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

Revision as of 18:57, 8 November 2006

Latest revision as of 01:48, 27 May 2011

(5 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)

Line 1,069:

: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:

Line 1,095 ⟶ 1,097:

: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:

Line 1,101 ⟶ 1,103:

: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===

Line 1,107 ⟶ 1,110:

:Comment by Arbitrators:

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

::

:Comment by parties:

Line 1,114 ⟶ 1,117:

: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 1,186 ⟶ 1,190:

:Comment by others:

::

{{NOINDEX}}