Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence/Workshop: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 03:45, 31 July 2010

Revision as of 13:16, 31 July 2010

Line 556:

==Proposals by David.Kane==

===Proposed principlesOverview===

TheThree twoof the ideas below ('''multi-day section editting''' and a, '''single, limitted set of consensus sources''', a new article organization) are presented as serious, perhaps extreme, attempts to "[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide_to_arbitration |break the back]]" of this dispute by significantly changing the way [[Race and Intelligence]] is edittededited and sourced. BothAll are worth trying and, together, they would lead, I think, to much better article quality, perhaps providing a guideline for how to handle similarly controversial topics in other parts of Wikipedia. These changes do not favor one "side" of the debate over any other. Why not try them for 6 months? The editing surrounding the article could hardly become worse . . .

=== Proposed remedies ===

====Require multi-day section editting====

1) A significant change in Wikipedia '''editting procedures''' is required for [[Race and Intelligence]]. Consider three concrete examples of good editing outcomes: the History section ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2009-11-12/Race_and_Intelligence#The_history_section here] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Race_and_intelligence/Archive_76#History_section_as_proposed_by_Mathsci here]), the Debate assumptions section ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:David.Kane/Archive_1#New_Assumptions_section here] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Race_and_intelligence/Archive_78#New_version_of_assumptions_and_methodology_section:_Comments_welcome.21 here]) and the Lead [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Race_and_intelligence/Archive_76#comparison_of_ledes here]. All these cases resulted in significant improvements to the article and featured widespread consensus among editors of very different viewpoints. Common factors: 1) Drafting was done on the Talk page, not in the article itself. Only after the section was complete was it moved into article space. 2) Drafting occurred over many days, allowing all editors time to register their opinions. 3) Comments from all were repeatedly solicited and incorporated. 4) The entire section was edited at once, thus allowing compromise over what to include, what to exclude and the relative proportions devoted to different material. Standard editing procedures have produced seemingly endless conflict and edit wars at this article for years. I think that this new procedure --- which I [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Race_and_intelligence/Archive_78#Suggestion:_Multi-day_section-editing_only call] '''multi-day section-editing''' --- should be required going forward. Place the following guideline at the top of the article talk page. "Do not make meaningful edits in this article directly. (Such changes will be reverted if they are at all contentious.) Instead, take the entire section which includes the portion you want to change, create a new version of it on the Talk page, seek comments from other editors over a period of at least 4 days, incorporate those comments, and then paste the entire new section into the article in a single edit once consensus has been reached."

Line 674 ⟶ 675:

::'''Comment:''' Sticking purely to the ''critical question, obviously, is just what "poorly sourced" means in this context. If a reliable source reports that person X says that Arthur Jensen wrote Extreme Claim A, do we just report that fact? '', the answer should be yes, it is completely appropriate to present material that is reliably sourced regardless of whether the material is critical or not, provided, of course, the material makes sense in the context of the article. --[[User:RegentsPark|RegentsPark]] ([[User talk:RegentsPark|talk]]) 19:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

====Reorganize the material in [[Race and intelligence]] and related articles ====

The material under dispute in [[Race and intelligence]] and related articles should be re-organized in the following way. First, there should be a main article entitled [[Group differences and intelligence]] (credit to [[User:EdChem|EdChem]]). Let me quote MathSci: "Careful authors use terms that do not beg various questions, e.g. [[Nicholas Mackintosh]] has a section in ''IQ and Human Intelligence'' on "ethnic groups" and [[John C. Loehlin]] has an article on "Group Differences in Intelligence" in the 2004 ''Handbook of Intelligence''." Correct. These and other quality sources make it clear that such an article is notable enough and well-sourced enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Such an article would follow Loehlin and Mackintosh but noting all the obvious caveats: intelligence is not a well-defined term; IQ test results are not the same thing as intelligence, human groups are generally socially constructed (but also not always independently of biology, group definitions vary by country/culture and change over time, and so on.

Second, this main article (which only discusses groups and intelligence in general) would have a collection of daughter articles, ideally with titles like [[Sex and IQ]], [[Race and IQ]], [[Religion and IQ]] and whatever. I am flexible about the exact number of articles and the titles used. I recommend using "IQ" instead of "intelligence" because virtually all work in this area uses some form of IQ test to measure intelligence. The main benefit of this plan is that it allows for more productive editing because the disputes, for example, over what "intelligence" and "race" mean exactly are placed in specific locations. An article like [[Sex and IQ]] would be much easier to handle in this structure because the main article on [[Group differences and intelligence]] would have already handled all the preliminaries.

:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''

::

:'''Comment by parties:'''

::

:'''Comment by others:'''

::

==Proposals by User:Rvcx==