Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-08-29/Genetic algorithms
| Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Article | Genetic algorithms |
| Status | New |
| Request date | 17:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC) |
| Requesting party | Keki Burjorjee (talk) |
| Parties involved | User:Keki Burjorjee
User:Glrx User:Chaosdruid User:Parent5446 User:Oli Flith User:ErikHaugen |
Request details
Where is the dispute?
The dispute is primarily on the discussion page of the article on Genetic Algorithms [1]. Parts of the discussion can also be found at User Talk:Keki Burjorjee and User Talk:Glrx#Genetic_algorithm
Who is involved?
What is the dispute?
The dispute is about whether the existence of the generative fixation hypothesis (GFH)---a new explanation for the workings of genetic algorithms that I (Keki Burjorjee) published in my Ph.D. dissertation---should be mentioned in the article on Genetic algorithms. The edit in question satisfies Wikipedia's three content policies, viz., WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. The dispute started between User:Oli Filth and me; however, after I issued an RFC, Oli Filth seems to have abandoned the discussion. The only opposition currently comes from User:Glrx, who got involved as a RFC editor, and has since reverted the edit on multiple occasions. Glrx has accused me of being "too close" to my work to write about it on Wikipedia. I've asked him repeatedly to elaborate on his claim, and to provide evidence that I cannot be objective about my own work. He has not done so; chiefly, I believe, because his claim is based on speculation, and not an acquaintance with the generative fixation hypothesis or the field of genetic algorithms. When pressed to provide evidence that I'm incapable of being objective about the edit, User:Glrx asks for evidence of "prominent adherents" of the GFH. In doing so, he is conflating the Wikipedia concepts of weight and notability. He is also exhibiting a rather rosy view of the pace at which science progresses in response to revolutionary theories. It is a view that would be amusing for its naivete if only it wasn't so disruptive in the present context.
WP:N prominently states that the Wikipedia guideline on Notability applies to article existence, not article content. Pointing this out to Glrx makes no difference. Neither does my entreaty to him to consider the harm he might be doing readers seeking an explanation for the adaptive capacity of genetic algorithms, especially genetic algorithms with uniform crossover. (The generative fixation hypothesis is currently the only full-fledged hypothesis that professes to explain the adaptive capacity of genetic algorithms with uniform crossover). Other neutral editors have commented that the mere mention of the existence of the GFH on the Genetic algorithms page does not violate WP:UNDUE, and may be very helpful to readers. None of this has made an impression on Glrx.
What would you like to change about this?
I'd like additional editors with a good grasp of Wikipedia policy to weigh in on this dispute.
How do you think we can help?
- By clearly stating Wikipedia's policy regarding the application of WP:Notability to article content.
- By correcting any misconceptions that Glrx or I might have.
- By commenting on any misconduct you see in the way this dispute is being handled by any of the participants.
- By helping us break the impasse we're currently in.