. User:TimVickers is an excellent scientist, admin, and article writer. I'm sure he knows of others. When you need an admin that cares about the content policies, go to someone like Tim. [[User:WAS 4.250|WAS 4.250]] ([[User talk:WAS 4.250|talk]]) 13:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

==Arbcomm hates science: A statement heartwarming to FRINGErs?==
At the bottom of [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ANeutral_point_of_view&diff=194770743&oldid=194679630#Undue_V_Fringe], Shirahadasha states that Arbcomm has ruled that Science has no place on Wikipedia and some FRINGErs are just loving it:
{{quotation|
As i understand it, Wikipedia has expressly rejected favoring scientific points of views as opposed to other points of views. Views are significant with respect to (a) sheer numbers (the most common popular viewpoint is generally significant) and (b) contribution to general culture/knowledge etc. Scientific points of view have made a major contribution to general culture and hence scientific points of view are essentially always significant, but religious, humanistic, philosophical, and other points of view are often significant as well. Viewpoints need to be represented as such. One good reason for including more than one viewpoint is that different viewpoints influence each other and can change each other over time. For example, half a century ago environmentalism was thought to be a non- or even anti-scientific point of view, whereas it is now commonly thought of as a scientific point of view. But non-scientific thought about the environment affected the cultural environment in which scientists did their work. The ArbCom ruling is limited to theories that purport to be scientific (if they claim to be scientific, then that claim must be backed up by mainstream science), and doesn't apply to general culture and other viewpoints that don't claim to be science-based. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 02:33, 3February 2008 (UTC) 
}}


. Hmm...Surely this isnt true? Or is it?--[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 23:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

:As Whig and Anthon are wont to say "I'd like to see the diffs that show that"...  Mind you it's largely irrelevant what ArbCom say...what does [[WP:NPOV]] and [[WP:V]] say.  And last time I looked, those policies are largely skewed away from fringe beliefs and towards what the scientific community publishes.  But of course, when a NPOV pusher suggests this, the ASPOV pusher runs off to mummy saying "he hurt my civility" and the silly admin cycle continues... [[User:Shot info|Shot info]] ([[User talk:Shot info|talk]]) 23:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI, whilst [[user:Newyorkbrad]] has [[User_talk:Newyorkbrad#ArbCom_hates_science.3F|declined]] to post here, he is keeping an eye on this page.  I asked him to comment as he is the ArbCom member for whom I have the most respect. [[User:Jay*Jay|Jay*Jay]] ([[User talk:Jay*Jay|talk]]) 01:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

<s>"Arbcom hates science" is going overboard. But t</s>The Paranormal arbcom left enough openings that many of the fringers interpreted it as a complete vindication. Wikipedia has problems with ideas that are so idiotic that science basically ignores them, leaving us with few reality-based sources to provide balance against proponents. Those are among the few instances where [[WP:V]] breaks down: the fringers get to include lots of lousy, self-published and outlier-journal sources by true believers, because there isn't much else available. [[User:Raymond arritt|Raymond Arritt]] ([[User talk:Raymond arritt|talk]]) 01:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC) '''Addendum:''' Strikethrough added after reading the Paranormal arbcom case in detail. Things are much worse than I had imagined. Read it yourself, if you aren't easily nauseated. [[User:Raymond arritt|Raymond Arritt]] ([[User talk:Raymond arritt|talk]]) 04:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
::Do you have the link? [[User:David D.|David D.]] [[User talk:David D.|(Talk)]] 04:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
:::[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Paranormal Give this a go] [[User:Shot info|Shot info]] ([[User talk:Shot info|talk]]) 05:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
:::(ec) The decision itself is [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Paranormal|here]]. It isn't all that bad, but I've long thought that aspects of the decision were a bit strange. The story falls into place when you read the really horrid stuff in the [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Paranormal/Proposed_decision | proposed decision]] and [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Paranormal/Workshop | workshop]] which explains how the decision was reached. [[User:Raymond arritt|Raymond Arritt]] ([[User talk:Raymond arritt|talk]]) 05:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
:Raymond, every time I read the phrase, "mainstream science," I get ill.  There is science and there is nothing else.  Environmentalism isn't science, it's a political movement, that frankly uses a lot of pseudoscience to back up it's belief state.  Oh hell, that statement is so disgusting, it makes me sick.  Sigh.  [[User:Orangemarlin|<span style="color:orange;">'''Orange'''</span><span style="color:teal;">'''Marlin'''</span>]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Orangemarlin|Talk•]] [[Special:Contributions/Orangemarlin|Contributions]]</sup></small> 02:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
::Unfortunately, those that get the wool pulled over their eyes don't see it that way. [[User:David D.|David D.]] [[User talk:David D.|(Talk)]] 03:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
:::::::OMG.  I just realized, you guys never even read the Paranormal ArbCom.  How many of you have told me I "mis interpret" it?  But see previous post below.  ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#FFFFFF;">Martin<sup>phi</sup></span>]]'''    [[User talk:Martinphi|☎]] Ψ [[Special:Contributions/Martinphi|Φ]]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 04:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
::::::::I'm sure I'm the exception, what is the link? [[User:David D.|David D.]] [[User talk:David D.|(Talk)]] 04:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::Well, not according to the above.  Raymond of all people should have read it.  It applies to everything you guys do.  [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Paranormal here] ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#FFFFFF;">Martin<sup>phi</sup></span>]]'''    [[User talk:Martinphi|☎]] Ψ [[Special:Contributions/Martinphi|Φ]]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span>
:::::::::::Martin, I'm concerned that you may break a leg jumping to a conclusion. I had indeed read the decision itself, just not all the background in the workshop and proposed decision. [[User:Raymond arritt|Raymond Arritt]] ([[User talk:Raymond arritt|talk]]) 05:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::Everything? Not for me, I can't speak for the others. Science is not always banging against fringe. Actually, rarely, however, there are a few topics that attract far more than their fair share of friction. [[User:David D.|David D.]] [[User talk:David D.|(Talk)]] 05:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

:::::::::::I'm sure it must come as a surprise to the "Paranormal side" that pro-science editors are not as homogenous as they are (mis)characteristed as.  Maybe that explains their confusion when a pro-science type supports their edits???  [[User:Shot info|Shot info]] ([[User talk:Shot info|talk]]) 05:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, since NYB is purportedly reading this, I'll post.  Arritt is right that sometimes there are not enough mainstream sources.  But surely the reader is intelligent enough to get a statement "X has been ignored by mainstream science."  And "X is paranormal" or "X is defined as a [[psychic]] ability."  How stupid are the readers?  Can't they figure out what "has not been considered by mainstream science" and "Has not been published in mainstream scientific journals," etc. etc. etc.  If you put a few of those phrases in an article, surely any intelligent reader will get it?

It has surprised me before that people on this page don't seem to get that 1) science is a POV, not NPOV: science is SPOV, and SPOV has been rejected as a policy by the community in favor of NPOV [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SPOV].  That's just the way it is, and most of your trouble stems directly '''not''' from any prejudice against science in the WP rules, and '''not''' from the fact that you can't be civil, and '''not''' even from the fact of fringe POV pushing.  It stems from the refusal to accept that there are notable viewpoints other than science which must be presented to the reader in a neutral, rather than a derogatory, tone.

New York Brad: more than half of the POV pushing on the paranormal side comes from the sense of injustice when articles are obviously biased to present fringe views in a derogatory light.  There is other POV pushing, of course, but a lot of it is simply motivated by justifiable outrage, especially among the regulars. Read the discussion here, and see who has it more correct [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_V_Fringe] ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#FFFFFF;">Martin<sup>phi</sup></span>]]'''    [[User talk:Martinphi|☎]] Ψ [[Special:Contributions/Martinphi|Φ]]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 04:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

:::Jumping in mid thread - ''How stupid are the readers?'' - I don't know, how many of the readers believe creationism is actually real? How many people don't know when (or even what) the holocaust was?  Here's where a link goes for the sceptic who learnt a few conjouring tricks, and went round some US colleges.  He explained what he was doing showed people who the trick worked, and yet *still* had people saying he had supernatural powers. ''How stupid are the readers?'' unfortunately a lot of them are very stupid. [[User:DanBealeCocks|<span style="color:orange;background:black; ">Dan Beale-Cocks</span>]] 23:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

:Personally, I prefer this link to [[User:Infophile/SPOV|SPOV]]. All I'm saying... --[[User:Infophile|Infophile]] <sup>[[User_talk:Infophile|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Infophile|(Contribs)]]</sup> 04:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

::Thanks for putting an exclamation point on my post.  [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Electronic_voice_phenomenon#edit_request this thread] is also highly informative, New York Brad. ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#FFFFFF;">Martin<sup>phi</sup></span>]]'''    [[User talk:Martinphi|☎]] Ψ [[Special:Contributions/Martinphi|Φ]]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 05:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
:::Unfortunately the "paranormal side" (Martin's words) typically are quick to demand sources when "has not been considered by mainstream science" and "Has not been published in mainstream scientific journals," etc. etc. etc. are inserted into articles.  Regardless if sourcing is provided or not, they then engage in tedious edit warring and POV pushing to have this information removed because it "present fringe views in a derogatory light".    Martin is trying to have an [[Each-Way (bet)|each way bet]] here (presumably to impress his opinion onto Brad) arguing in one breathe that information can be included, while in a later paragraph defending the POV pushing to have such information removed.  This sort of civil [[Double speak]] is one of the reasons why certain articles are in such a mess at the moment - and it's something that's creeping across Wikipedia. [[User:Shot info|Shot info]] ([[User talk:Shot info|talk]]) 05:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

::I really don't know what you mean, except the tone etc.  Yeah,  those negative statements need sources sometimes, depending.  I'll change it above.  The point is, the reader just isn't that stupid.  Next time you have trouble, send me an email and I'll try to help.  ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#FFFFFF;">Martin<sup>phi</sup></span>]]'''    [[User talk:Martinphi|☎]] Ψ [[Special:Contributions/Martinphi|Φ]]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 05:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

:::Perhaps you should attempt reading for comprehension then?  I can email you some remedial reading guides since you seem to have some problems?  [[User:Shot info|Shot info]] ([[User talk:Shot info|talk]]) 05:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

←Seems to me that resolving this issue will put many of the current problems on fringe and minority articles to rest. [[User:Anthon01|Anthon01]] ([[User talk:Anthon01|talk]]) 05:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
:I don't think ArbCom hates science. They just don't want to talk about it. I've just done a quick meta-analysis. In all the ArbCom cases heard relating to science, only two; [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Climate_change_dispute|Climate change dispute]] all the way back in March 05, and [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience|Psuedoscience]] in Dec 06, have considered in their findings of fact and judgement things like priority given to peer reviewed work, undue weight and other similar issues. From Psuedoscience:

<blockquote>
"1a) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience."

"4a) Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources require that information included in an article have been published in a reliable source which is identified and potentially available to the reader. What constitutes a reliable source varies with the topic of the article, but in the case of a scientific theory, there is a clear expectation that the sources for the theory itself are reputable textbooks or peer-reviewed journals. Scientific theories promulgated outside these media are not properly verifiable as scientific theories and should not be represented as such."

"14) Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Wikipedia aspires to be such a respected work."

"Wikipedia:No original research applies to users who are experts in a field and who may be engaged in original research. The latest insights resulting from current research are often not acceptable for inclusion as established information as they have not yet been published."</blockquote>

These principles were not mentioned in any subsequent ArbCom decision. Users spend a large amount of time talking about these issues in the cases, but apart from in Psuedosience they're not explicitly considered in the rulings. [[User:Mostlyharmless|Mostlyharmless]] ([[User talk:Mostlyharmless|talk]]) 06:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom does not make policy; it interprets policy with respect to a specific case and decides on what action best benefits wikipedia in that specific case. All comments are to be understood  in the context of that case. In [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Paranormal/Proposed_decision#Proposed_remedies this decision] arbcom agreed that:
*"Dradin and any other editor who is involved professionally or avocationally in the paranormal is cautioned regarding aggressive editing of articles which relate to the particular subjects they are involved with. This remedy is not effective until sufficient notice has been made to Dradin and affirmed after an opportunity to respond." and
*"Kazuba is cautioned to extend good faith to Dradin if he edits and to avoid including disparaging material about Dean Radin on his user page. This remedy is not effective until sufficient notice has been made to Kazuba and affirmed after an opportunity to respond."

What's the problem? [[User:WAS 4.250|WAS 4.250]] ([[User talk:WAS 4.250|talk]]) 13:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The reason I ask for diffs is because my '''pro-encyclopedia''' position is often seen as pro-fringe and accusations on my position are made that cannot be supported by the diffs. The assumption is made that if I argue to remove the "pseudoscience" infobox in an articles lead, then I am fringe POV-pushing, when in fact I am considering [[WP;UNDUE]], [[WP:LEAD]], and [[WP:STYLE]] in a pro-encyclopedic fashion. Some extremists pro-science editors don't pay enough attention to  [[WP:LEAD]] or [[WP:STYLE]] or even [[WP:V]] and [[WP:RS]] when it comes to fringe topics, in effect trumping the interests of the project. Two days ago, my attempts to have a civil conversation/debate about NPOV in minority articles, were frustrated by Filll's insistence that his POV on the issue was the only correct interpretation and his repeated assertion (~14 times in two hours) that it was '''too dangerous to disagree,'''[http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view&diff=194609124&oldid=194609010]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view&diff=194602923&oldid=194602872]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view&diff=194605643&oldid=194605387]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view&diff=194608380&oldid=194608005]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view&diff=194609500&oldid=194609145]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view&diff=194609881&oldid=194609850] effectively stiffling any discussion. Last night, attempts to restart the conversation failed again.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view/Homeopathy%2C_NPOV_and_Minority_Topics#NPOV_check_on_topics_like_this] Understandably, these topics are highly charged for some individuals. However, it is a conversations that needs to be had, and one that requires input not just from pro-science editors, but from the entire community, including non-science editors. Resolving this issue will eliminate most of the mainspace and talkpage edit-warring currently going on around the fringes and overlaps between science and non-science topics. [[User:Anthon01|Anthon01]] ([[User talk:Anthon01|talk]]) 14:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

<s>Now, just moments ago, it appears that my attempts to debate this issue are having the desired effect.</s> [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view&diff=194894083&oldid=194830142] Discussion. [[User:Anthon01|Anthon01]] ([[User talk:Anthon01|talk]]) 14:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

::I think that this is just typical. Most people here can see what is going on. I will not even bother to respond to dismiss this nonsense.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 18:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


:There are two basic issues here. One is that the encyclopedia is ''not well served'' in its effort to become a serious, respectable reference work by overly credulous or uncritical presentation of pseudoscientific ideas and claims. The second issue is that readers are smart enough to realize that ideas like ESP, electronic voice phenomena, and homeopathy are fundamentally unscientific and draw from a different worldview - continually spelling out and hammering away at this point doesn't really improve the relevant articles either. '''[[User:MastCell|MastCell]]'''&nbsp;<sup>[[User Talk:MastCell|Talk]]</sup> 17:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
::"The second issue is that readers are smart enough to realize that ideas like ESP, electronic voice phenomena, and homeopathy are fundamentally unscientific and draw from a different worldview - continually spelling out and hammering away at this point doesn't really improve the relevant articles either."  I strongly disagree with your framing of the situation.  Obviously, some readers are not as "smart" as you claim.   Secondly, we have a duty to follow NPOV, and if you like to express that as "continually spelling out and hammering away" then you have a problem with either NPOV itself, or how editors are trying to enforce NPOV.  Either way, this is a major problem.  --[[User:Ronz|Ronz]] ([[User talk:Ronz|talk]]) 18:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
:::Maybe I should clarify: I think efforts to depict homeopathy (for example) as if it has a scientifically validated basis fall into category one (overly credulous presentation of fringe/pseudoscience). I do see a practical as well as theoretical importance here: I've had a handful of patients describe purchasing dietary supplements based partially on information they got from Wikipedia - information that was grossly misleading, when I looked into it. I ''absolutely'' feel strongly that Wikipedia should not suggest that scientific validity or acceptance exists where there is none. At the same time, assuming a lack of any sort of thought processes or critical thinking on the part of the reader produces articles which are regrettably heavy-handed. '''[[User:MastCell|MastCell]]'''&nbsp;<sup>[[User Talk:MastCell|Talk]]</sup> 18:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
:::: I agree with Mastcell, heavy handed articles are terrible reading and, IMO not necessary as long as unjustified claims are not made. Homeopathy, as one example, can, and should, have passages that describe the homeopathic view without having disclaimers every other sentence.  As a reader I want to know the homeopathic position, that is encyclopedic too. I draw the line at the promotion of homeopathy as proven or scientific. Clearly my opinion here is closer to [[User:Anthon01|Anthon01]]'s than Filll's or Ronz's, but I very much side with the SPOV. I think this is the crux of most disagreements and the difference between writing an encyclopedia compared to a review article for a scientific journal.  
:::: What is my interpretation of NPOV?  NPOV should represent an article that presents all '''relevant''' points of view. I think we all agree on this but WP:WEIGHT is the issue that results in conflict. Certainly i don't interpret it from a percentage perspective, I differ from Filll in this regard.  There is no way one can write a good article on homeopathy with a 98% SPOV.  In reality we actually have a consensus that gives approximately 50% weight towards the SPOV (I think I have seen Filll quote that as the content of the article has about 50% that is sympathetic to the homeopathic perspective, correct me if I'm wrong).  So actually even Filll, who often quotes the 98% weight, recognises this is not really possible. 
:::: All well and good, so why are we still arguing?  I think it comes down to style. One of continual rebuttal vs one of flowing narrative.  Personally, I prefer the latter with a little of the former and I think readers are sensible enough to be able see the context of the whole article. As scientists we are too fearful of unopposed "''clap-trap''", but why? Do we really think that continual rebuttals are going to sway a reader more?  I don't think so, if anything a reader will see such as style as insecurity, possibly giving more credence to the rebutted passages?  [[User:David D.|David D.]] [[User talk:David D.|(Talk)]] 19:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

::::: It's nobody's place to calculate what the article should look like in an attempt to psychologically influence readers. The articles should simply be factual pieces about their subjects--which, in the case of articles about pseudomedical scams, means they will briefly summarize the claims of the charlatans, then explain why they are false, and perhaps summarize the current legal status of the practices. For the most part, I think this means one or two paragraphs explaining what something like "ear candling" is, five or six about why it's bunkum, and maybe one or two paragraphs about the legal status. [[User:Randy Blackamoor|Randy Blackamoor]] ([[User talk:Randy Blackamoor|talk]]) 19:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
:::::: Sounds like we agree give or take a few paragraphs. I'm not trying to understand the psychologically of readers but why we can't reach a consensus. Clearly being over defensive is in response to what we think the readers will take from the article. [[User:David D.|David D.]] [[User talk:David D.|(Talk)]] 19:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

==Why there is fighting==

Let me try to clarify what I think of the situation. I believe that the "proportion in respect to their prominence" guideline is helpful, but should not be followed exclusively, as Dave Souza points out. This guideline alone would give maybe 98% or 99% percent of the homeopathy article to SPOV. Worldwide market for homeopathic medicines is about 0.3% of the total world medicine market, and there are many other ways to measure "prominence". For example, there are about 884,000 physicians in the US. There are about 315 professional homeopaths in the US, and about 1000 homeopaths if you count unlicensed amateur homeopaths. So the homeopaths in the US represent  about 0.03%-0.1% of the allopathic doctors.

However, we should use this policy in conjunction with other policies. And when the article (in its last rewrite) was about 90% positive and pro-homeopathy, I was not happy. When it was 80% pro-homeopathy, I was not happy. When it started to get towards 70% pro-homeopathy, I was happier. When it reached 60% pro-homeopathy, I felt we were no longer giving short shrift to the mainstream SPOV, while still adequately describing the homeopathic QPOV (quackery POV). 

There are other things in the article I am not wild about (the long boring discussion of where homeopathy is popular frankly belong in a daughter article, not the main article I think), but I was happy with a 60/40 split. So was [[User: Peter morrell]], a world-renowned homeopathic authority. At that point, I switched and supported the article for GA status. 

However, after the GA promotion we have had a huge flood of new pro-homeopathy editors (can anyone say canvassing?) like Dana Ullman and Anthon01 and Arion 3x3 and Whig and Area69 and on and on and on, hordes of socks and meats and trolls and so on. And in my opinion, most of these people HATE the 40% negative content. They appear to hate hate hate hate hate the current article. They seem to loathe it. My impression is that they loathe NPOV, or how we interpret it. They seem to be frantic. This is destroying their personal businesses if they are homeopaths. They act like they are desperate. They give the impression of wanting to change the article at ALL costs. They have put homeopathy sections in articles about Beethoven and Charles Darwin and any person that has ever tried homeopathy ever. And even if the person tried it and thought homeopathy was crap, like Darwin, they want to write the homeopathy section as a great paean to this amazing miracle cure. There have been moves to put minihomeopathy sections in articles about plants, and maybe eventually minerals and animals and any other substance involved with making homeopathic preparations. If left unbridled with controls or agreements, we will have literally thousands of minihomeopathy articles talking about how wonderful homeopathy is on Wikipedia. And I do not think that would be very helpful or encyclopedic, frankly. 

I have tried to offer compromises where they can have a few dozen miniarticles and we can control them carefully. However, every offer of compromise I have made has been spat back in my face. Because they think if they hold out long enough, they can win the whole prize; unbridled license to create as many minihomeopathy articles as they like. How many is that? 1000? 5000? 20000? I do not know, but I do not think we want to go there.

These pro-homeopathy editors do not seem to  understand why an article about homeopathy must have ANY material that is about the maintream view. So they fight. And fight. And fight. And argue. And forum shop. And game the system. Over and over and over and over. And '''''that''''' is why we are still fighting. And unless all SPOV editors leave the article and leave it to the QPOV editors to make the homeopathy article roughly 100% positive to homeopathy, we will have fighting. Either that, or until we start applying NPOV in an aggressive way, the way we do 3RR and [[WP:CIVIL]] and send a strong message that we are serious about NPOV. Because they do not believe that NPOV is a serious policy. And they think if they just whine for another 6 months or another 2 years, or another 5 years, they will get their way. 

So we can either play this ridiculous game. Or we can try to think of how to change our way of doing business.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 19:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

:Newsflash: the article is about homeopathy.  Maybe you need an article called "Homeopathy (criticism)". ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#FFFFFF;">Martin<sup>phi</sup></span>]]'''    [[User talk:Martinphi|☎]] Ψ [[Special:Contributions/Martinphi|Φ]]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 03:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

::Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Exhibit A immediately above. Nothing more needs be said about what we've been struggling with. (Thought doubtless much more ''will'' be said.) [[User:Raymond arritt|Raymond Arritt]] ([[User talk:Raymond arritt|talk]]) 03:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Newsflash updates (1) We use NPOV here on WP (2) WP does not segregate criticism into a separate article. For that, try [[Wikinfo]]. (3) The reason there is fighting is right above, as Raymond Arritt notes. People come here, and demand that we change the rules for them because they say so. (4) Actually the article is about homeopathy. And what do we need to know about homeopathy? That it is a nonmainstream medical technique that used to be popular, but fell out of favor, and now the homeopathic pharmaceutical market is 0.3% of the regular pharmaceutical market, worldwide. And there is no solid evidence that it works. And no theory that gives us any reason to expect it to work, based on 150+ years of physics and chemistry. So, people do not want to accept this. And we have fighting. See?--[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 04:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


Also if I stand back and use my scientist hat for a second, there are a couple of amazing things about homeopathy from a scientific standpoint. The first is a bit negative, but it is amazing to me that people will subscribe to this philosophy when it clearly has so little substance to it. The second is that it is direct evidence of the power of the [[placebo effect]] (and for that matter, the [[nocebo effect]]; remember the witch doctor curses etc), which remains deeply mysterious. If we ever figure out what it is, and how to harness it, medicine will truly make a massive leap forward. That is the miraculous part of homeopathy and similar treatments. But not acknowledging that real effect and hiding behind mumbo jumbo obscures this true amazing mysterious feature of homeopathy; its use demonstrates the power of the human mind to cure the human body. And so, I do think there are some things that homeopathy can teach us; they just are not necessarily things that homeopathy promoters would like us to know or learn about the subject. For an encyclopedia, we do our readers no benefits by hiding any of the aspects of homeopathy away, and putting it behind a veil of happy talk and promotion and mysterious jargon that is not defined. We need to present it as it is, peel away the jargon and mystery, and present what the mainstream thinks as well as what the homeopathy community thinks. And we are not supposed to put the criticism in a criticism ghetto, like a separate section or separate article, or remove criticism from the LEAD. There are other places to promote homeopathy; Wikipedia is not one of them. Just like it is not here to sell cars of brand X, or computer operating systems of type Y, or campaign for politician Z, or justify war W, or condemn terrorist action Q.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 05:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC) 


:I'm here for the sake of Newyorkbrad.  Filll, what you say is related to a misunderstanding of [[WP:WEIGHT]], and other things like that WP doesn't "present things as they are" but rather presents the sources.  If over 99% of the literature on homeopathy is criticism, then naturally it would be a much greater proportion of the article.  I'm guessing, though, that the criticism, while highly notable and something we must tell the reader, is nowhere near that.  We follow the sources.  Even the article on [[Creation science]] doesn't have a 60-40 ratio.  Further, the criticism has been spun off into other articles, for various reasons.

:To include that much criticism, we'd probably need an article ''about'' the criticism, where criticism would be the most notable and WEIGHTY thing.  There would of course be POV fork considerations.

:You are not making a very good impression on outside neutral editors by trying to subvert basic WP policy for the sake of SPOV.

:You are the ones demanding that the rules change because you say so.  But the actual rules of WP have been pointed out to you multiple times.  It is high time that those who do not wish to follow the rules of WP -and are so brazen as to say so outright, as with your advocacy of SPOV- be made to play on a level field.

:Those here on this page feel persecuted because they are going against WP, directly and blatantly.

:Who is going to try to make WP the decent place that it purports to be, instead of what it is: a place where power politics are used to protect disruptive and POV pushing editors, and admins abuse those with whom they don't happen to agree? 

:We need to be very careful about the general mindset of "Yeah, he's a jerk but he does good work". The problem is when people act like that, they cause a lot of extra headache for a lot of people and drive away good people who don't feel like dealing with it. Those are the unseen consequences that we need to keep in mind. ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#FFFFFF;">Martin<sup>phi</sup></span>]]'''    [[User talk:Martinphi|☎]] Ψ [[Special:Contributions/Martinphi|Φ]]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 04:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

::The real mindset that needs to be defended is the current one:  "Yeah he is a POV pusher, but we cannot do anything because I am 1) involved, 2) it's too much hard work 3) I want to be seen as "fair" 4) There's a frustrated "NewYorkBrad" who has just been baited and is uncivil, so I'm so over him/her".  
::Jimbo's simplistic "Yeah, he's a jerk but he does good work" immediately invalidates "he does good work" because that somebody believes he is "Jerk".  Yep, civility overrules content, like what has been said all along.  And as for those consequences, we are seeing them right now.  For every NewYorkBrad that comes onto the project, we lose 4 or 5 NewYorkBrads and gain untold amounts of POV pushers.  They are the ''seen'' consequences that we need to keep in mind as opposed the ''mysterious'', ''unknown'', ''unrecorded'', and ''unseen'' consequences that ''may'', ''might'', ''could'', ''perhaps'' happen.  Its odd when people suspend evidence in favour of belief and magical thinking...  [[User:Shot info|Shot info]] ([[User talk:Shot info|talk]]) 05:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)



A few points: 
*''I'm here for the sake of Newyorkbrad. '' This is one of the most incredible statements and admissions. Frankly, this looks horrendous. But so be it. I guess at least it is honest, even if it creates a certain very negative impression.  

*''Filll, what you say is related to a misunderstanding of [[WP:WEIGHT]].'' I did not invent what I say out of whole cloth. I did not understand NPOV when I first came to WP. Senior editors and admins explained it to me. What do you think "in proportion to their prominence" actually means? I have asked this of various pseudoscience proponents, but not a single one has ever told me what they believe, just that "in proportion to their prominence" does not mean "in proportion to their prominence". What does it mean to them? I do not know. But I just know that to FRINGE proponents, "in proportion to their prominence" does not mean what it says. Ok...

*I have said repeatedly, that "in proportion to their prominence" is '''NOT''' the only policy that is relevant here. We have to consider ''all'' of them together, just as [[User: Dave souza]] has said. And that is why I say making the article 99.7% from the mainstream POV, according to the worldwide market for homeopathy, is not the right thing to do. 60/40 is not "in proportion to their prominence", but I and several others (including homeopathy proponents)  who brought the article to GA thought it was about right. Anyone who is not able to read this and understand it is being willfully ignorant and difficult, or does not have the faculties necessary to edit these articles unfortunately. 

Martinphi, if you are ''so sure'' you are right, why do you not write us an essay describing what "in proportion to their prominence" means in the case of FRINGE articles, and how UNDUE and WEIGHT and NPOV should be applied in the case of FRINGE subjects and pseudoscience and see if the community agrees with your interpretation? We can have an RfC on it and see. We can ask for all kinds of input. Let's see. Maybe the scientific and rationalist community has it all wrong and WP has it wrong and we should ditch science from WP. Ok, lets find out. 

'''I HEREBY THROW DOWN THE GAUNTLET AND CHALLENGE YOU. PUT UP OR SH*T UP'''. Direct enough for you? If you will not accept this challenge, I for one know what I will think of you. And it will not be particularly complimentary, let me assure you. And I will make sure you know it too. In a [[WP:CIVIL]] way of course.   

*The article on [[creation science]] is not a particularly good article and should not be used as a model, although I have not measured its ratio of pro-creation science material to mainstream material. After all, it is rated as a "B". I know that I cringe when I read it, since it is so lousy. Look at [[evolution]], which is an FA. How much is about creationism in the evolution article, and how much is from the mainstream perspective? Look at [[intelligent design]] which is also an FA. What is the ratio there of mainstream views to FRINGE views? 

*As difficult as you think it might be to have an article that was 40% mainstream and 60% FRINGE views, '''we had one''' which was rated as a GA. And this article met with the approval not only of many SPOV editors, but also of one of the greatest homeopathy experts walking the earth, an internationally renowned world expert who is widely published in homeopathy. Are you an internationally renowned world expert in homeopathy? Do you hold a faculty position at a major university in homeopathy like Peter Morrell? Because if you do, you have been keeping it a secret. 

*''You are not making a very good impression on outside neutral editors by trying to subvert basic WP policy for the sake of SPOV.'' Please explain to me in detail how I am subverting WP policy. In fact, why do you not start an RfC against me or an Arbomm case against me for violating WP policy? Let's lance this boil. Let's see if I am wrong for believing that "in proportion to their prominence" is part of WP policy. Show me. If I am incorrect, I will shut up, or even leave Wikipedia. 

In fact, maybe an editor can be banned for believing that "in proportion to their prominence" is actually in WP policy. Wouldn't you like that? Now remember, I am not saying that this is the only guideline that is relevant in this case; I believe we should take other passages and factors into account, which is why I thought 40/60 was not so bad. If 40/60 is the end of the world, or a complete violation of WP policy, try to get me banned for believing it is not an outrageously stupid ratio. I dare you. Do it. Try to get me sanctioned for actually believing that was correct. Really show me how wrong I am and rub my face in it. Why not? I deserve it, right? 

*Please define what a "neutral editor" is. When someone says "neutral editor", what they mean is someone who is pro-homeopathy or sympathetic to homeopathy in almost every case I have run across. An interesting euphemism, isn't it? 

*I will point out that I am not for removing homeopathy from WP. Far from it. I have repeatedly advocated aiming for a total of about 100-150 or so homeopathy articles, subarticles and miniarticles in plant articles, mineral articles, animal articles, biographies etc. I am even writing another homeopathy article now in a sandbox with lots of technical details. Others are far, far less lenient than me. But somehow, even my stance is viewed as far too restrictive and too anti-homeopathy. Well, you know, you do not create a very good impression when you push that attitude. So try to file an RfC against me for being so hardcore SPOV and uncooperative and unyielding and unwilling to compromise. Try it. See how it goes. Show me how wrong I am. Try to drive me out of Wikipedia to prove how right you are. 

*''You are the ones demanding that the rules change because you say so.'' Please, I must be ignorant. How am I demanding a rule change? What rule am I insisting on changing? To actually notice that the policy says "in proportion to their prominence" when we should ignore that?  Please document how this is true then. With diffs please. 

*''But the actual rules of WP have been pointed out to you multiple times.'' Please show me the actual rules of WP I am violating and where this was pointed out to me. With diffs. 

*''It is high time that those who do not wish to follow the rules of WP -and are so brazen as to say so outright, as with your advocacy of SPOV- be made to play on a level field.'' How is making a homeopathy article, which has 0.3% of the world medical medication market, 60% from the view of this FRINGE treatment, overly SPOV? How? Since it is "high time", file an RfC on an NPOV interpretation you compose, write a document on your interpretation, or file an RfC on my behavior and activities. Or bring it to Arbcomm. I challenge you. 

*''Who is going to try to make WP the decent place that it purports to be, instead of what it is: a place where power politics are used to protect disruptive and POV pushing editors, and admins abuse those with whom they don't happen to agree?'' Ok, if you are correct, clean it up. Write a better NPOV policy. Show us where our interpretation is incorrect. Clean up WP by driving out SPOV editors; file RfCs and get rid of us. Get me banned. Then it will be a "decent place". 

*''We need to be very careful about the general mindset of "Yeah, he's a jerk but he does good work". The problem is when people act like that, they cause a lot of extra headache for a lot of people and drive away good people who don't feel like dealing with it. Those are the unseen consequences that we need to keep in mind.'' Ok if I am such a jerk for suggesting we try to pay attention to NPOV as it has been explained to me, including "in proportion to their prominence" and suggesting we compromise and aim for 100-150 articles, subarticles and miniarticles on homeopathy, then document how wrong this is, and how I am violating NPOV policy, and get community input. And I will be gone. And you will get rid of a "jerk". Fair enough?--[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 06:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


That post has got to be some kind of record.  Longest response I've ever seen, and I don't have time to answer all of it.  But, the answer to a lot of your questions, is simply that SPOV was rejected as the guiding principle by the community.  Go read whatever reasons they had there.

An answer to another is, [[WP:PROMINENCE]] means that we should follow the best sources, and present the article ''as a summary of the general information contained in the sum total of the sources which are reliable''.  The exceptions are that we use attribution, and that no matter what the sources do, we write in a neutral tone.  Further, we flesh out the articles, especially on fringe topics, by using attributed in-universe sources- else we could often not give a real overview due to a lack of material.

"But on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it must make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint"

That means you get to talk about the minority view.  It doesn't say "But on such pages, though a minority view may be spelled out in great detail, the majority view must receive about the same amount of space."  You reference the majority view, but you don't give it a huge amount of the article.

In the case of Homeopathy, I recommended taking both the tone and content of the NIH and AMA and other really mainstream sources as a template for the article.  That was totally rejected as being too soft on Homeopathy, and those sources were attacked, even though they are the very best ones- according to neutral editors.

Now, here's why I don't try to get you banned. There are three reasons: One, it's too much trouble, and two, it's too much trouble because admins are puffballs, just like SA says, and three you have friends who would get you out of trouble no matter how much you deserved it.

I'm not, nor have I ever, said that there aren't any fringe POV pushers.  They are about as damaging as the SPOV pushers.

Here is what "neutral editor" means: DGG.  And a whole lot of other people who just don't edit here because it is so nasty.  

Oh, you're advocating NPOV as the others here have explained it to you?  They think it is the same as SPOV- except when they don't really.  No wonder you got it wrong.  ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#FFFFFF;">Martin<sup>phi</sup></span>]]'''    [[User talk:Martinphi|☎]] Ψ [[Special:Contributions/Martinphi|Φ]]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 07:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


Amazing on how much nonsense I see here. I disagree with almost every bit of this. Maybe I should just quit. Yep, lets get science out of Wikipedia. Good idea.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 07:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
:It is also interesting to be lectured on this by someone who has less than 1/3 the mainspace edits I have, and less than 1/3 the total edits I have, and whose main edits are ALL on pseudoscience articles. Interesting. A real expert. Frankly, you appear to be close to one of the pseudoscience extremists you are complaining about.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 07:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


I also say, for about the zillionth time, '''collect your interpretation of NPOV into a document''' and lets do an RfC on it. You are positive you are right. Let's see. Stop this nonsense and ridiculous undermining and attacks and making slurs and accusations. You claim NPOV means "A". I claim it does not. There is a way to test. Let's find out. Are you sure you are right? '''PUT YOUR MONEY WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS.''' Let's see if you are right. Write out "A" in detail and let's put it to the test.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 07:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
: Hi, Filll. I'm trying to keep my head low so I don't get hit by the flak, but there is one point you make repeatedly that bugs me. You say '"in proportion to their prominence" is '''NOT''' the only policy that is relevant here'. That is not right because "in proportion to their prominence" applies only to "articles that compare views", which is why the article on [[medicine]] properly omits any mention ''at all'' of homeopathy. The article on homeopathy, in contrast, is "a page specifically devoted to a minority view". The rule there is to "make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint". It's fine to discuss whether "appropriate reference" is 10% or 90%, but "in proportion to their prominence" simply does not apply ''at all'' to [[Homeopathy]]. --[[User:Art Carlson|Art Carlson]] ([[User talk:Art Carlson|talk]]) 07:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

::This is good. Let's see if we can clarify this. Because that is not what I have been told repeatedly on articles like [[intelligent design]], or what I read in the policy pages. Maybe the policy pages should be changed. Maybe NPOV should be changed itself. But I subscribe more to what Dave Souza said; one has to take all the policy statements into consideration to understand what NPOV means in this context.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 08:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

::It is also interesting that Art Carlson has an even more minimal editing record on a very narrow range of articles, and presumes to lecture. Ok, well maybe I can encourage some people who claim that these views I have been told are all incorrect can actually document their beliefs and we can have an RfC on various claims they presume to want to dictate to the entire project. Maybe, for example, the policies of Wikipedia should be more like those of [[Wikinfo]], or [[Conservapedia]] and I just have been mislead or too stupid to realize it.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 08:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

::: "presumes to lecture." Sorry but this comes off as being arrogant. Are you a scientist? [[User:Anthon01|Anthon01]] ([[User talk:Anthon01|talk]]) 14:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

::: (I don't know what point you're trying to make with my editing record. For the most part I only work on topics I know something about. Is that a problem? But maybe we can get back to the question at hand.)
::: I have no idea what you have been told by whom under what circumstances. If it's relevant, give me the diffs, otherwise don't bring it up. I don't want to change or ignore Wikipedia policy, so it would be a good start to just take the policies as they are written. I agree that many policies are relevant to any given article or edit and must often be weighed against one another. The point here is simpler: How does [[WP:WEIGHT]] apply to [[Homeopathy]]?
:::* Is [[Homeopathy]] an "article that compare views" or a "page specifically devoted to a minority view"?
:::* On the basis to the answer to the first question, should the majority viewpoint be represented in the article in "proportion to its prominence" or with "appropriate reference"?
::: I hope you are serious about wanting to clarify this now. You have always [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Homeopathy&diff=187236582&oldid=187236023 swept it under the rug] when I pressed you on it in the past. --[[User:Art Carlson|Art Carlson]] ([[User talk:Art Carlson|talk]]) 09:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

:Okay, to make sure we're all working with the same definitions here, Martin, would you mind answering this question for me? By SPOV, do you mean something along the lines of "The Point of View that the conclusions arrived at through the scientific method and accepted by the scientific community are correct"? If that's not quite what you mean, how would you define it? --[[User:Infophile|Infophile]] <sup>[[User_talk:Infophile|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Infophile|(Contribs)]]</sup> 07:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

::SPOV is ''that which is, or would be if known, the general mainstream [[scientific consensus]].

::And Filll, you don't want me to do as you say, because the last time I did the ArbCom took my ideas and produced the Paranormal ArbCom.  Here is the link, I note where the ideas are the same. [http://www.firetreeinn.com/Paranormal/Paranormal_primer.htm]  Who knows, it might be out of date again with my views- I keep getting more sophisticated about them.  I see now that I would add some things, and explain quite a lot better per policy.  Still, you could say that it has been rather well vetted in a general sense, else the ArbCom would surely have confirmed in some sense -even without sanctions- that I'm a POV pusher, instead of putting it right into their decision. At the paranormal ArbCom the main point people tried to make was that I pushed POV and didn't understand NPOV.  I asked specifically, and repeatedly, and generally '''very loudly''' that I be told if they were right, and that I was willing to abide by and accept the decision.  They said nothing to indicate that I didn't understand NPOV, or that I POV pushed.  Yet, they ''did'' criticize me for edit warring.  Instead of saying I was a POV pusher, they incorporated points from my essay into the ArbCom.  It has often been angrily asserted that I don't understand said ArbCom, at the same time that people think the ArbCom is terrible- kind of funny, as they think my POV is terrible in a similar way to that of the Paranormal ArbCom.  It has been angrily asserted I take that ArbCom as a validation.  Well, I do, and now you know why.  ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#FFFFFF;">Martin<sup>phi</sup></span>]]'''    [[User talk:Martinphi|☎]] Ψ [[Special:Contributions/Martinphi|Φ]]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 09:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok Martinphi, since you believe you have been told by the Arbcomm that you are correct, and everyone who disagrees with you has it wrong, why do you not enlighten us all by describing, in detail, in your own words, your interpretation of NPOV in FRINGE areas? How much material should be mainstream? How much should be SPOV?--[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 17:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

:If Martinphi (in conjunction with his fellow pseudoscience proponent editors or alone) will consent to compile a document as I have requested numerous times, I would be glad to give him a list of questions I would like him to address in the document to help him get started.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 17:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

::OK, here is the deal:  I'll refer you to my Paranormal primer, as above.  You'll come up with 5 more questions which you have, and which can reasonably be answered in 300 words or less (or more if I so choose).  I'll write my answers.  I also reserver the right to edit the Paranormal primer material.  Then, you do an ArbCom on me.  You ask that if I'm substantially wrong in my interpretation of the rules, I be indef blocked from WP by vote of the ArbCom.  I'll ask the same thing.  If I get blocked, I get blocked, and I promise never to come back as a sock within the next 5 years.  If I don't get blocked, or if I'm otherwise not determined to be substantially wrong, then you, ScienceApologist, Guy/JzG, and Raul486, or any different 5 editors in your group including you and ScienceApologist, quit WP for the next 5 years, including socks. If the ArbCom refuses to take the case, however, you and ScienceApologist leave for 5 years.   However, if they refuse to take the case, you also have the option of me leaving for 2 years and you, ScienceApologist, and Guy/JzG leaving for 5 years.  I'm willing to bargain, but you and ScienceApologist are non-negotiable. ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#FFFFFF;">Martin<sup>phi</sup></span>]]'''    [[User talk:Martinphi|☎]] Ψ [[Special:Contributions/Martinphi|Φ]]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 06:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
:::So, your idea of a fair bet has your own presence being wagered against 3 or 5 editors? --[[User:Infophile|Infophile]] <sup>[[User_talk:Infophile|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Infophile|(Contribs)]]</sup> 07:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

::::Infophile, that is very uncivil of you to even suggest that Martin is not the better of at ''least'' two admins of long standing.  As VU's case established, a POV pusher is worth at least one pro-science admin :-)  [[User:Shot info|Shot info]] ([[User talk:Shot info|talk]]) 07:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Guess you really want to stay here to cause chaos and disruption under any conditions, and are not really interested in helping us understand WP policy better. I thought you wanted to teach us how we were wrong.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 14:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

:I want an independent tribunal to decide who is right.  Since you're right, you have nothing to lose even though the bet is lopsided.  You have your chance here to get rid of me.  Thus, I know that you know you are wrong.  Put up or shut up.  ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#FFFFFF;">Martin<sup>phi</sup></span>]]'''    [[User talk:Martinphi|☎]] Ψ [[Special:Contributions/Martinphi|Φ]]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 00:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

:As far as teaching you, why would I try to teach someone who is so right?  ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#FFFFFF;">Martin<sup>phi</sup></span>]]'''    [[User talk:Martinphi|☎]] Ψ [[Special:Contributions/Martinphi|Φ]]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 00:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

:Filll: "presumes to lecture." Sorry but this comes off as being arrogant. Are you a scientist? [[User:Anthon01|Anthon01]] ([[User talk:Anthon01|talk]]) 14:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Having read the deleted guideline to POV pushing too Anthon01, this trick will not work on me; no I do not have a [[WP:COI]] problem here. However, you do have patients. Hmm... People in glass houses... How about that mote in your eye anyway? 

So when will you write your interpretation of NPOV and tell everyone else how they are wrong and only you and your like-minded editors are correct? --[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 16:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

:Please AGF. No trickery. My question wasn't meant as a COI question. I know that you have said that your experience on WP (thousands of edits) gives you credence in regards to NPOV. I wondered if the hierarchical structure in research science had anything to do with that and the arrogance in your statement. I am not certain if NPOV needs to be changed. Your assumption is that your interpretation is the one shared by everyone else. It seems that a number of non-fringe editors have express views similar to mine right here on this page. Like the articles are too heavy handed. Not everyone agree with you. My point is that the policy, like everything else is subject to interpretation. That differences I have express to you are based upon text from the current policy page. [[User:Anthon01|Anthon01]] ([[User talk:Anthon01|talk]]) 23:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

===Arbitrary section break===
:And when will you answer the two simple questions I asked above? --[[User:Art Carlson|Art Carlson]] ([[User talk:Art Carlson|talk]]) 17:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
::It's a long thread, but the two questions I've noticed you asking start from a misconception. [[WP:WEIGHT]]  starts with "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." Notice the dot at the end. That's a full stop, and it means it's the end of that statement. The section then goes on to "Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all...." That second sentence refers to articles comparing views, the first sentence doesn't. Now go on to the second paragraph, which applies to all articles. "Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties." The experts on the subject are the medical community, including homoepaths, and all significant expert views that have been published by reliable sources have to be represented fairly. Wikipedia is not the place for an uncritical puff piece about a controversial medical treatment. ... [[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk:Dave souza|talk]] 18:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
::: I find your reading of [WP:WEIGHT]] rather strained. In particular, I don't see how the sentence on pages devoted specifically to minority views can make any sense in that interpretation. But I would like to wait until other editors - especially Filll - weigh in before I reply in more detail. And please! You have the same habit that Fill has of framing yourself as defending Wikipedia against a homeopathy article with no criticism at all. Not even the most vehement true-believer is suggesting that no criticism should be included. It would help keep the discussion focussed if you would not insinuate that they are. --[[User:Art Carlson|Art Carlson]] ([[User talk:Art Carlson|talk]]) 20:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I was not aware I was supposed to be answering any questions. I agree with Dave souza. You seem to be reading the policy differently than me. I see no such distinction between the two kinds of articles in the policy. I think we cannot have a special category of "comparing type of article" and a separate "noncomparing type of article". And I have said before dozens upon dozens of times (does no one read what I write? or are you all being difficult on purpose?), that the "in proportion to their prominence" phrase I believe has to be interpreted in conjunction with all the policies. Although if you took the "in proportion to their prominence" policy alone, in homeopathy it would be written 99.7% from the position of the mainstream (using the 0.3% marketshare figure for homeopathic medications), this is not helpful for the readers. When using this policy in conjunction with others, it is appropriate to have a much larger proportion of the article devoted to a description of homeopathy itself from a sympathetic or positive view. And the result of the consensus we forged was that 60/40 was about right. And so we promoted the article to GA. Now a huge horde of new editors, many of whom know absolutely nothing about WP policies and principles, most of who are editing only a very narrow range of topics, and most of who have almost no editing record or experience, have declared that consensus is wrong, and our understanding of WP policies are absolutely incorrect. And so I am asking, over and over and over, please let's document what you believe are the correct policies so we can query the community and find out. However, I will note that when the community was queried about such a document or set of documents almost a year ago that tried to redefine or reinterpret NPOV (for example look [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Martinphi here]), the community overwhelmingly rejected these novel or self-serving interpretations of NPOV in a very aggressive manner. So to change the interpretations in the way you suggest, you have to show me how you are right. You cannot just declare it because frankly you have zero evidence your interpretations are correct. Nada.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 20:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

:It's hard to know what constitutes progress in this country, but I am actually encouraged by this exchange. I thought that [[WP:WEIGHT]] was so clearly stated (which it is, for the most part), that I couldn't shake the impression that Filll and others were bone-headed POV-pushers (even if their POV was close to my own personal POV). I am certain they had the exact same thoughts about me. I'm starting to see that it may be honestly possible to read this policy differently (although I still think it is a misinterpretation). At this point I would like to ask Filll and Dave, ''Can you can understand how I can read the policy the way I do, even if you disagree?''
:I have tried to re-read [[WP:WEIGHT]] carefully from your point of view. I always stumble at this paragraph:
{{quotation|
Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them—[[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia|Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia]]. But on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it must make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view.
}}
:If "in proportion to the prominence of each" applies equally to all pages, even those pages specifically devoted to a minority view, how can such a page exist at all? If homeopathy is so insignificant that it is not mentioned at all on [[Medicine]], how could you write an article on homeopathy that has less that 1% of its content devoted to the topic? The juxtaposition "great detail"/"appropriate reference" also strongly suggests the bulk of the article may/should be devoted to the homeopathic viewpoint. (Which by no means is the same as being written from the homeopathic POV!) Even the final clause contains the word "strictly", suggesting - if you will let me exaggerate to make the point clear - that the article may attempt to rewrite the content not strictly but ''substantially'' from the perspective of the minority view.
:I'm not sure how important it is to clarify this point. Our readings are not so far apart that it would prohibit us from discussing content disputes civilly and constructively. Still, if one of side could convince the other, or if a voice from above could tell us what the intended meaning was, it would eliminate a bit of shouting that happens again and again. Reducing the noise level might help us to hear better what the others are saying.
:--[[User:Art Carlson|Art Carlson]] ([[User talk:Art Carlson|talk]]) 09:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

::About "''The juxtaposition "great detail"/"appropriate reference" also strongly suggests the bulk of the article may/should be devoted to the homeopathic viewpoint. (Which by no means is the same as being written from the homeopathic POV!)''":
::An article titled "X" should be about "X", not about "believers of X" or "what believers of X say about X" (of course, those things are ''among'' the things that should be in an article titled "X"). Of course with things that only exist in the human mind like [[God]], there is really nothing ''to'' say about it other than what people think about it. [[User:WAS 4.250|WAS 4.250]] ([[User talk:WAS 4.250|talk]]) 11:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
:Quite so. All Wikipedia articles must represent "fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." Significance is related to the topic of the article, and includes significant views from various viewpoints, but obviously excludes unrelated views from the mainstream or other viewpoints. #Balance states it as "let competing approaches exist on the same page: work for balance, that is: describe the opposing viewpoints according to reputability of the sources, and give precedence to those sources that have been the most successful in presenting facts in an equally balanced manner." An area for individual assessment, but giving reduced weight to obviously partisan views. As Art Carlson says, the minority view gets spelled out in great detail on the page devoted to it, but not to the exclusion of the majority view of that topic, which must be fairly represented. "We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view.", so where there's a dispute about the minority claims about the topic we have to give full attention to the majority views about these claims. Always, of course, presenting all significant, competing views impartially per #Fairness of tone. . . [[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk:Dave souza|talk]] 11:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

:@WAS: I fully agree. I was just using the language of the policy statement: "Minority views can receive attention ..." --[[User:Art Carlson|Art Carlson]] ([[User talk:Art Carlson|talk]]) 12:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
:@Dave: I endorse everything you say here. It is what I would call "appropriate reference". Are you also going to comment on my arguments why I think that [[WP:WEIGHT]] does not mean to apply "in proportion to the prominence of each" directly to pages devoted specifically to minority views? --[[User:Art Carlson|Art Carlson]] ([[User talk:Art Carlson|talk]]) 12:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I think a lot of this confusion is because the policy is not written clearly enough. These apparent inconsistencies and loopholes and bits of confusion are not addressed in the text. There are not enough examples. I can sort of see where you might think there are two kinds of articles, a comparing kind and a noncomparing kind. But I think that is not a correct reading of the text.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 13:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

:No-one's been advocating a rigid allocation of words "in proportion", but the figures have been given in what I think is an illustration of the proportionate significance. All the other policy aspects come into play to ensure that both viewpoints are fairly represented, but the "weight of argument" can reasonably reflect the prominence of views. Someone brought up the [[moon landing]] and [[Apollo Moon Landing hoax theories]] pages as an example in a related discussion. That's a more extreme disproportion of prominence of views amongst experts, though the proportion of believers in the hoax idea in the US seems to be higher than the proportion in that country using homeopathy. Accordingly, the minority viewpoint article pays a great deal of attention to rebuttals. In homeopathy the majority scientific viewpoint has to be fully explained, and while the minority pro-homeopathy view appears to me much more reasonable than the moon landing hoax, the proportion taken by explaining each viewpoint depends on what's needed to achieve a clear and fair explanation rather than an arbitrary percentage. .. [[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk:Dave souza|talk]] 14:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

==Two Worldviews==

I take it the value of my opinion will approach zero here, since I've been lurking on Wikipedia for about a month and have ONE edit to my name. However, I'll offer it anyway, on the chance that it might be useful to someone. I'm a person with graduate training and years of experience in research/statistics who came to Wikipedia to see if I could contribute anything, and the more I see, the less likely it appears that there's anything I could do here except waste a lot of time getting very frustrated. I'm sure many would say well, if the Wikipedia culture would frustrate me, I'm better off not being here, and I'm sure that's true, but at the same time, the quality of the product will continue to decline if qualified editors can't see a way to work here.

As I see it, there are two worldviews trying to coexist on Wikipedia that are simply incompatible, maybe even mutually exclusive, and the effort to accommodate them both in the same project has created a situation where only fighting can occur. On one hand, there's the rational/scientific worldview that approaches the evaluation of information by gathering and weighing evidence with an open and inquiring mind, and on the other hand, the anti-rational worldview that accepts information on faith or authority or wishful thinking, rather than on empirical evidence. If the two never overlapped, they could coexist nicely, but the problem is that they have to overlap when ideas unsupported by evidence are bolstered by an appeal to science, or a pseudoscientific layer on top, rather than being content with an appeal to faith. Then only warring can occur if there's not a clear priority given to which worldview decides disagreements.

One side reads the policies and ArbComm decisions to mean that the rational/scientific worldview is the overriding worldview of Wikipedia; the other side reads them to mean the opposite. I've read absolutely miles of article discussions, policy discussions, and ArbComm transcripts, and I don't see a clear direction either way; what I see is that Wikipedia is trying to have it both ways by giving lip service to both sides. This attempt to accommodate both sides cannot work, because it allows both sides to continue interpreting NPOV, WEIGHT, etc. in different ways (and believing they have the force of Wikipedia behind them in that interpretation) which is a situation that cannot be sustained. And the mantra "Wikipedia is about verifiability, not about truth" only acts to confuse the issue more, rather than clarifying it. Wikipedia needs to decide whether it's going to be a serious encyclopedia, where people can assume the information they get is factual, or whether it's going to be the internet version of something like Farmer's Almanac meets Whole Earth Catalog. Which would be an interesting place, I'm sure, as long as people understood that's what it is.

I admire the confidence of the science folks here who think that by boycotting disputed articles (where the two worldviews battle on and on) and letting the articles be written entirely according to the anti-rational worldview, they would show the world of Wikipedia how essential they are. I fear that's a naive belief, since if it's true that Wikipedia is becoming dominated by anti-rational worldview, the only reaction to their departure would be relief and huzzahs, and I fear that there would be a lot of people in the organization who wouldn't be able to tell the difference. The outside world does care; it is mostly made up, still, of people who expect to get factually correct information from an encyclopedia, but I've gathered in my wandering in these virtual corridors that the hopes and desires of the outside world don't carry much weight here. Woonpton (talk) 17:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

::It is trivially easy to edit science article on wikipedia and get great satisfaction and not fight anyone at all. If you are serious about writing science content for wikipedia, just name some subject areas you would like to contribute to and I will personally help you to enjoy a non-fighting experience of helping to provide the gift of free information for all mankind. [[User:WAS 4.250|WAS 4.250]] ([[User talk:WAS 4.250|talk]]) 19:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

:Excellent contribution Woonpton. I enjoy reading about the paranormal myself and pseudoscience. I have books on the subject. I do not mistake it for factual material or science or anything with undisputed evidence to support it, however. And if Wikipedia were to decide that the paranormal and FRINGE material and trivia etc would dominate, it would still be interesting and fun to read. But it is a very different direction than one which applies NPOV in a way that makes the mainstream, scientific and academic views prominent even in pseudoscience and FRINGE articles. 

:So, I want clarity here. Which is to be the direction of Wikipedia? The rational, mainstream, verified, evidence-based direction? Something more like the CIA Factbook or the Catholic Encyclopedia or publications by the Chemical Rubber Company? Or something more like the Encyclopedia of the Paranormal, with lots of speculation and conjecture about ghosts and UFO abductions and conspiracy theories and time travellers and ESP and the like? Both would be popular. But they would have very different uses and be viewed very differently by the outside world. 

:Please help me to establish clarity so I know how to edit, or even if I should continue to edit.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 18:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

::The direction of Wikipedia is to be the sum of all possible encyclopedias with various articles in various stages of completion and contention at all times. Yes you should continue editing. No you Filll should not edit articles that have anything to do with what you think is nonsense or the Paranormal or speculation or conjecture about ghosts and UFO abductions and conspiracy theories and time travellers and ESP and the like. Stick to articles where is is no raging dispute. Does that help clarify things? [[User:WAS 4.250|WAS 4.250]] ([[User talk:WAS 4.250|talk]]) 19:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


Well, one would need to abandon all medical articles on Wikipedia then. And a good fraction of the science articles. The creationism articles are only editable because at the moment we have managed to prevail over the forces of superstition, much to their displeasure. This might be only temporary, however. In medicine, things are far uglier, for a variety of reasons. 

Of course, when I want less stress, I just go back to editing in the creationism areas where we have developed procedures and infrastructure for dealing with these sorts of FRINGE problems and have been effective. However, I will note that even there, the Matthew Hoffman situation developed and one of our stalwarts went down in flames in an ugly fashion. 

If I want even less stress, I go to my long term project of editing articles about the [[Isle of Wight]] or dictionary-related topics, or history topics. I edit a mix of articles, depending on what I want to do at the moment. However, I feel I can make a contribution by helping to clear up some of the confusion that exists over WP policy, and helping in some FRINGE and pseudoscience topics, such as alternative medicine. It would be very helpful for me to know, as I edit, exactly what the policies of WP are. 

I will note that part of the reason that we have established a certain stability in evolution and creationism related articles is ''directly'' related to me. The FAQ on the evolution talk page and related talk pages? My idea and I wrote the first one. Organizing the talk page archive? I helped. Pushing for LEAD accessibility? I was involved. Introductory articles? I spearheaded the drive. Farming out controversial issues to subsiduary daughter articles? I pushed for it and wrote several and maintain a large number. Compiling data and statistics to establish and track prominence? I am the one who did it. Pushing [[intelligent design]] and [[evolution]] and [[introduction to evolution]] to FA? I was deeply involved. Meeting arguments head on on the talk pages and answering questions and deflecting trolls and POV warriors? I am one of the main editors doing this service (look at my edits to the talk pages of [[intelligent design]] or [[evolution]] or any related talk page, and what fraction of the talk page edits are mine).  So this is something I have done, and a place I have made a contribution. I think if we can make similar attempts on other pages in similar trouble, we can also effect positive changes on those pages as well.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 19:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)



:I'm not sure I follow you completely, Woonpton. The editors of Wikipedia are certainly a mixed bag, but I don't think anybody ever suggested that "faith or authority or wishful thinking" was a valid justification for an edit. On the other hand, an encyclopedia is not a good place for "the evaluation of information by gathering and weighing evidence". It's enough for an encyclopedia to report the conclusions that other people have drawn by that process. Maybe it would be useful if you could sketch what changes in the rules would be entailed if Wikipedia would come down in the camp of what you call the "rational/scientific worldview". --[[User:Art Carlson|Art Carlson]] ([[User talk:Art Carlson|talk]]) 19:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Obviously I didn't make myself clear enough, so let me make one more (shorter, I hope) attempt.  What I'm saying is that we have people who approach life and information in two incompatible ways, working together on a project.  The difference between their worldviews is obscured but not eliminated by the veneer of "verifiability" and NPOV that define the search for sources and the writing of the articles. While they're working on the same project, using ostensibly the same tools, their thought patterns and their understanding of what useful information consists of are  different, which results in endless battles on contested articles.  I'm not suggesting the rules should be different, I'm just saying that Wikipedia should make a clear policy on how the rules should be interpreted.  At the present time, it looks to me (admittedly an outsider) as if each group interprets NPOV and Weight differently, that the Pseudoscience arbitration is seen by scientists as vindication for their interpretation and the Paranormal arbitration is seen by anti-rationals as vindication for their interpretation, so each side believes that they have the force of Wikipedia behind their interpretation.  There's no clear understanding who gets to break ties, so it's just a constant tug of war, and battles eventually end up at ArbComm where they are decided arbitrarily one way or another depending on the makeup of the committee and who the personalities in the dispute are.  The decisions usually are punishments for infractions of civility, leaving the underlying problem untouched, but whichever side wins takes the decision as vindication of their wordview.  It's not a tenable situation, is  all I'm saying. 

To answer your specific question, if Wikipedia came down on the side of the rational/scientific worldview, there would be no question that in the case of an impasse, the weight of scientific evidence and rationality would prevail in any disagreement.   As it is now, what I'm hearing everywhere is that there's not that understanding among a lot of Wikipedians, that the scientific point of view is viewed as just another point of view and not a particularly valued one, and that in fact if the scientific evidence says one thing and a lot of people believe something else, then the nonscientific belief carries as much weight as the rational belief, or maybe more, if there's more literature supporting the antirational belief, or more people who hold to the anti-rational belief.   In a lot of fringe areas, as I'm sure I'm not the first person to point out here, there's no scientific research attempting to replicate antirational claims because it's not something that scientists are going to bother with, like say the belief that you can alter the molecular structure of water by thinking unhappy or kind thoughts about it, or that you can change the output of a random number generator by focusing your attention.   Sometimes there's no scientific literature refuting a claim, not because mainstream science is afraid of cutting-edge thought,  but because you don't even need to do an experiment to see that the claim isn't worth testing; all you have to do is think about it for two seconds.  If the structure of water were altered by unhappy thoughts, surely it would have been noticed in chemistry labs where disgruntled graduate students have toiled for decades, or happier graduate students have fallen in love.   If nobody's noticed it before now, with all the analyses that have been done on water over the centuries,  the rational conclusion is it just might be because there's no such effect, not because scientists haven't been smart enough to notice it in all this time.    And if it were really true that intention could affect how random events distribute, wouldn't you think people would be cleaning up at the casinos constantly, given how much they want to win?  A wise person once  said it's a good thing to keep an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out.[[User:Woonpton|Woonpton]] ([[User talk:Woonpton|talk]]) 21:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

:Let's think of a specific example. Someone studies the use of 30C homeopathic remedy consisting of shaken water, and not a single molecule of the active ingredient, [[snake oil]]. They study the use of this preparation on reducing asthma. The study is not very large, and it is not double blinded, but some positive results which are not particularly statisically significant are reported in a minor journal. The homeopaths proclaim victory and claim this is evidence that all homeopathy works. The science oriented editors want to put caveats in the article about double blinding and sample size and unrepeatability. The homeopaths counter with self published sources claiming that double blinding destroys the magic of homeopathy and is unfair and plus quantum mechanics could be a reason homeopathy works. The science oriented editors object. The homeopathy promoters claim the science oriented editors are being unfair and then things escalate, with both sides claiming the other does not understand NPOV etc.  And we have world war III. 

:However, if we had some sorts of standards for what to do in this circumstance, things would be settled easier. Maybe someone would be blocked for disruption. And we would know how to write the article. But as things stand now, where no one will actually enforce a standard, we are in a mess.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 21:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 
I think enforcement of NPOV would be a start, at least as I understand NPOV. Now I am told by pseudoscience people that I do not understand NPOV. Ok, if I do not understand NPOV, teach me.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 19:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

:Above you claimed that because so few medical people had anything to do with quack medicine that articles on quack medicine should mostly be about how wrong they were. You were corrected that the argument is valid for articles like [[medicine]] but wrong for articles about the specific quackery practices. They should contain information about what the quack practitioners believe, what the public believes, what medical authorities believe, and what science has to say on the issue. Further it is poor writing to bash the readers over the head every few paragraphs with telling them waht garbage some belief is. We don't do that on [[Christianity]]. We should not do that on articles even if they are as nonsensical as eating and drinking the dying God. Do you understand? Do you agree? [[User:WAS 4.250|WAS 4.250]] ([[User talk:WAS 4.250|talk]]) 20:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


I sort of understand and partially agree. However, how many Christians truly present the consumption of the eucharist as a literal eating of Christ's flesh? How many claim there is scientific proof or scientific evidence that the bread has magically turned into human flesh in the mouths of the supplicants? We do have several articles which do describe Jesus from various viewpoints, critical and uncritical. Perhaps they follow the NPOV rule properly and perhaps they do not. I have not studied the issue in detail. But it is wrong to say that there is no content here about how nonsensical some of these beliefs are. If these beliefs were presented as science, the way "[[creation science]]" or [[intelligent design]] are, then they are evaluated as science since that is how they are presented. The dominant form of medicine in the world today is allopathic medicine, which is science-based or evidence-based medicine. So if something purports to be medicine, it is evaluated according to that standard. I do not believe one should bash someone over the head constantly with the mainstream or allopathic viewpoint, but I also do not believe the mainstream of allopathic viewpoint should be absent either. 

I did '''not''' state that the articles on quack medicine should mainly be about how wrong they are. I think you are misreading what I wrote. Perhaps on purpose? You might want to reread what I wrote. I have had quite a number of people now who repeat back to me what I wrote, and it is incorrect. You are another. So try to see if you can understand what I actually maintained.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 20:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

:No, I'm am not purposefully misrepresenting you. AGF. Overall, it sounds like you do understand NPOV. But let's look at ''If these beliefs were presented as science, the way "[[creation science]]" or [[intelligent design]] are, then they are evaluated as science since that is how they are presented.'' If we say in the article that they are pseudo-science then we are ''not'' presenting them as science. NPOV in a science article is to include what is science and not include claims just because an idea is popular - we should not go into astrology in [[astronomy]]. But [[astrology]] is not science, so it should not contain only science. But any reference to science ''within'' that article must use the science establishment as the gold standard for what claims are reliable as science claims. Sort of like the Catholic church is the gold standard for what the Catholic church believes, the science community is the gold standard what is and what is not "science". Are we in agreement? [[User:WAS 4.250|WAS 4.250]] ([[User talk:WAS 4.250|talk]]) 21:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


You are missing something I am afraid. Who created [[creation science]] and [[intelligent design]] and how do the creators of these ideas and movements present them? It was not Wikipedia that created them; we just reflect what exists in the world. Those that are promoting these concepts and movements are purposely trying to position them as ''science'', not as religion. If they were just types of Christianity or Islam, say, and there was an Intelligent Design Church or a Creation Science Mosque, science would pay little if any attention to them. How much attention does science pay to Christian Science, which does not purport to be much of a science? To Scientology? Astrology does not present itself as science, at least in most cases. And so it is not treated as such by scientists, or in Wikipedia. If Astrology claimed to be a science and demanded to be taught in science classes and astrology lobbyists tried to get laws passed to classify it as science and tried to get government science funding for astrology and astrologists sued astronomers constantly in court etc, then the story would be different, would it not? If Astrologists claimed there was scientific proof for their beliefs and tried to promote it on that basis (which some do, but it does not catch on), then it would be different, right? So we are only sort of in agreement. If homeopaths claim that they can cure ailments and are an alternative to allopathy, then their claims will be evaluated at least in part by allopathy. We do not have big sections on New Guinea witch doctor practices discussing what allopathy thinks of them, because they are not promoted in most of the world as medicine and a replacement for allopathy. And they are not particularly prominent. So it is different than prominent alternative medicine practices which are promoted as replacements for allopathy and are notable. If instead of being at the 0.1% or 1% prominence level, homeopathy was at the 0.00001% prominence level, we would not be even worrying about it. It might not even have an article at all. --[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 21:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

:It sounds to me like we agree in theory. And agree in practice on at least most articles. I think our main difference lies in your quest to do for medical quackery what you did for claims of being scientific by anti-evolutionists. I'm not into fighting, and in spite of your claims to want to quit editing because of the fighting, you seem to be using all this as just another tool in your fight. Well, more power to ya, but plowing the sea is not for me. [[User:WAS 4.250|WAS 4.250]] ([[User talk:WAS 4.250|talk]]) 22:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not know if you have not noticed, but I have not made a single edit to a homeopathy article in months. It just is not worth it. There is too much tension and too much fighting. Even world renowned homeopathy expert [[User: Peter morrell]] has said the same thing; while things are so hostile, he cannot be bothered with editing any homeopathy article. That is a real shame, but this huge influx of SPAs has ruined the atmosphere and the SPAs are just furious about the principles of WP and want to change them. 

However, what is a matter of concern is that this is not some isolated incident. This problem is spreading like a cancer. Now the SPAs are editing the NPOV policy pages to change them so that they do no have to put mainstream views in any pseudoscience or alternative medicine article. This is very similar to a recent event. Not long ago we had people editing the RS policy pages so they could include sources proving that Mormonism is correct and all its foundational myths are truth and everyone else is wrong and evil blah blah blah. It was an immense disruption to stop them and it took 6 months or longer and it was a viscious fight that wasted hundreds if not thousands of man hours. Then there are efforts to create literally hundreds if not thousands or tens of thousands of minihomeopathy articles in all plant articles and mineral articles and animal articles and biographies of people that might have tried homeopathy (like Beethoven and Darwin). I have tried to forge a compromise to limit these miniarticles to maybe the 150 or so most important cases, but this was rejected since they want no limits imposed and want to have the right to have as many homeopathy miniarticles as possible, maybe well up into the 10s of thousands. There have been repeated fights at AN/I and Arbcomm and AE on this and now at the new NPOV noticeboard, as well on the various homeopathy articles. If we do not actually define clearly what NPOV is, and make it clear we stand behind our NPOV policy, the NPOV policy will be gone, and so will we if we disagree. And WP will fail as an experiment to construct a respected resource.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 01:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC) 

::homeopathy reminds me of religion: an opiate for the masses and poison for the rest of us.  [[User:Jim62sch|<font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">&#0149;Jim</font><font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62</font><font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149;</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Jim62sch|dissera!]]</sup> 22:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

What a helpful observation in the midst of constructive debate. 

I'm not sure there is ever going to be a solution that combines the best of everything. I think that [[Wikipedia:Flagged_revisions/Quality_versions]] is a good proposal. There is no doubt that articles like [[global warming]] (for the most part) represent the "consensus" of the scientific community, and for that reason perhaps it should be flagged as a "quality version". 

A travesty though would be the silencing of dissent. It is often *informed* and *educated* dissent that shifts the "consensus" in the right direction. Einstein's theory of relativity rightly brought an end to the scientific consensus of the static and eternal universe. If the "consensus" would have shouted him down or locked out his edit the Big Bang would be a big nothing.

Also, one of the greatest strengths of WP versus traditional encyclopedias is in the fact that WP never becomes dated, it is constantly being renewed and updated. I does seem that it would be nice to have one set of rules for certain types of articles, and different set for others. For example, basic, non-controversial articles could be locked down so that major edits must be approved by a certain group, whereas hot topics would have a more relaxed policy. This might seem — on the surface — to be backwards, because the controversial articles are those that are most open to hair-pulling edit wars. However, if articles known to be correct and excellent (with little dissent) were locked down, much more (rejuvenated) energy could be focused on the controversial articles maintaining quality and "consensus".

Wherever religion, politics and/or money collide there is going to be trouble, and dreaming of a catchall solution is just about as likely as peace in Palestine. There are certain articles that are always going to be fought over like the Temple Mount. This is particularly true when certain opinions factor largely in the interpretation of data and observation. Although we all can agree that references should be cited and of reputable sources, there is always going to be the tendency to ignore or minimize those that we disagree with or dislike. An outside observer with a fresh pair of eyes might be able to frame the debate more objectively. Plus, one doesn't need to be a scientist, philosopher or carpenter to be a good researcher, and a good surgeon might be a terrible editor. So it's unwise to discount the efforts of a layperson in a certain field when they might be just what the article needs vis-a-vis grammar, syntax and good citation.

Silencing constructive and informed dissent and building such a wall around certain articles that they languish from constructive editing isn't the answer. See below concerning my suggestion of protecting articles according to membership senority. [[User:Supertheman|<font color="darkblue">Supertheman</font>]] <sup><font color="darkblue">(</font>[[User_talk:Supertheman|<font color="darkblue">talk</font>]]<font color="darkblue">)</font></sup> 00:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

==RFC==

I think it might be about time we opened an RFC on some of these issues. Get the community input on which side NPOV supports. It seems obvious that the other side doesn't want to do this (at least yet). Perhaps we should do it ourselves then to see which way the community is leaning. --[[User:Infophile|Infophile]] <sup>[[User_talk:Infophile|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Infophile|(Contribs)]]</sup> 19:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

:I agree. I think at the very minimum, we should compile a list of quotes and questions to use as a framework for an RfC. I have one view of [[prominence]]. I have had several different views of prominence thrown at me and told I am undermining WP and trying to change policy with my view. I have one view of UNDUE. I am told I am destroying WP and driving away people with my view of UNDUE. Etc. I want to see if one way or another, we can establish some reasonable view of the standards that we are supposed to be applying here. --[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 19:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

As I dig through some of the past discussion on this, I see that the Martinphi RfC almost a year ago was partly on this topic, and he created "guides" to his version of NPOV which were overwhelmingly rejected [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Martinphi]. I have not gone through all of it because there is a huge amount of it, but so far what I have read looks terrible for pseudoscience proponents. Just slammed.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 19:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

:And yet this still goes on... Well, I guess that means it's time for another. How about we start drafting up what issues we should raise, say at [[User:Raymond arritt/Expert withdrawal/RFC draft]]? --[[User:Infophile|Infophile]] <sup>[[User_talk:Infophile|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Infophile|(Contribs)]]</sup> 16:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

== A proposal on a slight paradigm shift ==
I know this will not solve the underlying issues, but I have a suggestion that may help with the overall situation...

I've been watching this thread intently since it formed. I haven't participated until now because I'm not a particularly combative person and I was honest unsure of my stances on a few key issues. I'm relieved, personally, that the general idea of an all-out boycott seems to have lost its mojo, mostly because I'm an educator at heart and I can't bear to see promulgated misinformation. My proposal, however, can include those that are still active in the war zones (like homeopathy) and those that have avoided them (on principal or a general distaste for the endless arguments)...

Let's take a step back and refocus our efforts for a while on the important subtopics that inform the flimflam main articles. What I mean is, perhaps the overall situation on homeopathy would be improved if the lot of us would tread water there for a month--put aside improvement goals, but still actively prevent it getting worse--whilst overhauling articles like [[placebo]] and [[clinical trial]]. What good is it to argue over the inclusion of [[pseudoscience]] in the lead or as a categorization if that article is still "Rated Start-Class", is mediocre in readability, and has almost no information about ''why'' people believe in pseudoscience? I believe [[placebo]] is an excellent example of an article that needs to be informative at the "featured" level, but it's currently woefully written, filled with out-of-date citations, and promotes the misunderstanding that its an "effect based solely on the power of suggestion", which vastly understates the realities of self-limiting illness, post-hoc rationalization, the effect on the practitioner believing a treatment to be effective, etc.

My point is this: if we all spent as much effort in the next four weeks on improving placebo to FA as we spent the prior four weeks spinning our wheels on homeopathy (and every other CAM), it would provide a vastly more positive effect on the dissemination of scientifically-sound information. Every link to an improved placebo article would indirectly improve the ratio of science vs. pseudoscience/nonsense/superstition/quackery in ''every'' CAM modality article, right?

I will be out of town for a couple of days, but I thought I'd leave this here to get some feedback. I'm quite sympathetic to the frustrations of many of the editors here, sharing many of them, and I want to help resolve this issue for the benefit of everyone involved. &mdash; [[User:Scientizzle|Scien]]''[[User talk:Scientizzle|tizzle]]'' 23:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

:That's a great idea. We have several MDs and medical researchers on board who could help turn [[placebo]] into an excellent article (if not necessarily a FA or GA in Wikipedia terms). [[User:Raymond arritt|Raymond Arritt]] ([[User talk:Raymond arritt|talk]]) 00:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

:I have put it on my watch list. It is a great idea. I'll help out if others will. [[User:WAS 4.250|WAS 4.250]] ([[User talk:WAS 4.250|talk]]) 00:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

It is a good idea. All of the associated articles should be improved, no doubt about it.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 00:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

:I have occasionally come to a similar conclusion - that my time here would be better spent improving numerous poor-quality, important, and uncontroversial medical articles as opposed to endlessly defending blocks of obvious trolls on [[WP:AN/I]] and arguing for 4 months with a tendentious single-purpose agenda account at [[abortion and mental health]] (for example). It hasn't quite stuck yet, but I agree with the principle, and one of these days when I get a bit more fed-up with this place I'll probably do it. Anyhow, [[placebo]] would be a great article to work on, and I agree with Scientizzle's larger point about focus as well. '''[[User:MastCell|MastCell]]'''&nbsp;<sup>[[User Talk:MastCell|Talk]]</sup> 05:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Folks, I have nominated [[placebo]] at both [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Collaboration of the Week]] & [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology/Collaboration of the Week‎]]. I hope to devote some more time to it in the following weeks. (I ''had'' been working on it [[User:Scientizzle/Placebo draft|here]], but got distracted...) &mdash; [[User:Scientizzle|Scien]]''[[User talk:Scientizzle|tizzle]]'' 20:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

==A little about the citizendium==

Since that name has poped up so many times here with even Larry himself dropping by to try and recruit people, perhaps you should see what he has been saying about our hard working admins: [http://blog.citizendium.org/2008/02/28/whos-more-command-and-control-wikipedia-or-cz/ Click Here] 
In that little article he compares wikipedia admins to Nazis... No kidding... [[User:RIP-Acer|RIP-Acer]] ([[User talk:RIP-Acer|talk]]) 23:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
:Your point is?  [[User:Shot info|Shot info]] ([[User talk:Shot info|talk]]) 23:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
::My point is that on principle I would never join a project headed by a person who makes such a statement. It is even sadder to note that not a single member of that project has reprimanded him for it [[User:RIP-Acer|RIP-Acer]] ([[User talk:RIP-Acer|talk]]) 23:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
:::So I'm curious why you didn't make this point to start with?  [[User:Shot info|Shot info]] ([[User talk:Shot info|talk]]) 23:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

And the actual quote is ''We actually require that people agree to our fundamental policies as a condition of their participation, which means that many of the most disruptive people, whose silly antics cause Wikipedia administrators to react like Nazis, aren’t involved.  Maybe, just maybe, we’ve learned something from Wikipedia’s governance mistakes.''  Now, I don't know about you RIP, but one of Wikipedia's problems are it's civil POV pushers....in case you haven't read any of the discussion above.  So perhaps you should have a read, then reread the blog.  And then apply some context rather than applying some (poor) journalism and misquoting your source.  [[User:Shot info|Shot info]] ([[User talk:Shot info|talk]]) 23:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

:''Administrators on WP are bad, I can say that because I was (maybe still am, haven’t checked in a long time) are and I have seen the damage they can do. The problem with the structure of wikipedia is that it is broken. It broke down a long time ago. I could give you lots of reasons why it is broken and cannot be fixed but it suffers from a kind of institutional creep that is a very interesting phenomenon to study from a sociological perspective. My criticisms of WP are from having been actively involved during the period it went from a “hobby” website (to use the term Mr. Wales has used) to an Alexa top 100 site. It was envisioned as a small organization where people were actively involved, but the rules (most of them written, rewritten by very young people, uneducated or inexperienced people who don’t know much about rules) were and are poorly applied and as it expanded the “powers that be” just withdrew into their own power cocoons, insensitive to the real problems and issues such an organizational activity must face. Take the so-called NPOV. It is not properly applied by most admins and editors; why? because they are deleting content and they don’t even know if the content is good or bad, people who know something about a topic are attacked by gangs of teenagers who just want to create controversy. The whole thing is pretty sad, if there wasn’t some useful info in it the whole thing would crash and burn.'' - Sound familiar? [[User:Shot info|Shot info]] ([[User talk:Shot info|talk]]) 23:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I did read the blog, all of it, and in fact had replied to Mr. Sanger’s article only to have my reply removed without any explanation, in a very ''transparent'' fashion. As for Wikipedia’s admins being its greatest problem it should be pretty obvious that I do not agree with that. I agree with you that I probably should’ve better quoted the original text but I still find his comparison absurd. [[User:RIP-Acer|RIP-Acer]] ([[User talk:RIP-Acer|talk]]) 23:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

:It's a blog no?  So if your reply is "removed" it's the blog owners right isn't it?  And no, your opinion isn't obvious as you keep making edits without actually making your point.  So far the only point you have made is that you have taken offence at a comparision made by on a blog.  How this relates to the topics above, or to CZ in general remains to be seen, other than you agree with the Jimboism that we cannot support those that do go work on Wikipedia "because they are jerks".  [[User:Shot info|Shot info]] ([[User talk:Shot info|talk]]) 00:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

::Ok I just got back.  Now after rereading our little exchange I’ve realized that what we have here is in fact a misunderstanding. You seem to have assumed by my comments (and this is my fault I guess for jumping in a thread that was already very long, without out stating precisely where I stand) that I am against the views of most of the scientific folk here.  To be extremely clear on this:  Being a university graduate myself, I am 100% against attempts to use Wikipedia to push pseudoscience as if it were somehow hard science. Articles on those topics should state very clearly that those views are not accepted by the scientific community and have no validity. What I was trying to show on my original post was that I do not think Citizendium is a good alternative and that we should attempt to improve Wikipedia instead, an opinion that I formed after following the Citizendium’s development for quite some time. I’ve come to the conclusion that Mr. Larry Sanger will say just about anything if it gives his project some visibility and lately he has resorted to some very cheap shots.  This Nazy thing was the last straw for me and then the deletion of my post from the official blog (not his personal blog) pretty much pissed me off. So that’s why my original post was not thought out, I pretty much just came here and wrote it.  As for: '''''you agree with the Jimboism that we cannot support those that do go work on Wikipedia "because they are jerks'''"''   you couldn’t be more wrong on this one. This is in fact something that really irritates me when someone tries to game the rules to get a knowledgeable-but-inexperienced- editor blocked. It also pisses me off when I see editors making valid points only to have replies such as: Please be more civil, or if you don’t follow policy whatever you can get blocked. This certainly puts off lots of potential new contributors. [[User:RIP-Acer|RIP-Acer]] ([[User talk:RIP-Acer|talk]]) 02:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Just out of interest, what in your reply to the blog could have got it deleted? [[User:David D.|David D.]] [[User talk:David D.|(Talk)]] 09:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, you tell me:

''I agree with Jens, comparing well meaning people, regardless of whether you believe their efforts worthy or not, to Nazis is absurd. It’s an affront not only to the Wikipedia editors but also to the millions that perished in WW2. Your follow up comment with a smiley is equally regrettable. I would expect somebody who stands for civility, repeatedly claiming that personal attacks are not acceptable in your project, to be more mindful of their words. Using the F*** word is not acceptable but making references to Nazis suddenly is? I guess your sense of proportion is way off…   ''  

It was the 12th reply and was a response to a sarcastic come back Mr.Sanger gave to another user. [[User:RIP-Acer|RIP-Acer]] ([[User talk:RIP-Acer|talk]]) 12:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

==This expert's opinion==
I like Wikipedia precisely because I can edit and fix faults in articles, and other editors can do the same.  I get tired of reading "authoritative" articles on "brand name" web sites and magazines that are badly written, imprecise, incomplete, unsourced, myopic, profoundly POV, and sometimes downright wrong.  NPOV is hard to define and difficult to achieve, but utterly necessary. --[[User:Una Smith|Una Smith]] ([[User talk:Una Smith|talk]]) 01:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
:It was hard for me to understand at first. But now I think it is a real asset. We just do not do a good job of explaining it in the policy pages.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 02:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

==RFC==

(my comments here refer back to the earlier section on RfC, that got buried in subsequently incoming material but I think is worth further consideration)

Here's what I don't understand.  Infophile says (above) that "it seems obvious that the other side doesn't want" [to open an RfC] but I'm not sure what's obvious about it.  There's an active effort on the WP:NPOV policy page to change the wording of the policy to suit the "other side's" interpretation of NPOV better.  In the discussions I've read, it seems clear that there are (happily) people watching the page who will revert such changes back to present policy, but reading the talk page, it seems that at least among the people working that page, there is a significant, if not dominant, group whose intent is to change policy to make NPOV suit them better, or if they're not allowed to actually change the policy, at least to keep repeating their interpretation on the discussion page until it's absorbed into the collective consciousness.  So my question is, why would they bother with an RfC when they're busy working to influence policy directly? 

There's even a section there called "Undue V Fringe" where it's argued that if there's something that a lot of people believe but that science has ignored (take for example my illustration above of the molecular structure of water being influenced by the quality of people's thoughts) then when it comes to covering that belief in the encyclopedia, science must be considered the tiny minority that is the fringe view  according to the WEIGHT policy.  For all I know that may be a legitimate interpretation of policy, but if it is, that just shows why Wikipedia is such a mess.  (And BTW, after I submitted my piece yesterday, I got in the car and turned on the radio and heard a news/political commentator saying that when he does research for his show, he has to go to original sources rather than relying on Wikipedia to summarize topics, since he's learned that "more than half the time, Wikipedia has it wrong.")

My favorite comment from the WP:NPOV talk page:  
Here we go again, confusing objectivity & neutrality. I will repeat myself : objectivity is feasible but incompatible with the NPOV policy because objectivity implies judging the credibility of an idea and, hence, expressing a point of view. Emmanuelm (talk) 12:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

As to the Martinphi RfC Fill mentions above, I've read through that but am not sure what I should conclude from it, since it's an RfC,  the RfC ended in the Paranormal ArbComm case which Martinphi seems in his comments here to read as a vindication of his interpretations of policy,  and since it was a year ago.  As I said in my earlier comments, it seems to me that the Rational/Science side reads the Pseudoscience case as vindication of their interpretation and the other side reads the Paranormal case as vindication of their interpretation.  This is the core problem, as I see it and have said before, that each side reads the policy differently, and that there needs to be a determination as to which interpretation is going to be the ruling interpretation.  If an RfC would result in such a determination, let's open an RfC.  If all an RfC would or could do is air the same arguments on both sides with no resolution,  what's the point?[[User:Woonpton|Woonpton]] ([[User talk:Woonpton|talk]]) 16:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

:You said ''Infophile says (above) that "it seems obvious that the other side doesn't want" [to open an RfC] but I'm not sure what's obvious about it.'' I believe you went on to answer this for yourself, if I'm not mistaken. You went right on to say that you see how they'd have no use for an RFC. Is there something else you're not clear on?

:Anyways, the point of opening an RFC as I see it is to get greater communal input as to whose interpretation of policy is indeed correct. ArbCom just won't weigh in on issues like this that have the threat of causing them to make a content decision, so we need to go to an RFC for any determination. I'm thinking it might even be a good idea to ask some of the pro-homeopathy editors to weigh in on this, so that we can accurately represent their view of the situation. --[[User:Infophile|Infophile]] <sup>[[User_talk:Infophile|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Infophile|(Contribs)]]</sup> 20:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

:I've gone ahead and started an [[Talk:Homeopathy#RFC|RFC on the article]]. Note that I'm taking the hard-line approach in my particular description, because that's what I believe it really should be, past any compromises. It doesn't really seem like a good idea to start off with a compromised position, from a purely tactical standpoint. --[[User:Infophile|Infophile]] <sup>[[User_talk:Infophile|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Infophile|(Contribs)]]</sup> 20:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

:Infophile, I'm with you;  I do think it's a good idea, and in fact how it came out would probably determine whether I would decide to contribute significantly in Wikipedia or not
:When I said "I'm not sure what's obvious about it" I just meant I wasn't sure what you meant by it.  
:I still haven't learned how to read Wiki discussions, and I didn't realize until just now that there is still a discussion going on up in the "Why is there fighting," section where some of these issues are being discussed. It seems to me that it suggests that a full airing of the dilemma could be productive and useful to the project. [[User:Woonpton|Woonpton]] ([[User talk:Woonpton|talk]]) 21:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


If we do a more general RfC or community discussion on NPOV, I have compiled some more general questions I would like to see addressed [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Raymond_arritt/Expert_withdrawal/RfCpoints here]. Bear in mind this is just some stuff off the top of my head and it probably needs editing and expanding.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 21:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

:Filll is at least right that policy is a mess.  For one thing, the "mainstream" thing backfires badly, in terms of writing articles.  The RfC on me, well, yes, my interpretation of NPOV was rejected by a large number of editors.  I asked of the ArbCom that I be corrected if I was wrong.  The ArbCom put points from my essay into their decision.  I think that yes, there is a large group at WP which is still attracted to the [[WP:SPOV]] principle, and that would be fine with me if it really were policy.  They are the ones who rejected my interpretation of NPOV.  So there you have the explanation of why it looked bad for pseudoscience proponents, but the "debate" still goes on.  One other thing: the ArbCom on pseudoscience does not conflict with the ArbCom on the Paranormal.  They compliment each other, and NPOV articles could be written from them. ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#FFFFFF;">Martin<sup>phi</sup></span>]]'''    [[User talk:Martinphi|☎]] Ψ [[Special:Contributions/Martinphi|Φ]]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 07:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Fill, I do think it should be a general RfC participated in by the wider community.   I think your list is a remarkable compilation, and certainly a great start for discussion.  Is it possible to start a general RfC on the topic of WP:NPOV?  Or does it have to be tied to a particular article or specific issue? [[User:Woonpton|Woonpton]] ([[User talk:Woonpton|talk]]) 04:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

:It could be a central discussion as well, but I do not have much experience with those. Article RfCs rarely bring much outside interest unfortunately.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 13:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

::Well, there aren't that many options for more general RFCs, beyond User Conduct (which might be worth pursuing. Whig looks headed for a ban, otherwise I'd recommend him. Well, this gets into another discussion). Anyways, the problem here is that although we went and did an article RFC, its results were roundly ignored by the pro-homeopathy contingent who immediately went on to argue for the removal of the swimming pool example. At least now we have more evidence of them ignoring consensus... --[[User:Infophile|Infophile]] <sup>[[User_talk:Infophile|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Infophile|(Contribs)]]</sup> 17:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

And NPOV and other policies. And engaging in page spamming. My gosh, they just repeat the same complaint over and over and over. It is ludicrous. We need to nail them for this, because it makes the talk page extremely unpleasant. I was pleased with myself for finding an error in a textbook ([http://philipmahler.name/Middlesex/MA1104/Chapter_5/Class%20Guide%205-3.pdf Section 5.3], ''Beginning Algebra, 10/E'', Margaret L. Lial, John Hornsby, Terry McGinnis,  [[Addison-Wesley]], Copyright: 2008, Published: 01/02/2007, {{ISBN|0321437268}}) and they have turned it into World War III. Now I think eventually the text will be much better and have more examples in it and better references and we will avoid the plagiarism that [[User: Wikidudeman]] seems to have fallen into, but it is still annoying. --[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 17:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

::I don't know if it will turn out this way, but it would be nice if the Signpost interviews with Science Apologist and Martinphi would lead to a community-wide discussion of the issues.  It will depend mostly on what questions are asked, and also of course on how they're answered, but at least it's an attempt to lay out the positions on the issues we're concerned about.  There were some good questions posed and Zvika seemed to be making a sincere effort to understand the issues and ask the right questions, so I hope the right questions will be asked, and will be answered thoughtfully and honestly,  in order to lay bare the fundamental disagreement so that people can see what's at issue here.  [[User:Woonpton|Woonpton]] ([[User talk:Woonpton|talk]]) 19:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

:::Right.  Zvika he nice-person, and probably don't want to be involved.  May need to construct a neutral forum. ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#ffffff;">Martin<sup>phi</sup></span>]]'''    [[User talk:Martinphi|☎]] Ψ [[Special:Contributions/Martinphi|Φ]]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 08:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

== WP needs more dispassionate editing == 

Under the open Wikipedia model, those editors most passionate about a topic, will tend to be the most persistent, most verbose, sometimes the most productive, and often the most disruptive. Passion has its place, but I would submit that editing an encyclopedia is not the place for place for excessive passion about individual topics. Conversely, I can't dispute that complex, obscure, arcane, specialized or highly technical topics need the input of knowledgeable editors who would not have achieved their level of expertise without some passion for the subject.  How to balance these factors?   I think uninvolved admins need to use a much heavier hand when stepping into a dispute.  Intractable editors whose contributions are not consensus-building need to be topic banned.  No one is indispensable especially with regards to an individual topic.  This is not a problem that is limited to fringe and pseudoscience, it's a big problem all over the project.  I think that in many cases, removing the <s>two or four</s> most disruptive, tendentious, intractable  - in other words, passionate, editors from both sides of a dispute might go a long way. [[User:Dlabtot|Dlabtot]] ([[User talk:Dlabtot|talk]]) 23:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

:What's the point?  Get rid of those and ten more fill in their places.  Getting rid of the immediate disrupters wouldn't solve the problem, it just ensures more fighting down the line, but with different people.  I agree, science vs fringe is only a subset of the main problem; others have pointed that out earlier on this page, that people working in all areas have the same problem with cranks and crackpots of all different kinds.   It's all the different groups trying to force points of view that don't fit with a rational, dispassionate evaluation (otherwise known as NPOV) of the topic at hand, that are the problem. As long as the encyclopedia hasn't decided where it's going to come down on NPOV, these fights will just go on and on and on. [[User:Woonpton|Woonpton]] ([[User talk:Woonpton|talk]]) 00:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

::The point is that the 'true-believers' on the fringe side tend to outnumber the passionate on the rational side - so this recipe will help tip the balance towards fringe domination.  Dlabtot has baited SA on the talk page for the interview, so I have trouble taking this suggestion at face value.  Removing disruptive and tendentious editors is fine, but suggesting that there should be tit-for-tat removals is unhelpful.  If an objective evaluation shows one DE/TE on side A and ten on side B, then remove all eleven - simple.  The problem is to get an evaluation done, and then (harder still) to get it to be thorough and objective - and then to find an admin who is willing to act for the sake of improving the article.  [[User:Jay*Jay|Jay*Jay]] ([[User talk:Jay*Jay|talk]]) 00:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC) <small>Note: the above striking of 'two or four' was added over three hours [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User%3ARaymond_arritt%2FExpert_withdrawal&diff=199273461&oldid=199234371 ''after''] the comment below was posted. [[User:Jay*Jay|Jay*Jay]] ([[User talk:Jay*Jay|talk]]) 06:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)</small>
::: As I said, this is not a problem that is restricted to 'fringe' topics.   As far as your entirely false attack on my credibility - yawn.  Concerning the one slightly salient point you've made - yes, if there are ten overly passionate editors on one side of an argument, and one overly passionate editor on the other - yes, those eleven should be topic banned.  That's my point. [[User:Dlabtot|Dlabtot]] ([[User talk:Dlabtot|talk]]) 01:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

::Your point is well taken, JayJay,  and my own limited observation tends to support your skepticism.  [[User:Woonpton|Woonpton]] ([[User talk:Woonpton|talk]]) 15:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The basic misunderstanding, Woonpton, is "don't fit with a rational, dispassionate evaluation."  We as WP editors don't evaluate the truthiness of a subject, in logical or scientific or other ways.  We follow the sources.  As long as people are evaluating, then we are not writing NPOV articles, and this will go on, from both sides.  But don't think that you're on the side of the truth and the light.... because if you are, then you aren't right for WP. ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#ffffff;">Martin<sup>phi</sup></span>]]'''    [[User talk:Martinphi|☎]] Ψ [[Special:Contributions/Martinphi|Φ]]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 06:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

:Well, that was the question, wasn't it?  That is the question I've been asking and trying to find an answer to, before I commit to spending time working at this project:  is there a place for a rational, well-informed editor who believes that encyclopedia articles should reflect a neutral, dispassionate, objective view of the topic in question?  You say no, there's not, I'm "not right for WP" and I appreciate your telling me that in such a straightforward manner.   I've half suspected that to be true, but never expected anyone to say it in so many words.  You'll forgive me, however, if I don't take your assessment as the final word on the subject, as I'm not convinced yet that that's the final word from Wikipedia, that Wikipedia doesn't want people like me who believe, as the general public seems to believe, that an encyclopedia should be factually accurate and should reflect an accurate picture of a topic.  The question I've asked publicly in a couple of places, and privately to myself as I've observed the endless battle between rationality and credulity as it plays out in again and again in this project, is:  When rationality collides with credulity, which side will Wikipedia choose to back?  So far, my observations seem to suggest that Wikipedia is trying to have it both ways, by allowing different factions to interpret NPOV differently and let the sides duke it out til it becomes a user conduct issue,  and then treat it as a user conduct issue, rather than choosing sides between rationality and irrationality.   But Wikipedia can't have it both ways;  at some point the community has to choose, or will have the choice taken away from them by forces they can no longer control.  If Wikipedia really means to be a serious encyclopedia, as it keeps affirming in ArbCom cases, then Wikipedia must choose the side of rationality.  If Wikipedia chooses to promote irrationality, or "truthiness", defined as whatever people want to believe that has no foundation in reason, logic, or common sense, then I'd agree, I'm not right for Wikipedia.  But I'm still not entirely convinced that Wikipedia really seriously intends that to be its future, so I'm still waiting for a more definitive and official answer to my question. [[User:Woonpton|Woonpton]] ([[User talk:Woonpton|talk]]) 23:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

:Well I for one want you Woonpton. I think the encyclopedia must not be a laughing stock. And some decisions on content need to be made some other way besides just relying on "consensus" which in many cases just means a huge fight until one side or the other loses enough people through fatigue and blocking that they give up. However, we have many who do not want to base the pedia on facts and rationality. And that is part of the problem. A big part.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 01:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

::Thanks, Fill. [[User:Woonpton|Woonpton]] ([[User talk:Woonpton|talk]]) 02:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

:::The problem perhaps is that the consensus that should really matter is the consensus in the real world, not the consensus decided on by a couple of spotty admin herberts. It seems quite clear that Wikipedia has now developed a systemic bias in favour of the views of schoolchildren, due in no minor part to the risible RfA process. --[[User:Malleus Fatuarum|Malleus Fatuorum]] ([[User talk:Malleus Fatuarum|talk]]) 03:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

== Forthcoming arbitration on fringe theories ==

It looks likely that the ArbCom will accept an arbitration on [[9/11 conspiracy theories]] which will raise issues of direct relevance to this discussion, specifically the treatment of fringe theories and editors. See [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#9/11 conspiracy theories]]. -- [[User:ChrisO|ChrisO]] ([[User talk:ChrisO|talk]]) 02:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

== Look. ==

We are here to constructively build, by the use of Internet technologies, an open informational resource, in encyclopedic format, for the free use of all people.  Experts are critical to all resources.

Therefore, I issue a direct challenge to anybody who feels that experts should not have a definite, fair say in the building of this resource: shut up and go away, you're not helping at all.  And I sympathise with all the experts out there who feel they can't edit the English Wikipedia and bring their knowledge to bear.

Let us all work together as a community dedicated to, in [[User:Jimmy Wales|Jimmy Wales']] words, "bringing the sum of human knowledge to every person on [and off] the planet, free, in their own language."  — [[User:Thomas H. Larsen|Thomas H. Larsen]] 08:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

== One solution that is already here is the arbitration Cabal ==
<br />
I think the biggest problem is lack of common sense and lack of order. I've read several of the suggestions above, and many of them are intriguing. The wikipedia is in fact a big community and as such it's dynamics dictate where it's going. Without some kind of survey to know what is happening in this community is hard to come up with effective prescriptions. Under this uncertainty it seems logical to take positive action with the tools already available and engage on mediation. I know that the mediation cabal is looking for volunteers, and mediators can potentially have a big influence on how conflicts are resolved.<br />
I'm not sure if what I this is already being addressed at the Cabal. But I think the lack of order in talk pages is a huge problem. I would think it wouldn't be too difficult to come up with discussion/mediation guidelines that would slowly build agreement based on common sense. And I have to stress the word build, knowledge builds on itself. And it's easier for people who are not as compromised with applying common sense to take a destructive attitude, ignoring any sense of order. If good mediators were available it would raise the standard of rationality on the discussion pages.
Interestingly, if an community oriented approach would work, it would also be a huge accomplishment for the internet community as a whole. As opposed to a system that relied on credentials like citizendium.<br />
Paraphrasing the point I made before. I can appreciate how unorganized expression of ideas can be productive. But a little order does not hurt. I'm not sure if this page is the best example. But the disorganized nature of the talk pages is part of the problem. A technical solution would be to "make a mini-wiki" out of unorganized talk pages. The community based solution would be to have a mediator impart order based on agreed and well-understood guidelines.--[[User:Dela Rabadilla|Dela Rabadilla]] ([[User talk:Dela Rabadilla|talk]]) 04:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

== R Physicist incident ==

Has anyone noticed what is going on e.g. here

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=204930238

There were concerns expressed (by me, e.g.) at this admins RFA, and now a serious incident seems to have blown up concerning a senior academic who has now left the project.  I looked at the article he was complaining about but not enough of an expert to judge.  Another victory of civility over content? [[User:The Rationalist|The Rationalist]] ([[User talk:The Rationalist|talk]]) 07:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

: I read through that (tedious) discussion. I would say that the civility of R Physicist and others was sub-optimal (although not at the level required to trigger my indignation), but I don't see any evidence that accusations of incivility were used to win a content dispute, if that's what you're implying. I presume that R Physicist really is an expert in the subject, but I haven't seen his qualifications, and I don't know how the Wikipedia community is supposed to judge which parties in the discussion have the better qualifications. I value dispassionate expertise, but the level required is not extreme since we should not be evaluating primary sources anyway. --[[User:Art Carlson|Art Carlson]] ([[User talk:Art Carlson|talk]]) 10:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


I have not finished reading all of the deletion discussion. This reminds me of the recent AfD discussion of an article that was titled something like [[Evolutionary Theory of Sex]]. Like this article, it was mainly notable in the Russian literature. Like this article, it was probably being promoted by its authors or a group close to the authors. Like this article, it was written in stilted English. I only commented at the Sex AfD, but this is part of a bigger question; at what point do we decide an article or an area is notable enough for inclusion when it is not widel known, but not really a [[WP:FRINGE]] theory in the sense of pseudoscience? I am a bit of an inclusionist, so I lean towards keeping these, since WP is not paper, but I am less concerned by the notability than by the horrendous writing standards, and the difficulty in cleaning them up. I am not sure what we should do in these cases, but they are worth discussing for sure.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 11:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

:: P.S. And anyway, I thought the way it works is that any admin can un-do a block, so it's not like a "teenage" admin can push through anything without at least the passive acceptance of other (mature, pro-science) admins. --[[User:Art Carlson|Art Carlson]] ([[User talk:Art Carlson|talk]]) 07:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

That is the troubling part. That is why I think we need something like a Science Guild here, as I have opined on these pages, anchored to an outside body for content. We need someplace where scientific experts can connect with a community to counter this sort of "CIVILity first, last and always" attitude and organize ourselves. 

I notice that several of the pro-deletion editors used the phrase "self-promotion". A few weeks ago, Jimbo weighed in on the Administrator's Noticeboard that use of the phrase "self-promotion" on a talk page was ''[[prima facie]]'' evidence of unCIVIL behavior and a blockable offense! This is getting a bit crazy. 

I also notice that out of frustration and lack of experience, R Physicist posted some long diatribes in the discussion that were removed or userfied. This is an example of what someone might do who does not understand Wikipedia; i.e., a newbie. 

On science articles, and for all science-related editors, we need to invite them to participate in a Science Guild. Here is one idea of how it might work:

*We have a few scientists here that have willingly dropped anonymity ([[User: Tim Vickers]], [[User: Wesley R. Elsberry]], [[User: William Connelly]] etc). 

*Scientists have a huge advantage over other fields; we can pretty much recognize each other, contrary to historians etc (see the [[Sokal Affair]]).

*Our Guild might have two tiers; verified nonanonymous members and anonymous members. They do not have to be necessarily called that. The anonymous tier would be invited to participate by the nonanonymous tier. 

*We might even develop some contact with the research community in academia as another "anchor" for this Guild, where we could get some sort of outside "peer review" of certain issues, or decisions about some issues. This could be done through the research community that is already forming around Wikipedia (see [[User:Filll/Wikipedia Research]] for example) or through colleagues of the nonanonymous members of the Guild, or by invitation by the Foundation, or even eventually through grants from the Foundation. For example, given the response that nonprofit foundations are giving to Wikipedia, and the response of Congress to Wikipedia a few months back, I can easily imagine we could get some sort of funding program from the Feds to set something like this up.  

*Someone who is new like R Physicist appears, and then when he is clearly (1) interested in science (2) experienced in science (3) not a pseudoscientist, we can give him a place to come for support from a community that understands him, and is not going to put CIVIL ahead of content. 

I might still have voted to Keep (although a very weak Keep, given the sloppy writing style of the article), but at least I am familiar enough with the culture that R Physicist comes from to be able to create a forum where he can have a discussion with peers and colleagues. This is far different than him talking to teenagers who are interested in documenting the Simpson's Episodes or Manga characters.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 12:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

: Agree with what you say. There should be a place (and admins should know about it) where someone like the prof and go and his concern dealt with in a professional way.  Most of the problem was that the attitude of the admins further enraged him.  His points were actually very good ones, if you go through it.  So what is to be done?  [[User:The Rationalist|The Rationalist]] ([[User talk:The Rationalist|talk]]) 14:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


Help me promote the idea of a Scientist Guild, and recruit people for it. Sign up for [[WP:Not the Wikipedia Weekly]] and come discuss it.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 15:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

: Do I understand correctly that you are proposing a "support group" of scientist-editors, rather than any change in policy? --[[User:Art Carlson|Art Carlson]] ([[User talk:Art Carlson|talk]]) 20:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Both.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 20:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
: What change in policy are you proposing? What would an editor have to do to prove he's an expert? What super powers would he then have? How would you define the set of the articles to which a particular scientist's expertise applies? Would the level of civility required from scientists be less than that required by just-plain-folks? --[[User:Art Carlson|Art Carlson]] ([[User talk:Art Carlson|talk]]) 06:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

:: We are here to build a reliable encyclopedia, not necessarily to be civil.  If you can show me how one is a necessary condition of the other, then, yes.  [[User:The Rationalist|The Rationalist]] ([[User talk:The Rationalist|talk]]) 14:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
::: Are you suggesting that scientists shouldn't have to be as civil as other editors, or that nobody should have to be civil? --[[User:Art Carlson|Art Carlson]] ([[User talk:Art Carlson|talk]]) 16:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

:::: Neither really.  Just that civility doesn't matter relative to building the content of a good encyclopedia.  Thus if the incivility is driving away good editors, that's bad.  If it is driving away bad editors, all the better.  Very simple really. What else are we supposed to be doing?  [[User:The Rationalist|The Rationalist]] ([[User talk:The Rationalist|talk]]) 18:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

::::: I agree that we are here to build a good encyclopedia. (If we were just here to be civil to each other, we could go to a chat room and wouldn't have to work so hard.) I believe that civility is important to building a good encyclopedia for a number of reasons, which might be summed up that it makes it more fun to work here. I don't think you will be able to formulate an enforceable civility policy that says it's OK to be uncivil to bad editors to make them quit. If I have properly understood your clarification, then your answer to my question, "Would the level of civility required from scientists be less than that required by just-plain-folks?", is "no". --[[User:Art Carlson|Art Carlson]] ([[User talk:Art Carlson|talk]]) 19:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
:this is a wiki. People should work here if they can work effectively in a wiki environment. Not everyone can--not everyone need to feel that they must do so. there are special skills involved in working in a fragile cooperative environment (such as the skill to not alienate other people, and the reciprocal skill to avoid being over-sensitive to rudeness). Those who are lacking either of the two are probably best working elsewhere--there are many suitable places. This is a project based on open editing, and that also requires certain skills, such as tolerating and being able to talk to the ill-informed, and those propagating odd viewpoints. Again, not everyone has this skills, and not everyone need feel that they must have them, but those who do not are probably going to find themselves more constructive elsewhere. This is a general encyclopedia, and it requires people who can explain things at the suitable level, and can find appropriate tutorial references and links--those who work better at a higher level aren't likely to be able to write good articles here. There are some things that do not work in this environment, and academic arrogance is one of them. I can be arrogant & sarcastic & condescending, and enjoy testing my skills in an appropriate setting. But this is not the setting; it took time to learn, and it takes effort to refrain, but I've gotten used to it a little. 
:There might be a point to such a guild, if it consisted of people who could help the academics acquire the necessary skills in non-technical writing  writing and social behavior. On the other hand, if it consisted of those who were limited in their abilities at such things, and aimed at forming a core of like-minded colleagues, it would be incompatible with the basic concepts of WP. Not that there's anything sacred about WP; just that this is the project devoted to developing it. Yes we can change it, but it has had too much success for it to be a good idea to try to change it radically--it would be better for those who want something drastically different to work on something else that will be drastically different. I'd like to see other good free encyclopedias, and Citizendium needs a good deal of help at present in getting an adequate number of approved articles. Nothing dishonorable about working there instead, or in addition. Nothing wrong in setting out to write a good free textbook in one's field, either, if one cares very much to have it come out the way one wants it. '''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG|talk]]) 22:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


For a new editor, this environment can be a bit confusing and daunting. And one of the things a Science Guild could do is to socialize new editors who are pro-science. I have skimmed through some of R physicist's rants, and although these might be quite reasonable in some contexts, here they might be viewed a bit over the top in some places. 

As for what policy changes are advisable, I think we should be very cautious about that, at this stage of Wikipedia's development. I would advocate small scale tests and experiments of policy changes to understand their effects. I would advocate a research-oriented approach. I would not advocate a wholesale change of any policy since we are much too big and too prominent; I would not want to break a system that has achieved such success, even if it is suboptimal and could be improved.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 15:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

==Place for this discussion==

I only recently came across this page, long after a great deal of discussion had gone by and finished. As a retired academic chemist, I am concerned about some of the issues raised, but I do not think this is the place to raise them. Maybe the talk page of [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Science]] would be better, and draw attention to the discussion there on all the other science project talk pages. I suspect a lot of science editors have not seen this discussion here. --[[User:Bduke|Bduke]] ([[User talk:Bduke|talk]]) 22:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
: I think you are correct. We should produce a summary document and get more involved in outreach. Want to help us?--[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 22:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
::Well, I do not share all you concerns and I do not support the idea of a Science Guild. I think the Science projects do a great deal to help experts fit in. That is the place not only to discuss your problems but to solve them. The central problem is getting new editors, both experts and non-experts, to get into the science project of their choice and learn how things are done. --[[User:Bduke|Bduke]] ([[User talk:Bduke|talk]]) 22:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

:::I have made some efforts to persuade science minded psychs to take up Wiki as this is a particularly thin area and there is a great deal of misinformation being purveyed. But if you look through the psychs listed at the portal, very few are active. Why? Because editors are required to battle with offensive and bullying POV pushers for the most basic of edits, where there is totally inadequate enforcement of policies.[[User:Fainites|Fainites]] <sup><small>[[User_talk:Fainites|barley]]</small></sup> 22:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

==Dana Ullman==

To my vast surprise and dripping sarcasm, the ANI thread on Dana Ullman resulted in nothing. The whole mess with his real-life identity and his past mentorship (along with the Wikilove brigade) has murked up the situation so much that no admin wants to wade in, even though a few seem to agree that he should be blocked, and only one ([[User:Lara Love|Lara Love]]) opposes it (though note that even she seems to have washed her hands of him, wanting nothing more to do with the whole affair). So, the question is, what to do now? I raise this here because most people here are probably already aware of this situation, and have the same problems with Dana. The way I see it, there are three things we can do (before resorting to [[WP:IAR]]):
#Reopen the ANI thread - I raise this simply as a possibility, though I don't think it would do any good.
#Open an RFC on Dana - Problem here is that he's pretty much guaranteed to ignore all comments except those from his supporters. At this point, I think he's provided us plenty of evidence that he's not going to change.
#Request arbitration - Actually has a chance of getting something done, though I suspect they'll just tell us to try an RFC first, which would just waste a month of our time.
Basically, I'm just wavering between trying an RFC or going to RFAR first. What do you all think? --[[User:Infophile|Infophile]] <sup>[[User_talk:Infophile|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Infophile|(Contribs)]]</sup> 16:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

:People are just worn out by the spamming and other assorted nonsense. It is exhausting. What I have asked [[User:GTBacchus]] to do, and he has expressed interest in doing, is to take Dana Ullman under his wing and try to help him behave in a more reasonable fashion. As I pointed out to GTBacchus, if this is not done successfully, Dana Ullman will be vaporized. Sooner or later, this is going to happen. It is inevitable. We cannot tolerate this kind of contrary attitude and combativeness. I do not want to lose Dana Ullman, since he is a great resource, if he would only learn to function within our rules. Although I have prodded GTBacchus about this in the last day or two, I believe he has not been too active on Wikipedia because of real life demands. So my preference would be to try hard one last time to get Dana Ullman (and his enablers like Arion 3x3) to understand that if they do not cooperate, they are going to be gone, just like Whig is gone and several others before him. We had a flood of what appears to be meat puppets and sock puppets a few months ago, and have slowly been picking them off, one after another. This is very time consuming and very wasteful. I would rather socialize them so they are not disruptive, rather than jump through a million hoops to block and ban them. However, if GTBacchus or someone else is not able to get Dana Ullman to come around, I think our next step is an RfC to really make it extremely clear to him that we cannot put up with this nonsense and if he does not resolve to change and change drastically, he will be history.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 17:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

::Sounds alright to me. I do agree that if he could come around and would appreciate NPOV, Dana could indeed be a great resource. If GTBacchus doesn't show up and respond soon, I guess we should start drafting an RFC. --[[User:Infophile|Infophile]] <sup>[[User_talk:Infophile|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Infophile|(Contribs)]]</sup> 19:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

==Issues==
Maybe these issues have been addressed higher up the page, but the main problems I have come across dealing with pseudoscience nutters and POV pushers in the less popular areas of psychology are the fact that ArbCom is wet and only takes the minimum action after the most extreme and extended behaviour. Secondly, there isn't even an ArbCom equivalent for content. Its all very well admins and other people dipping in and reminding people of policies and dipping out again but what do POV pushers care for that? They will simply continue to declare a source says the opposite of what it actually says and without ''numbers'' there is little one can do. Some of the people indulging in this behaviour claim professional qualifications and expertise. The psychology section of Wiki is a moribund mess. Many knowledgeable psychs have simply been bullied off or been unwilling to waste their lives in perpetual pointless argument and edit wars against aggressive and offensive POV pushers. At least the big topics garner some support but the medium or smaller topics are a treacherous minefield. Requests for help from the project in respect of the most obvious abuses get no response. This isn't a plea for a panel of experts or a science guild or anything like that - but there needs to be some understanding of why existing policies are ''simply not enforced'' by admins or ArbCom.[[User:Fainites|Fainites]] <sup><small>[[User_talk:Fainites|barley]]</small></sup> 22:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

:I agree. In fact I tend to stay away from psychological topics for that reason. "Moribund mess" is about right, but I can't see that changing any time soon. --[[User:Malleus Fatuarum|Malleus Fatuorum]] ([[User talk:Malleus Fatuarum|talk]]) 22:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

::Trouble is - they nearly ''all'' stay away from those topics "for that reason". [[User:Fainites|Fainites]] <sup><small>[[User_talk:Fainites|barley]]</small></sup> 23:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

:Fainites, you've hit the nail right on the head.  I've tried to stay clear away from psychology because even topics I care less about that I have some expertise in are done so badly that I figured that looking at the psychology articles  would make me foam at the mouth, and I didn't want to be frothing at the mouth, so I've stayed away.  But your appeal touched me, and I went and looked at some of your contributions.   Your summary of the research on Neurolinguistic programming was excellent, a beautiful example of what NPOV should look like, IMO.  I'm not ready to commit to joining you and adding to your numbers on psychology topics, for reasons we've discussed here and you summarize so well,  but I just want to say I admire what you've been able to accomplish.  The thing is that we need to change the atmosphere for NPOV editors so these editors can assume that they will be backed up rather than ignored and dismissed, so that NPOV can be ensured without having to constantly defend it against those who are interested in advancing a POV.   And I agree, it's not a science guild I'm looking for either, or even a content arbitration committee, but simply a consistent enforcement of core policies.  

:This provides a good illustration of my earlier point that the idea, suggested by some,  that social science topics require a different "kind" of NPOV than science topics, is just nonsense.  NPOV is NPOV.  [[User:Woonpton|Woonpton]] ([[User talk:Woonpton|talk]]) 20:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
:: Hi Woonpton again.  I agree.  NPOV is NPOV.  Hi Fainites - sorry if it sounds rude but what do you do here? [[User:The Rationalist|The Rationalist]] ([[User talk:The Rationalist|talk]]) 14:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

:You all may have seen this already, but at the Homeopathy arbitration workshop page, Krill has proposed [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Homeopathy/Workshop#Sourcing_Adjudication_Board a sourcing adjudication board].  I'm not sure what I think about it (being able to judge the merit of a source requires either deep familiarity with the specific subject area or strong training and experience in analyzing and critically evaluating research of all kinds; if the adjudication board isn't made of people who have one or both of these kinds of training, chances are it will make the situation worse rather than better, IMO). But it's an effort to address the problem, anyway.[[User:Woonpton|Woonpton]] ([[User talk:Woonpton|talk]]) 15:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
:: what do you think?  I like the idea but one guy mentioned the problem of being able to staff the board with any experts at all.  I wonder if a referee system would work: leave the community to work things out, unless it becomes to difficult, then refer to the board of referees.  I'll mull it over. [[User:The Rationalist|The Rationalist]] ([[User talk:The Rationalist|talk]]) 16:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
:::any editor in difficulty is already free to ask a more experienced member of the community for advice, or for formal mentorship. I am asked from time to time on matters such have been discussed here, and I try to give what assistance I can: support when appropriate, and sometimes the unwelcome information that an article , or an argument,  is unlikely to be accepted. I base it not on my own views, but on what I think from experience will work here. '''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG|talk]]) 08:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

== Civility police ==

I wonder if anyone has noticed the gigantic discussion going on around [[User:FT2]]'s talk page, concerning [[User:Giano]].  I know Giano is not a science editor, but he is in my view a good editor, and not a particularly rude one (though his manner can be abrasive at time, I believe).  This whole case seems to be cooked up to prove a point about Civility vs Content.  If anyone has a concern about this (I do) perhaps they could register their concern on the page, or on AN/I.  [[User:The Rationalist|The Rationalist]] ([[User talk:The Rationalist|talk]]) 05:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


== Proposal 3 ==

<div style="float: center; margin-left: 5px; width: 450px; border: #99B3FF solid 5px; padding: 5px; clear: right"><center>'''Support Wikipedia, boycott dysfunctional journals'''<br>
Given the level of dysfunction and hegemony that has come to prevail in many professional journals, the most appropriate course for a principled scientist is to participate in the development of an an open, accessible, and democratic knowledge dialogue and boycott other dysfunctional outlets.</center> 
</div>
[[User:Bmistler|B. Mistler]] ([[User_talk:Bmistler|talk]]) 02:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

==The the proposal==
<font size="+1"></b></font>
<div style="float: center; margin-left: 5px; width: 450px; border: #99B3FF solid 5px; padding: 5px; clear: right">
After having worked on many articles related to [[The Beatles]], this user will never contribute again if one is forced to write "the Beatles". It looks stupid, and makes me feel ill. Castigate my attitude if you will, but it is mine, after all...--[[User:Andreasegde|andreasegde]] ([[User talk:Andreasegde|talk]]) 02:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)  
</div>

==Proposal of new storage tactics==
''06-Sep-2008:'' I understand the frustrations about conflicting attitudes and edits, but I think there are several storage tactics which can be used to greatly avoid Wikipedia chaos:
* first, don't get overly upset, because Wikipedia is just a small part of the whole;
* check progress on [[Veropedia]] or [[Citizendium]], in case they have grown into better repositories as scientific websites;
* write multiple articles (not just one battleground text) about a subject, as in the style of 12 articles about "[[The Da Vinci Code]]"; each article can present a different viewpoint to avoid the "all eggs in one basket" censorship and hacking;
* on talk-pages, link a verified revision, so people can click to get a coherent copy before all the debating/hacking is done to newer revisions;
* for a new subject, develop a coherent article off-line to upload as revision #1 (as the sane version before edit-wars began); promote a culture that revision 1 is likely to be a unified view of the subject, before detractors began hacking (then later, link a newer verified version into the talk-page);
* state your biases (per Einstein, "Education is the collection of prejudices acquired by age 18"), as biases listed on the talk-page, or coded into an article as "underlying assumptions" or such, to alert readers to the overall focus of the article, before hacker drift;

* encourage difficult people to enter psychiatric counseling: although typically resisting change, some form of intervention might work, and hundreds of hours of edit-wars could be averted when people are sane again; hundreds of wiki writers might be mentally ill;
* beware extreme mindsets, and be quiet: it won't stop a serial killer by proclaiming, "You're a serial killer, now be nice"; once suspected, step back and avoid them like [[Wikipedia:What is a troll|wiki-troll]]s; cross-correlate behavior to judge sanity, because a severe mindset in angry denial is a sure sign of deep trouble; protect email addresses, but warn others secretly of severe signs.
* request multiple-registered aliases: there are real fears of wiki-stalking of contributions and hounding talk-page friends; however, separate use of multiple ids can provide some privacy against tracing a list of recent contributions; perhaps have one id reserved only to warn of psychotic trouble, not tied to daily edits.

* remember, most can be recovered: even if a wiki-stalker radically "improves" someone's key articles to bait them, those articles can be reverted after a few days, or reshaped as new article names in the confederation of articles, such as "[[Attitude shifts during Einstein's career]]" or similar articles which can study complex issues, in quiet corners of Wikipedia, but also be found by readers running searches of article contents.
* avoid hot-topic titles: trying to stabilize articles such as "Creationism" or "Stem-cell whatever" will produce the age-old weakness ("resistance is futile") against the higher powers of wiki-chaos. Vandalism is fostered by 3 things: article location, location, location; protection is improved for a rose by another name. The laws of wiki-name physics are very powerful in protecting article contents, perhaps 1,000x times better than using controversial names.

In the broad ocean of Wikipedia articles, there is great potential to promote new, solid technologies and have a recovery of great ideas, formerly lost by social stigmas or other censorship factors.  Again, seek a confederation of articles about a subject, to avoid "[[single point of failure]]" edit problems: it is rare for all articles, in a set, to be relentlessly slanted or censored (although it has happened to some extent). Next, on an article's talk-page, also click-link to a known, verified revision of the article: in a sense, the truth is hiding among the revisions, with safety in numbers. -[[User:Wikid77|Wikid77]] ([[User talk:Wikid77|talk]]) 08:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

[[Category:Wikipedia essays about experts and expertise|{{SUBPAGENAME}}]]

[[Category:User essays]]
<!-- Not "an" essay, but a collection of short ones by multiple users.-->