Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science/Workshop: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
WOSlinkerBot (talk | contribs) m Fix misnested tag lint errors |
|||
| (16 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown) | |||
Line 63:
The project page is quite lengthy so I may have missed a proposal of this type so I am mentioning my concerns/question here. I hope this is ok for me to do. A problem I see quite frequently on fringe articles and actually many aricles that I watch is the article be held hostage by a group of editors who want or do not want certain aspects in the article. The best article I can think of is [[Chiropractic]]. It has a pretty clear division of the pro and con editors there. Overall most of the editors work very hard on the talk page to try to come to a consensus before adding to the main article. But at this article there is a group that collectively refuse to accept things that are being proposed using everything in the book to stall any improvement to the article. This is being addressed a bit more though lately with some uninvolved administrators that are watching the article. [[User_talk:Shell_Kinney]] has been very active with a mediation page there and active to help with the problems of [[WP:EW]], [[WP:TE]] and other policies there. She is doing a good and fair job in my opinions so I want to make it clear I am not at all complaining about her actions. But still, it seems that when certain editors edit the article it is immediately reverted with comments like [[WP:COI]], [[WP:Consensus|No consensus]] and so on. So may I suggest a motion of some kind to address this type of problem that seems to go on quite frequently. The type of behaviors of preventing editing to the article because of civil POV pushing, well not always civil but I think you all understand what I mean. Something like a motion that holding an article [[hostage]] is taken care quickly so it might be useful to stop these kinds of disruptions. I hope I am saying this clearly. I am trying to help everyone get this subject fully discussed to cover areas of contentions so that maybe the future will hold less problems in this area. I've never written a motion before and not really sure how to but the way I am writing this now, I suspect I am not the right person to even try to write this kind of proposal. :) I would like to close with saying I hope this topic can resolve some of the problems going on which I believe if done correctly will stop a lot of the uncivil behavior going on and allow the project to move forward in a better working environment. Thank you for listening, --[[User:Crohnie|<span style="color:purpled">'''Crohnie'''</span><span style="color:deeppink">'''Gal'''</span>]][[User talk:Crohnie|<span style="color:deepskyblue"><sup>Talk</sup></span>]] 00:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
:I edit the chiropractic article too, and while there are serious difficulties, I'm not sure that there are any simple answers. I consider it normal and OK on articles marked with the "controversial" talk page template to revert new edits; the next step is for the original editor to start discussing the changes on the talk page. A lot of discussion occurs there and some progress gradually gets made. There is difficult behaviour from editors on both sides of the issue. Having an admin such as Shell close a discussion can help avoid very long, repetitive discussions. I'm not sure what specifically you would like to propose. <span style="color:Purple; font-size:11pt;">☺</span>[[User:Coppertwig|Coppertwig]]([[User talk:Coppertwig|talk]]) 01:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
::Hi Coppertwig, Shell has been doing a good job trying to end the endless dramas and the foot dragging on the talk page. But I think at this point, editors who have commented to death their opinions which is denied by the majority needs to be handled quickly to stop the repeating appearances of the same claims and calls for a start to at least ban the article from the editors who are continually highjacking threads to make things stall out. I have to admit that there are editors their with patience to continue answering the same questions usually asked in many different ways with the same answer. But I also think the article could become an FA article if the disruptions were stopped. The article is actually pretty good, at least to me which I admit I use the article for my own personal use, with the help of a very kind editor who is a chiropractor. So I would just like to see the article be able to move forward with less resistance. I hope this answers your question. :) --[[User:Crohnie|<span style="color:purpled">'''Crohnie'''</span><span style="color:deeppink">'''Gal'''</span>]][[User talk:Crohnie|<span style="color:deepskyblue"><sup>Talk</sup></span>]] 14:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
== Why Wikipedia cannot claim the earth is not flat ==
Line 87 ⟶ 89:
:[[Washington Irving]] wrote [[The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus | fiction]], but it seems that meme will never die. There hasn't been a serious study on the subject since the 3rd century BC or so, after which pretty much all educated people knew the Earth was spherical. Columbus was wrong, he used an incorrectly small estimate for the radius of the earth- his crew would have starved before they would have ever reached Asia. What neither Columbus nor his skeptics knew was that there was land in the middle, so Columbus and crew lucked out and lived. --[[User:Noren|Noren]] ([[User talk:Noren|talk]]) 06:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
You know, this is really brilliant. ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#ffffff;">Martin<sup>phi</sup></span>]]'''
::as a high school student once, i defied my friends to convince me that the sun shined on the earth. When they finally took me outside rather roughly to show me by direct observation, it happened that the day was totally overcast. I've been waiting for years to use this (true) story. '''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG|talk]]) 07:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
:::Peter, that's a pretty remarkable compendium - nice work. I was able to come up with actual examples of these fallacies that I've seen on Wikipedia, off the top of my head, for 8 of the 13, and I'm convinced that with a bit of digging I could provide examples of each one. Of course, you forgot #14, which is the one I most commonly encounter: "Any scientist who tried to study flat-earth theory would lose his research funding - thus, dissent is being suppressed by the scientific establishment." '''[[User:MastCell|MastCell]]''' <sup>[[User Talk:MastCell|Talk]]</sup> 18:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
::::For what its worth, those so called fallacies sometimes aren't - "the existence of objective morality is not amenable to scientific approaches and methods" is a statement I am content to have inscribed on my tombstone. Science is useful when applied to things that claim to be science - as well as material claims (X exists)- but it has its limits even when divining facts. "The existence of Julius Ceasar is not amenable to scientific approaches and methods" - history, archaeology and other sorts of rational inquiry work great there, but not science. --[[User:Tznkai|Tznkai]] ([[User talk:Tznkai|talk]]) 18:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
:::::Sure... they're fallacies when applied on Wikipedia as arguments for sympathetic coverage of fringe-scientific claims. Most people would probably agree that morality and religious belief are not amenable to scientific approaches - almost by definition - but the shape of the Earth or the existence of ghosts as a real, reproducible physical phenomenon would be different kettles of fish. '''[[User:MastCell|MastCell]]''' <sup>[[User Talk:MastCell|Talk]]</sup> 18:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
::::::Right, I'm trying to focus in on the essence of the problem - its when ideas claim to be science. You can't claim to be science and not be tested by science. Its really that simple.--[[User:Tznkai|Tznkai]] ([[User talk:Tznkai|talk]]) 03:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
:14. Geophysicists routinely use flat-earth models, for example [http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=GPYSA7000032000004000668000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes here] (note the phrase "half-space"). <span style="color:Purple; font-size:13pt;">☺</span>[[User:Coppertwig|Coppertwig]]([[User talk:Coppertwig|talk]]) 02:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
::Yeah, of course. I use a flat-earth model every time I walk from my house to the neighborhood bar, or I'd never get there. But the Earth is still round. :) '''[[User:MastCell|MastCell]]''' <sup>[[User Talk:MastCell|Talk]]</sup> 03:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
:::Its kinda bumpy. Its is also [[The World Is Flat|flatter]] then it used to be apparently.--[[User:Tznkai|Tznkai]] ([[User talk:Tznkai|talk]]) 04:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
:::I'm curious as to what model you use on the way home. <span style="color:Blue; font-size:17pt;">☺</span>
:::Wait a second – we ''do'' [[Figure of the Earth#Ellipsoid of revolution|say the Earth is "in fact" flat]]! (Well, "flattened slightly at the poles".) <span style="color:Blue; font-size:13pt;">☺</span>[[User:Coppertwig|Coppertwig]]([[User talk:Coppertwig|talk]]) 17:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
== comment to Martinphi ==
Line 93 ⟶ 106:
Martinphi, the issue that the ArbComm has to solve in this case is complex. To facilitate their work, could you refrain from posting sarcastic comments like this one ?[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Fringe_science/Workshop&curid=20872107&diff=261828297&oldid=261826987] Thanks. [[User:Pcarbonn|Pcarbonn]] ([[User talk:Pcarbonn|talk]]) 12:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
::Unless you think it was uncivil, I think it says what I had to say with more force and less words than some gobbledygook of intellect. ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#ffffff;">Martin<sup>phi</sup></span>]]'''
== Comment ==
Line 101 ⟶ 114:
::I'm not asking that ArbCom review all fringe theories in an obscene mega-case. I am simply asking that the context of the area and the problems apparent there are kept in mind. Context and social trends are very important to note. The behavior and cycles in the fringe science area are part of a larger pattern of disruption. Even the content issues are the same tune with different lyrics. There are continual disputes across all of them about presenting the mainstream view and source reliability that echo the same patterns and argument types found in fringe science articles. (Also notably related to the content issues, walled gardens sprout up in much the same way, with similar defenses by advocates, across the broad range of "fringe" interests.) By all means, ArbCom should exclusively focus on areas impacted by fringe science in crafting the decision of this case. Still, it only makes sense to place the area in context, rather than examining it in a vacuum. [[User:Vassyana|Vassyana]] ([[User talk:Vassyana|talk]]) 21:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
:::Yes, you have put for your finger on a real problem and one that is not easy either to describe or solve, but must surely be at the back of many contributors' minds, [[User:Mathsci|Mathsci]] ([[User talk:Mathsci|talk]]) 23:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
::::Yes. I do think my suggestion [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Fringe_science/Proposed_decision#Remedy_5 here] should be thought of. I actually think it is the kind of thing that works in other areas of human life, so why not here? People who enter a contest have been conditioned to lose with dignity. If it's going to be a contest, and it is, why not have rules and make it work for the good of the encyclopedia? ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#ffffff;">Martin<sup>phi</sup></span>]]'''
::::: You mean your suggestion to invite and encourage subject matter experts? Sure, but then we'd get into further arguments with some editors trying to restrict the field of experts in fringe science to the point that only adherents of the fringe theory qualify. It is this problem in fringe science articles that Proposed Principle 9, "Relevant comparisons", is attempting to address. The notion that in writing about the scientific consensus we must give special weight to the opinions of experts in a fringe field such as parapsychology and (to a lesser extent) cold fusion, is a problematic one. I get the impression from your repeated pushing of the notion of subject matter experts, that you are deliberately ignoring or glossing over this problem. Please show me that my concerns are misplaced. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|TS]] 15:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
:::::: I should add, ditto proposed principle 13, ''Scientific focus'', which emphasizes that the context should be ''the best available scientific knowledge''. Critiques of cold fusion based on established scientific principles, for instance, should not be underplayed simply because they are ignored or insufficiently addressed by cold fusion researchers. Any fringe field may one day make a breakthrough that overturns much of what we think we know about the natural world--that has happened frequently in the past--but we shouldn't sweep such objections under the carpet simply because, in their enthusiasm, the researchers set such concerns to one side. In science, we think we know what we think we know because it has been tested many times before. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|TS]] 15:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
| |||