|
====What is the dispute?====
The dispute is about whether the existence of thea generativenew fixationscientific hypothesis (GFH)---a new explanation forabout the workings of genetic algorithms that I (Keki Burjorjee) published in my Ph.D. dissertation--- should be mentioned in the article on [[Genetic algorithms]]. The edit in question satisfies Wikipedia's three content policies, viz., [[WP:V]], [[WP:NOR]], and [[WP:NPOV]]. The dispute started between [[User:Oli Filth]] and me; however, after I issued an RFC, Oli Filth seems to have abandoned the discussion. The only opposition currently comes from [[User:Glrx]], who got involved as a RFC editor, and has since reverted the edit on multiple occasions. Glrx has accusedaccuses me of being "toopushing close" to my work to write about it on Wikipedia... I'veoriginal askedresearch" him(despite repeatedlythe toedit elaboratebeing on his claim[[WP:V]]), and tosays providethat evidencethe thatconflict Iof cannotinterest beinherent objectivein writing about myone's own work.---a HeCOI hasI notmade doneexplicit so;by chiefly,writing Iunder believe,my becausereal hisname---by claimdefinition ismakes basedme on"too speculation,close" andto notmy anwork acquaintanceto withwrite theabout generativeit fixationon hypothesisWikipedia. orI've theasked fieldhim of genetic algorithms. When pressedrepeatedly to provide evidence that I'm incapablecannot of beingbe objective about themy edit,work. [[User:Glrx]]He askshas fornot evidenceresponded ofto "prominentthese adherents"requests. ofI thebelieve, GFH.that Inhe doingdoes so,not herespond isbecause conflatinghis theconclusions Wikipediaare conceptsbased ofon weighthis and''feelings'' notabilityabout me, and isnot exhibitingan aacquaintance ratherwith rosy view ofeither the pacefield atof whichgenetic sciencealgorithms progressesor inmy response to revolutionary theorieswork. It is a view that would be amusing for its naivete if only it wasn't so disruptive in the present context.
When pressed to provide evidence that I'm incapable of being objective about the edit, [[User:Glrx]] asks for evidence of "prominent adherents" of the the scientific hypothesis I've put forth, in other words, Glrx asks for evidence of the ''notability'' of this hypothesis. In doing so, Glrx conflates the Wikipedia concepts of ''weight'', which applies to article content, and ''notability'', which applies to article existence. The nutshell box at the top of [[WP:N]] prominently states that the Wikipedia guideline on Notability applies to article ''existence'', not article content. The filters for article content are [[WP:V]], [[WP:NOR]], and [[WP:NPOV]], none of which are violated by the edit. Pointing this out to Glrx makes no difference.
[[WP:N]] prominently states that the Wikipedia guideline on Notability applies to article ''existence'', not article content. Pointing this out to Glrx makes no difference. Neither does my entreaty to him to consider the harm he might be doing readers seeking an explanation for the adaptive capacity of genetic algorithms, especially genetic algorithms with uniform crossover. (The generative fixation hypothesis is currently the only full-fledged hypothesis that professes to explain the adaptive capacity of genetic algorithms with uniform crossover). Other neutral editors have commented that the mere mention of the ''existence'' of the GFH on the [[Genetic algorithms]] page does not violate [[WP:UNDUE]], and may be very helpful to readers. None of this has made an impression on Glrx.
Other neutral editors have agreed that the mere mention of my doctoral work on the [[Genetic algorithms]] page does not violate [[WP:UNDUE]], and could quite possibly be very helpful to readers of the article. None of this has made an impression on Glrx, who acts like he is the final authority on what does and does not belong in Wikipedia, and on who can and cannot post material to a given article. Additionally he feels no obligation to respond to my questions, or my invitations to him to enter into formal mediation [[WP:RFM]]. His one word response to the latter was "Sigh".
====What would you like to change about this?====
|
