Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing/Proposed decision: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Comments by Sgerbic: responding to KevinL |
Comments by Guy Macon |
||
Line 74:
Per '''[[User:L235|KevinL]]''' on GSoW training: Background (8) I think you hit the nail on the head in your first two comments about our retention and community. While every volunteer group has issues with staying power - we have had pretty good success. On (9) we aren't novices anymore. Some of the team are tens of thousands of edits in, good articles, DYK and hundreds of pages written. Our work speaks for itself, KevinL you saw some of the work from a few of the team in the Evidence stage. We understand that "consensus can be established only on-wiki." We make the article live, and the page stands on its own merit or it does not, we can't force a page to exist when it is not notable. Skill comes from doing, and GSoW is doing a lot of doing.[[User:Sgerbic|Sgerbic]] ([[User talk:Sgerbic|talk]]) 02:40, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
== Comments by
Re:
:"Editors do not have a conflict of interest merely because they have personal or professional interest or expertise in a topic, nor because they are members of or affiliated with a group of individuals with personal or professional interest or expertise in a topic."
Be very, very careful about the wording of this FoF. This can be a [[between Scylla and Charybdis]] situation.
On the one hand we have professors of physics editing physics pages, which we want to encourage with no hint that such edits involve a COI.
On the other hand we have [[Ayurveda]] practitioners editing pages such as [[Mercury poisoning]] and [[Lead poisoning]] to insert claims that they have the ability to "purify" ([[Shodhana]]) organic Lead/Mercury compounds[https://www.researchgate.net/publication/348834534_Parada_Shodhana_Purification_of_Mercury_by_Classical_Method] and make the Mercury and Lead safe for human consumption.
Ayurveda practitioners (but not necessarily the particular Ayurveda practitioners hammering on Wikipedia this week) freely admit that they oppose any restrictions on using Lead or Mercury as a medicine for financial reasons.[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3764874/] These Ayurveda practitioners are very likely to selectively quote any FoF that they can twist to appear to support their behavior.
So how do we create a FoF that on the one hand encourages the physicists without weakening the protection against COI by people who make their living be giving people poison and calling it medicine?[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2755247/] The main differentiation between the two is the reliability of their sources. --[[User:Guy Macon Alternate Account|Guy Macon Alternate Account]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon Alternate Account|talk]]) 03:02, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
== Comments by {username} ==
| |||