Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science/Proposed decision: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Line 348:
:::::There is no science on Wikipedia, there are articles, and articles only. Then and only after the subject matter of that article has been considered can an editor consider whether there is science related material that should be included in that article. Science is verb driven, a process, a methodology. Believing science to be noun driven, a thing, becomes ideology. My experience in watching Martin is not that he pushes a POV that is fringe topic driven . As a matter of fact I find he is highly skeptical of many of the fringe topics. He is driven to exclude science driven agenda when and if it supercedes information necessary for the article. Science driven editors describe such editing as editing for the fringe, rather than editing for a fringe topic article, a subtle distinction. I have been accused of being a fringe supporter when in fact although an artist and trained in the humanities, I also worked for a short time for one of the top corn botanists in the world , and have a great interest in physics. Labeling an editor is easier though, than treating each editor as an individual. My point is that these categorizations and perhaps the decisions based on them are often wildly inaccurate and unfair, and gross generalizations. Martin I think has been caught in this environment and judged unfairly. Its not what he can still do that is a concern its whether this is fair or not. I think you've made some excellent proposals on this case, though, so I'll sign off with that in mind. Just my opinions, and thanks again for engaging in this discussion.([[User:Littleolive oil|olive]] ([[User talk:Littleolive oil|talk]]) 23:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC))
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:No_original_research&diff=prev&oldid=242084274 This] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:No_original_research&diff=prev&oldid=242080853 this] was restoring some longstanding content which had been changed. IOW, I was on the side of the policy as it stood. I believe any changes I restored were not my changes, only ones I did not disagree with (and so would have been disruptive to revert out). [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view&diff=prev&oldid=247312092 this] was part of SA + pals drive to use such sources as scientist's blogs to make absolute assertions of fact or scientific consensus. You are looking, I believe, at an attempt to maintain the status quo. ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#ffffff;">Martin<sup>phi</sup>]]'''</span> [[User talk:Martinphi|Ψ]]~[[Special:Contributions/Martinphi|Φ]]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 23:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
| |||