Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science/Evidence
 | Basic standards of civility and decorum will be strictly enforced. Editors who are uncivil or who are deliberately provocative (i.e. trolling) will be warned, then banned from editing the case pages for escalating periods of time by non-recused Arbitrators and Clerks, enforceable by brief blocks. For the duration of the ban, banned editors may leave comments on the talk page of any non-recused clerk, provided this privilege is not abused. The case Clerks for this Arbitration are Daniel (talk) and Gazimoff (talk). |
Case focus
As a quick reminder, the focus of the case is to be around the difficulty of maintaining civility and decorum in this highly disputed area of the encyclopedia (fringe scientific or pseudoscientific topics). While the behavior of some editors involved in those areas (in particular, that of ScienceApologist) will be examined, it is not the only concern of the Arbitrators and evidence as to the wider disputes on those articles and the way they have been handled to date will be especially appreciated. — Coren (talk) 06:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- Wikipedia's collaborative editing model simply doesn't work when one editor assumes ownership of multiple articles and turns them all into battlegrounds. It drives away everyone except those who want to do battle. For example, neutral editors become labeled as 'POV-pushers' even in the absence of any evidence of POV-pushing, simply for asking that WP standards of civility and decorum be followed. The chances of achieving a reasonable consensus in such an environment are practically nil. Dlabtot (talk) 18:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- You can look at the tone of comments on the workshop page to start. You can see the attitudes on display there. Folks are unwilling to help each other achieve a common understanding. Instead, there is melee. My actions speak loudly (e.g. Cold fusion, Sadi Carnot, 9/11 enforcement at WP:AE), but look how people reacted to my proposals.Jehochman Talk 22:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- I see people calmly pointing out legitimate issues with some of your proposals, not a "melee" at all. Proposals should be open to discussion and comment by all. To characterize legitimate discussion and comment in these hyperbolic terms is not helpful. Most of your proposals are being left uncommented; it's only the ones that people see problems with that have been subject to discussion. Surely you're not suggesting that for some reason your proposals should be exempt from comment? Or that making a comment on a proposal is somehow uncivil?Woonpton (talk) 23:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- Seriously, Jehochman, if you honestly believe that you are not part of the problem and that your own actions are not open to questioning, then how can you lecture anyone else on how things should work here? You do not have more rights than SA does... if anything, with an admin position, you should have more rules to live up to than normal editors. Solving a conflict means working on a good faith attempt to come up with a solution that works for everyone and furthers Wikipedia's content goals. It does not mean acting like you can do no wrong and trying to get someone you dislike and disagree with banned because you dislike and disagree with him. Yes, your actions do speak loudly: and that's part of the problem that we should be working on solving. DreamGuy (talk) 23:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Question regarding evidence
I've left a question at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Fringe_science/Workshop#.22Attack.22, particularly for users who will present or have presented this evidence. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Libel and harassment
I want bullshit like this -- "I'm going to get JB imprisoned for impersonating a medical doctor" -- stricken from the record. While the comment was not entirely serious, it's not the kind of thing that ought to be in search engines, where it can be taken out of context. (And my license to practice is just fine, by the way.) I consider this comment, and other recent actions by SA[1][2], to be harassment (per SA's threat: "I promise to continue to attack others within the bounds of Wikipedia rules without violating POINT or BATTLEGROUND until I see every person I'm in conflict with blocked or banned."[3]. This needs to stop, like right now. --Jim Butler (t) 13:13, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- Without commenting on other matters, Wikipedia and mirrors do not come up in returns. Vassyana (talk) 17:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- Oh yes they do. --Jim Butler (t) 22:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- I've replaced Jim Butler with "JB" in that quote, with a link to this section. I hope this is OK with everyone. Daniel (talk) 23:12, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks very much. I've thought about it for awhile, and while I don't want to WP:VANISH, I do want to change my username and remove personal information from WP. The harassment and general name-calling make it necessary. If someone can help me with this, I'd be most grateful. regards, Jim Butler (t) 23:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- That falls outside what I'm doing here, unfortunately, sorry :( Maybe contacting an active bureaucrat may be beneficial, as they are experienced in such things. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 02:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- I can certainly understand Jim's concerns, since all pages here, including sandboxes and user subpages, appear in search engines, and sometimes almost instantly. Google is very effective. Outright BS like that should be disguised or removed. It serves no useful purpose to have it laying around. -- Fyslee (talk) 02:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- That falls outside what I'm doing here, unfortunately, sorry :( Maybe contacting an active bureaucrat may be beneficial, as they are experienced in such things. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 02:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks very much. I've thought about it for awhile, and while I don't want to WP:VANISH, I do want to change my username and remove personal information from WP. The harassment and general name-calling make it necessary. If someone can help me with this, I'd be most grateful. regards, Jim Butler (t) 23:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- I've replaced Jim Butler with "JB" in that quote, with a link to this section. I hope this is OK with everyone. Daniel (talk) 23:12, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- Oh yes they do. --Jim Butler (t) 22:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- All arbitration pages, including their talk pages, are part of our Robots.txt file, if it's any comfort. Daniel (talk) 03:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'll pull rank on the rest of you (when it comes to search technology) and say that nothing we do can keep our content out of the search engines, except blanking. The reason is that there are numerous sites that scrape Wikipedia specifically so they can show up in the search rankings. Our robots excluded pages are juicy targets for them, because if Google does not index our version, whoever posts a copy will have what looks like unique content. Therefore, the only solutions are for users to hide behind pseudonyms (an imperfect solution at best, due to the risk of outing), or else we can develop backbones and actually enforce WP:NPA. I suggest doing the latter. Jehochman Talk 03:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Isn't this sort of a "welcome to the internet" situation? Quietmarc (talk) 17:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
SPOV rejection by MastCell
There is no centralized debate I'm aware of which one can cite to say the community has rejected SPOV. However, it's obvious that any POV other than NPOV is not NPOV. MastCell says:
- More: SPOV and NPOV are not mutually exclusive. Any reasonable application of WP:NPOV to scientific topics will end up favoring the mainstream scientific point of view. ArbCom formalized this in the cold fusion case, but it's actually nothing new - their finding merely reflected the basic understanding of Wikipedia's goals and already-existing best practices. You can call it SPOV if you want - perhaps it is - but it's also NPOV. MastCell Talk 06:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Several points: More: SPOV and NPOV are not mutually exclusive. true, of course.
Any reasonable application of WP:NPOV to scientific topics will end up favoring the mainstream scientific point of view. True, of course, but you forgot the "mainstream" part. If you'd put it in, things wouldn't be so clear, especially when the purported "mainstream" view is only advocated by such as Quackwatch, or worse advocacy, while the so-called "fringe" views have several longstanding peer reviewed journals, many academic sources, many university positions.... etc.
Another point on this: while the article will usually end up favoring the mainstream POV because of the sources, this is not because of NPOV but despite it. To adopt SPOV is to enforce this.
ArbCom formalized this in the cold fusion case Yes, it did, and as such it has formalized SPOV, as advocated by most here. Yet some on the ArbCom have argued that SPOV and NPOV are not the same thing.
You all should cool down by reviewing the Encyclopedia Britannica article on, for example, Parapsychology. It's great in general. If Wikipedia could do that, it would be fine. Alas, Wikipedia is beset by SPOV advocates who lean heavily toward debunking. ——Martinphi Ψ~Φ—— 06:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- Show me an article where the "mainstream POV" is sourced only by Quackwatch, and I suspect I'll be able to show you an article where all the other sources are crappier by far. In any case, on the whole Brittanica is far more hostile to non-mainstream topics than Wikipedia - most are simply ignored. I've lost count of the number of fringe views too wacky to merit even a word in Brittanica which find a home and their own lovingly maintained POV forks here on Wikipedia. MastCell Talk 07:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
NPOV and SPOV are aligned with Wikipedia policies
Some thoughts.... Speaking of NPOV and SPOV, the SPOV functions in a manner similar to Wikipedia's sourcing policies and other policies. There are aligned with each other. Why? Because scientists and skeptics think like Wikipedia editors should, if they are following policy. Scientists and skeptics want verification for things. Wikipedia wants verification too. Scientists and skeptics want to know how reliable and valid a piece of information is. Wikipedia wants reliable, valid information. Claims, anecdotes, and unsourced content just don't qualify. Critical thinking is essential to Wikipedia. (Paraphrased from someone else, I'm not sure who.) By demanding that editors follow existing policy, we are already requiring them to use the scientific method for verifying sources. The typical alternative medicine and fringe thinking patterns, where anecdotes and wishful thinking are good enough, just don't work here, which may be why those editors are often flakes who run afoul of our policies. Fortunately their sources are likewise flakey and rarely qualify as V & RS, IOW they run into sourcing problems, while SPOV editors have an abundance of V & RS available, because those sources are written using the scientific method, with peer-review and fact checking. They are simply better. The truth will out. Verifiable reality really is a trump card here. -- Fyslee (talk) 07:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)