Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science/Evidence: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
|||
| (20 intermediate revisions by 12 users not shown) | |||
Line 21:
==Evidence presented by [[user:Seicer|Seicer]]==
''I am currently out of town, and now have access to a laptop, but will have limited internet access until January 2. I will provide a fuller evidence statement, and condense my statements after that.'' <small>[[User:Seicer|<
===Wikipedia is a battleground===
{{
===Death threats===
{{
Seriously, all, get the FUCK OFF MY TALKPAGE."
Line 36:
===Retilatory and frivolous actions===
{{
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=259567006 15:42, 22 December 2008]}}
Line 104:
==Evidence presented by [[User:Martinphi|Martinphi]]==
I would like to formally submit the Durga's Trident evidence as presented [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Cold_fusion/Evidence&oldid=254855873#Evidence_presented_by_Durga.27s_Trident here], and the evidence of Max Pont [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Cold_fusion/Evidence&oldid=258086114#Evidence_presented_by_user:MaxPont here]. The Durga's Trident evidence was originally presented by sock. I claim the Durga's Trident evidence as my own, and present it to the Arbitration Committee as my own. I vouch for it, and you may consider it as presented by me. ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#ffffff;">Martin<sup>phi</sup></span>]]'''
===Statement of context===
Line 124:
This is a statement that SPOV is the policy of Wikipedia (it is also policy creation by the Arbitration Committee). (see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&oldid=260628158#appeal_of_ArbComm_decision this] for further explanation.) If the Committee really meant it, then it should be put into policy that Fringe articles are to be SPOV. But please don't lie to the readers about NPOV any more. The fringe articles are not NPOV.
The committee has come down hard on promotion of fringe views, but it has said nothing about debunking, as if it truly thinks debunking is a good thing. Please either ban fringe topics from Wikipedia, make sure they aren't debunking, or formally embrace SPOV/debunking (have you or haven't you already?). ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#ffffff;">Martin<sup>phi</sup></span>]]'''
Line 154:
:::''The scariest part to me is the statement, "Mention of homeopathy violates NPOV... This is one of the most outrageous cases of censorship that I've run across in a while."'' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AWikiProject_Plants&diff=186761439&oldid=186747413]
:::''"Science fundamentalism" is a pseudoscience at worst, and a political phenomenon at best, because it assumes that examination of evidence, experimentation, falsification, and the other tools of scientists are insufficient to discredit specific ideas, and that those ideas must be suppressed, or "debunked" in a manner beyond application of the tools of science... As a political movement, IMO science fundamentalism has done great harm to science, leading the gullible to believe that science is nothing more than a belief system.... Homeopathy as a science is bunk.... ScienceApologist is an irritating editor, who in my view does more harm than good....I don't see SA zealously trying to represent fringe ideas at all; I see him zealously trying to suppress them (I have no diffs any different from all those already presented elsewhere). I'm no newbie when it comes to fringe science; I taught evolution for a number of years... demonstrating the unsupportability of a proposition through citations of reliable sources definitely has a place in Wikipedia; debunking, being necessarily POV, doesn't.'' (excerpted from [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Fringe_science/Evidence#Hi_there.21 this thread])
MrDarwin, another mainstream scientist with excellent credentials '''who left Wikipedia mainly over the same situation''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MrDarwin] said:
:::''(1) a small group of editors who have demonstrated no knowledge, expertise, or even a particular interest in botany have been editing, more or less by fiat, several plant species articles to expunge ''any and all'' references to homeopathy, without seeking or even considering consensus or compromise from the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants]] project editors, many of whom have been working on these articles for several years (and ''none'' of whom are attempting to promote homeopathy); (2) this group of editors continues to mischaracterize other editors as "pro-homeopathy" when what those editors are trying to do is to ''acknowledge'' the well-documented ''use'' of several plant species in homeopathy; and (3) that it has become apparent that ''no'' source will be admitted as "reliable" by this group of editors, not even publications by professional botanists in the peer-reviewed botanical literature.'' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=prev&oldid=187479160]
Line 180:
The disruptive actions of "mainstream pushers" are defended here as necessary to defeat "fringe POV pushers" especially civil ones. Others contend that defending science is not sufficient excuse for the disruption. That is how the debate has been framed. I say that those who portray themselves as mainstream pushers are not defending mainstream science. They are just debunking.
That, at least, is what one scientific experiment had to say on the matter. ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#ffffff;">Martin<sup>phi</sup></span>]]'''
===Further===
Line 314:
===Wikipedia is targeted===
* See
*: ''"One potential dangerous adverse effect of the anti-inflammatory drug Arthrotec (diclofenac and misoprostol) is that it can cause miscarriage, yet this piece of information is omitted. Another example of missing information is the possibility of the herb St John’s Wort interfering with the action of Prezista (darunavir), a HIV drug."''
Line 382:
One of the problems we are facing here is this idea of a [[WP:BATTLE|war going one between the fringe and mainstream science.]] We continue to hear various editors state that we must fight the fringe and keep them from promoting their POV's. One example from this vary own arbcom is this:
{{
We see this time and again with people railing on how we should not give any fringe topic/article credit and also we should, as an encyclopedia, present the subject as something loony. The problem with this idea of mainstream science prevails over all, is that it is not Wikipedia's job to promote or discredit anything. We are here only to present the topic with as much factual information to inform the reader. Wikipedia is not here to dismiss or discredit anything. To do so would be considered [[WP:OR|Original Research.]] We are here only to report of what the topic is in a way to leave the reader better informed without imparting a bias for or against the topic. This is a constant across Wikipedia and does not change because it is a science article.
Line 441:
==Evidence presented by Olive==
Response to [[User:MastCell|Mastcell]] : SPOV discussion archived on discussion page of [[WP:NPOV]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view/Archive_31#SPOV]
:I am stunned by Tzankai's recent block of Martinphi. I am in the dark as to what was on his userpage that caused an indefinite block. Tzankai your description of what has gone on the evidence and workshop pages is not accurate . Except for attacks by one user against Martin here, and I can provide diffs if you want, discussion has been quite even tempered and many editors with multiple viewpoint have been posting . I think there are some excellent proposals coming out of this as well, an indication of progress. I am not comfortable with being characterized as on one side or the other in this discussion. I don't want to see any editor blocked and feel that the Wikipedia environment created over a long period of time has created an environment where an editor such as SA has run a ground. Change will hopefully come with some of the new proposals. As well your judgment of Martin is wildly inaccurate. All editors here are expressing views and possible solutions to concerns. An editor posting here unless uncivil must be protecetd so that no editor is afraid to post. I know of several editors who would like to contribute but won't post here for fear of being attacked or their editing environment compromised. Martin's understanding of this area has helped clarify many issues, and his language can be seen in some of the proposals. I hope Martin has been given a chance to explain and to respond to your block.([[User:Littleolive oil|olive]] ([[User talk:Littleolive oil|talk]]) 18:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC))
==Evidence presented by [[User:Eldereft|Eldereft]]==
Line 447 ⟶ 449:
===Most readers have a mainstream perspective===
Most readers do not share the peculiar perspective of adherents to certain of the topics covered by [[Wikipedia:Fringe theories]]. Unmeasurable [[putative energy]] does not exist, NASA did not fake the Apollo program, conservation of energy is more than just a suggestion, magnets do not stimulate the human body's innate ability to heal itself, there is no clinically relevant <b>R</b><sup>3</sup>
===Weighting by reliability is not the same as weighting by depth of coverage===
Line 475 ⟶ 477:
That covers all of Pcarbonn's evidence. ([[User talk:Phil153|talk]]) 19:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
==Evidence presented by [[User:Shot_info]]==▼
==Evidence presented by [[user:MaxPont]]==
Line 581 ⟶ 570:
The idea that Wikipedia should be a “mainstream” dictionary and only represent the generally accepted establishment POV will kill Wikipedia as a dynamic evolving collaborative repository of all human knowledge for the Internet age. If a WP:Mainstream[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_a_mainstream_encyclopedia] is ever enacted it would make Wikipedia an incredible boring project. It also directly contradicts Jimbo Wales’s vision for Wikipedia:
{{Quotation|““Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's our commitment.”}}[http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate/Letter/en
All new knowledge and new opinions begin as minority positions. The viable ideas gradually gain support – often under heavy resistance from the old establishment. With a WP:Mainstream these minority ideas would be suppressed until they are accepted as mainstream themselves. A Wikipedia in the late 1800s would have a very negative article about democracy and the “Fringe” principle of universal voting rights. A Wikipedia in the 1960s would either ignore or have a very negative article about gay rights.
Line 613 ⟶ 602:
===Brothejr used my words out of context and misrepresented my position===
In his evidence section above, Brothejr prominently displays a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Fringe_science/Evidence#Mainstream_Vs_Fringe quote] from me as evidence of "people railing on how we should not give any fringe topic/article credit and also we should, as an encyclopedia, present the subject as something loony." (emphasis: the quoted phrase is his words, not mine.) I pointed out on the talk page that the sentence quoted was taken out of context and that I do not in fact hold the position that the quote was used as evidence for, that fringe subjects should be presented in articles as "loony" and asked to have it stricken, but it has not been stricken, so it seems my only recourse is to challenge it here.
The quote was taken from a comment I made in response to a proposal on the workshop page (now stricken) of this case: "Debunking is a form of advocacy that seeks to dismiss and damage the reputation of a subject through the use of rhetoric or argumentation." The entire comment can be seen [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_arbitration%2FFringe_science%2FWorkshop&diff=260696672&oldid=260695703 here]. I was arguing against the use of the label "debunking" since it is too often used to denigrate and discredit even well-sourced and neutrally-toned criticism of a fringe subject. The last sentence of my comment, which was taken and used out of context, referred back to the language of the proposal I was commenting on, and was intended to be ironic. I was certainly not arguing for the use of rhetoric or argumentation to advocate for a position in a Wikipedia article; I was simply arguing against the denigration of well-sourced and neutrally-toned criticism of fringe theories. In fact I don't believe advocacy has any place in wikipedia articles, and I've made that clear not only in my explanations on the talk page, but in the tone of my editing of articles, small as my contribution has been (why I've participated so little in editing articles will be addressed below).
It occurs to me that while that sentence taken out of context is certainly not valid evidence of what Brothejr has used it as evidence for, his action in taking a sentence out of context to mean something very different than the passage as a whole, serves as a perfect example of what editors in fringe areas often have to deal with. Someone reads a source, but instead of taking the source as a whole and representing it accurately and fairly as a whole, the person simply scans it for any bit that, taken out of context, could be used to support a point, even if to do so is to do violence to the meaning of the source as a whole. This is not how we should be conducting meta-discussions about a case; this is not how we should be writing an encyclopedia.
===The fringe-friendly atmosphere of Wikipedia drives away editors===
I came to Wikipedia because I was dismayed by the quality of Wikipedia articles, thinking that as a retired statistician who has deep and broad knowledge of the literature in a wide variety of areas, particularly those called here "fringe theories" or "pseudoscience" I could help improve the quality of content in those areas. I'm not a person who just dives into something without understanding it first, so I spent some time finding my way around the project, studying policy, and observing articles and their talk pages. What I saw convinced me that there was no point in trying to edit articles unless/until I could see some level of commitment on the part of the community to enforcing core policies to ensure the quality of the content. During my time here, I have been aware of several other knowledgeable people who have spent a short time here and left, convinced as I am that there was no point in their participation.
==Evidence presented by PhysicsEng==
Line 827 ⟶ 811:
*ScienceApologist grossly violated [[WP:NPA]] and [[WP:HARASS]]:
:"First I'm going to get Hans Adler fired for loving homeopathy. Then I'm going to get
:Also see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=260482768 diff] where I remove a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=260469932 personal attack] based on my profession. From [[WP:NPA]]: "some types of comments are never acceptable: ... Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream."
Line 835 ⟶ 819:
===Personal comment ('''NOTE''': I request that this section be removed once case is closed.)===
*[courtesy blanked per request] - [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 10:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
('''note: please redact above once case is closed.''' thanks. I wanted to say it publically, but not archive it.)▼
===Conclusion===▼
The benefit that ScienceApologist brings to the site is grossly overstated by his supporters. He's just a grad student, a/o community college instructor or something, who doesn't grok every area or subtlety.▼
Some people just don't work well with others. SA simply lacks the personality to edit a wiki. Seriously, ban him for this lifetime and the next as well.▼
Wikipedia's reluctance to deal with this hyper-disruptive editor is right up there with the Essjay fiasco in terms of trashing WP's credibility. How many more wake-up calls do you need before you deal with both science and civility in a consistent, methodical way?▼
Thanks for listening. --[[User:Backin72|Backin72]] ([[User talk:Backin72|n.b.]]) 07:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)▼
I apologize for the last minute nature of this evidence - but I was doing my best to stay out of this in case a spare clerk was needed/for my own sanity when an Enforcement request came up that none of the other "AE regulars" were around for - the end result of which was me blocking Martinphi indefinitely.
===My recent block of Martinphi===
My involvement started as a result of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FArbitration_enforcement&diff=263541274&oldid=263505352 this Arbitration Enforcement request] by [[User:Shoemaker's Holiday]]. I [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FArbitration_enforcement&diff=263598838&oldid=263553265 responded] to the request nine hours later to indicate I had made a decision and would post it shortly. The complaint in summary was that Martinphi was edit warring in an attempt to display personal information pertaining to Science Apologist in Martinphi's own userspace. In more common Wikipedia parlance - Martinphi was attempting to [[WP:OUTING|out]] Science Apologist. I viewed the relevant deleted page, and confirmed that Martinphi was in fact publishing a page that had been courtesy blanked because of personal information issues.
Essentially, Martinphi was republishing a page in a third user's userspace. That user had communicated with both Martinphi and Science Apologist, and in the course of that communication Science Apologist revealed personal information which has since been courtesy blanked. (There are no links for that reason)
▲('''note: please redact above once case is closed.''' thanks. I wanted to say it publically, but not archive it.)
The text of our outing policy - like most of our policies - has some odd mutations, is unstable, and I consider it unreliable - but I've always
▲===Conclusion===
figured the thrust of it is, don't publish personal information - its a jackass sort of thing to do. However, just because something is a jackass thing to do doesn't mean its a sanctionalable offense on its own. My instincts were certainly turning there, but I also knew there was reasonable disagreement whether or not you can "out" an editor who has already revealed their own identity willingly.
As a result I examined the last [[User:tznkai/desk/Reports/Martinphi Jan 12 2009 Ban|500 contributions]] of Martinphi (this is a copy) - and also took note of his big Retired sign on his user page. A quick survey showed that Martinphi has done little productive on Wikipedia recently - and plenty unproductive. His extensive contributions in this case, and various philosophical matters were not helpful, but in fact using Wikipedia as a philosophical battleground - and doubly so if you consider there is reasonable suspicion that his driving motivation is to further his conflict with Science Apologist in particular. (In depth analysis may come later)
▲The benefit that ScienceApologist brings to the site is grossly overstated by his supporters. He's just a grad student, a/o community college instructor or something, who doesn't grok every area or subtlety.
Long story short, I decided this was not in fact an Arbitration enforcement but a matter of general administration. I [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Tznkai&page=&year=2009&month=1 blocked Martinphi for an indefinite period] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=263600358 made my rationale] at [[WP:ANI|the appropriate noticeboard]] where as of this posting, discussion is [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Indefinite_block.2Fban_of_Martinphi|ongoing]]
▲Some people just don't work well with others. SA simply lacks the personality to edit a wiki. Seriously, ban him for this lifetime and the next as well.
===Further analysis===
▲Wikipedia's reluctance to deal with this hyper-disruptive editor is right up there with the Essjay fiasco in terms of trashing WP's credibility. How many more wake-up calls do you need before you deal with both science and civility in a consistent, methodical way?
The problem between Science Apologist and Martinphi is an old festering one - and many users and administrators and even arbiters have given into the temptation to excuse bad behavior for any number of reasons - including the reasoning that they've been at each others throats so longthat of COURSE this kind of behavior is to be expected.
The fact is, bad behavior - in this case mutual bad behavior, has real noticeable effects on the quality of our work. Fringe science articles become little fiefdoms of POV pushers and the debunkers who fight them - and relevant and useful information gets squeezed out as a result. The reader needs to know who what where when why first, and then and only then is a digression about the scientific community's viewpoint on it on the table.
▲Thanks for listening. --[[User:Backin72|Backin72]] ([[User talk:Backin72|n.b.]]) 07:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
But here is a more concrete example: this evidence page has ended up roughly divided between those attacking Science Apologist for his failures, and those attacking Martinphi and his failures. We have ''taken sides''. Taking sides is not productive - it grinds progress to a halt. When we let these personal fights fester we invite our userbase to politicize itself and turn Wikipedia into a large Battleground.
Stop them.--[[User:Tznkai|Tznkai]] ([[User talk:Tznkai|talk]]) 17:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
==Evidence presented by {your user name}==
Line 868 ⟶ 860:
==={Write your assertion here}===
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.
{{NOINDEX}}
| |||