Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing/Evidence: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Tryptofish (talk | contribs) |
Tryptofish (talk | contribs) →Skepticism per WP policies: add, partly because of the 'replies' to me |
||
Line 204:
Jimmy Wales famously said "{{tq|What we won't do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of "true scientific discourse". It isn't.}}"[https://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/standards-of-evidence-wikipedia-edition/] It's interesting to consider "lunatic charlatans" in the context of civility evidence in this case. Of course, that isn't policy for our purposes.
But [[WP:PSCI]] ''is'' core policy. And in the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog 2020 Jytdog case], ArbCom [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog#Editor_privacy affirmed] that policies (then, the harassment policy) can override guidelines, which include [[WP:COI]] and [[WP:CANVASS]], especially when those guidelines are used overzealously. Now, ArbCom needs to distinguish between very real misconduct, and mere differences in opinion on content among non-GSoW editors (and remembering [[WP:2WRONGS]]).
====Case implications====
| |||