Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science/Evidence: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Further: Please note also that you just wrote the last section of the table into this ArbCom |
|||
Line 184:
===Further===
I do hope you read the table of changes I made to NPOV [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Martinphi/WEIGHT_changes here]. Please note also that you just wrote the last section of the table into this ArbCom [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Fringe_science/Proposed_decision#Relevant_comparisons here!!]. They are the changes which were deepest, and which people had the most trouble over- indeed, they put me up for banning and blocking over it, even though I'd done it over several days and no one reverted. Since as I remember it represents the most actual editing I did to policy (rather than just defense of the policy status quo) I think it is highly relevant.
I have done some policy editing also which were attempts to keep policy from being rewritten to help SA and friends, such as Shoemaker's Holiday's attempts to change [[WP:CIV]] to be more friendly to SA. And attempts to chance [[WP:NOR]] so that any textbook could be used to rebut any fringe claim. Or resisting the [[WP:PARITY]] section of fringe, which allows blogs, fringe advocacy sites, and other bad sources. Or resisting the edit-warring in of the [[Wikipedia:FRINGE#Particular_attribution|Particular attribution]] section of FRINGE, which allows the Skeptic's Dictionary or the blog of a scientist to be stated as fact or the opinions of "science." I think policy is fine the way it is and the last thing I want to do is change it. I'm not the one who's been trying to change it. SA and friends have been.
| |||