Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science/Proposed decision: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 00:40, 12 January 2009

Revision as of 01:13, 12 January 2009

Line 488:

: Are you by any chance defining the word "skeptics" here to mean "people with high standards of sourcing?" --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|TS]] 00:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, not true. The ArbCom also defined reliable sources for fringe science articles, which is definitely something which serves NPOV well. With RS better defined for fringe science articles, the debunkers will have a much harder time. "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science." Isn't that what we've been saying all along? Let's not use these sources like blogs and personal rants or personal websites. Let's stick to RS. That is exactly what the debunkers have been militating most strongly against. They want to use bad sources.

::"References from poor quality or less reliable sources have been used to buttress the fringe science point of view. In addition, there is a repeated pattern of using citations from marginal sources in a quantity and manner disproportionate to the relative prominence of that view."

This is certainly true of proponent sources as well as opponent sources. With both sides restricted to RS, NPOV can be maintained. Not otherwise. Remember, RS are relative to the topic, so if you need a debunker POV, you can still use Skeptic's Dictionary, and if you need the proponent POV, you can still use a book by a proponent. You just attribute, and if it is a science article you stick to the peer-reviewed literature.

You are right that per [[WP:GANG]] the article goes to the army with the greatest numbers. But this makes it much harder for them.

Certainly, [[evoip]] might go more toward discussion of Baruss's conclusions, but that is not really such a bad thing for the article. If one wishes to change that "inconclusive" verdict, more publication is necessary. With most fringe ideas, sticking to the reliable sources will give them decent coverage, whereas over-weighting the fringe component of skeptics like Randi just makes the articles into debunkery. Remember, this adds to the Paranormal ArbCom, it doesn't remove it from consideration. In the paranormal ArbCom it makes clear that there are several levels which might need to be considered per the sources, not just one [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Paranormal#Three_layer_cake_with_frosting] "A fourth phenomenon is skeptical groups and individuals devoted to debunking." Yes, and we cover all of that, and we don't weight something which is not a RS above an RS source, as the debunkers would have it. This is generally an NPOV decision.

There is one wrong part of it, and that is they are allowing Original research to refute fringe claims[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Fringe_science/Proposed_decision#Scientific_focus]. They may not mean to. ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#ffffff;">Martin^phi]]'''</span> [[User talk:Martinphi|Ψ]]~[[Special:Contributions/Martinphi|Φ]]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 01:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)