Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience/Workshop/Proposed Principles: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 22:15, 6 November 2006

Latest revision as of 01:48, 27 May 2011

(7 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)

Line 1,065:

::

===Editors should not criticize the credentials or abilities of other editors.===

===Template===

1a) Per [[WP:CIVIL]] and [[WP:NPA]], and to avoid the [[ad hominem]] fallacy, all discussion on talk pages should focus entirely on issues and not on personalities. Any criticism of a fellow editor, as opposed to that person's edits, constitutes a personal attack and is not permitted. This includes criticism of an editor's competence, knowledge of a subject area, level of education, affiliations, or integrity. An exception exists for good-faith concerns over an editor's conduct.

1) {text of proposed principle}

:Comment by Arbitrators:

::Way too wordy. It is just not a good idea to summarize another user with a short pungent label. [[User:Fred Bauder|Fred Bauder]] 22:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

:Comment by parties:

::So presumable ScienceApologist's comments that I am an "avowed Velikovskian" would be an example of a good faith concern over my conduct? --[[User:Iantresman|Iantresman]] 18:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

:::Probably not--this proposal would treat any comment on your affiliation(s) (whether true or not) as irrelevant and thus out of bounds. Even under the alternate proposal, this might not be acceptable--at least as far as "Vekikovskian" is a synonym for "pseudoscientist". --[[User:EngineerScotty|EngineerScotty]] 19:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

:Comment by others:

:: One alternative--essentially says that criticising other editors is off-limits.

===Acceptable criticism of other editors===

1b) Per [[WP:CIVIL]] and [[WP:NPA]], criticism of other editors (as opposed to their edits or ideas) is discouraged, and outright "flames" are prohibited. Occasionally, however, one encounters an editor who insists on [[WP:DE|disrupting]] pages despite a clear lack of knowledge in the subject area. As Wikipedia strives to be a scholarly work, and repeated insertion of dubious material is damaging to that end, editors may '''politely''' question the competence of other editors in a given subject area, after prior dicussion has taken place and failed to resolve a conflict. Editors may also politely question the competence of other editors during dispute resolution. Such criticism should focus only on an editor's knowledge of a subject area, and should not be endlessly repeated.

:Comment by Arbitrators:

Line 1,075 ⟶ 1,090:

:Comment by others:

::Another alternative--essentially says that in certain cases, telling someone that they don't know what they are talking about is permissible. Politely informing the ArbCom that someone doesn't know what they are talking about is also permissible. Aggressive bashing with a cluestick, however, remains prohibited anywhere within Wikipedia.

===Editors should not criticize the credentials or abilities of authors===

1a) Per [[WP:BLP]], editors should not deprecate sources as unreliable via the mechanism of unsourced criticism of the author(s). Sourced criticism of the author is permissible, as are criticisms of a source's methodology or soundness, but attempts to exclude a source from Wikipedia simply because an editor considers the source's author to be "incompetent", "unauthorative", "biased", "unreliable", and other generic criticism, are to be avoided.

:Comment by Arbitrators:

::Goes too far. I think it is fine to characterize a source as unreliable. For example, saying Carlos Castanada's books are an unreliable source regarding the relationship between hallucinogenic drugs and the spiritual world is fine. Saying Carlos Castanada's work is a fraud is not OK. If you are familiar with the books you don't need a source. [[User:Fred Bauder|Fred Bauder]] 22:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

:Comment by parties:

::

:Comment by others:

:: One alternative--essentially says that deprecating sources via negative comments about their authors, is not allowed. Sourced criticism ("This paper in ''Science'' says that the paper you site is rubbish") is permitted, as are specific criticisms concerning a paper's content.

:::Even if ''Science'' says "rubbish" better to say "considered unfounded" or the equivalent here. [[User:Fred Bauder|Fred Bauder]] 22:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

===Acceptable criticism of authors and sources===

1) Per [[WP:V]], [[WP:NOR]], and [[WP:RS]], it is essential that Wikipedia use reliable sources. To that end, it is permissible in talk pages to question the reliability or applicability of a given source to a given topic, including reflection of an author's poor standing within an academic community. Such criticisms must be civil in nature, avoid libellous statements, and concentrate on the applicability of the source to the topic in question, but may otherwise express a negative opinion of the author or source.

:Comment by Arbitrators:

::Excellent, although still wordy. [[User:Fred Bauder|Fred Bauder]] 22:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

:Comment by parties:

::

:Comment by others:

:: One alternative--essentially says that it is permissible to politely say "that source is rubbish", without having to demonstrate exactly why, or find someone outside Wikipedia who has gone on record denouncing the source as rubbish. (As has been pointed out, much published rubbish is ignored by the academic literature on many subjects--if it were decided that "this is rubbish" criticisms were not permissible unless a published criticism saying so existed elsewhere, then many examples of rubbish would be immune from criticism due to being resoundingly ignored).

:::Again, best to avoid pithy summaries, low quality or very low quality is much better. (How did I get to be Miss Manners?) [[User:Fred Bauder|Fred Bauder]] 22:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

===Template===

Line 1,148 ⟶ 1,190:

:Comment by others:

::

{{NOINDEX}}