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 |
| Comment | First mediator rejected by a party. |
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 a new hypothesis about the workings of genetic algorithms that I published in my Ph.D. dissertation should be mentioned in passing 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 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 accuses me of "pushing ... original research" (despite the edit being WP:V), and says that the conflict of interest inherent in writing about one's own work---a COI I made explicit by writing under my real name---by definition makes me "too close" to my work to write about it on Wikipedia. I've asked him repeatedly to provide evidence that I cannot be objective about the edit. He has not responded to these requests. I believe, that he does not respond because his conclusions are based on his feelings about me (specifically, that I had the gall to challenge him to back up his claim that the edit violates WP:NOR and WP:NPOV), not an acquaintance with either the field of genetic algorithms or my work.
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 the scientific hypothesis I've put forth. In other words, Glrx asks for evidence of the notability of this hypothesis. In doing so, Glrx conflates the Wikipedia concepts of weight, which applies to article content, and notability, which applies to article existence. The nutshell box at the top of WP:N prominently states that the Wikipedia guideline on Notability applies to article existence, not article content. The filters for article content are WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV, none of which are violated by the edit. Pointing this out to Glrx makes no difference.
Other neutral editors have agreed that the mere mention of the new hypothesis on the Genetic algorithms page does not violate WP:UNDUE, and could quite possibly be very helpful to readers of the article, especially since the reigning hypothesis in the field is known to have significant flaws. None of this has made an impression on Glrx, who acts like he is the final authority on what does and does not belong in Wikipedia, and on who can and cannot post material to a given article. Additionally he feels no obligation to respond to my questions, or my invitations to him to enter into formal mediation WP:RFM. His one word response to the latter was "Sigh". Keki Burjorjee
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 the difference between weight and notability, and explaining Wikipedia's policy regarding the application of WP:Notability to article content.
- By correcting any misconceptions that Glrx or I (or any other participant) 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.
Mediator notes
I will mediate this if I am acceptable to all parties. Please indicate such on this page. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 14:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
- Accept ErikHaugen (talk) 17:03, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
- Accept — Parent5446 ☯ (msg email) 23:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
- Accept. Keki Burjorjee (talk) 07:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
- Accept Chaosdruid (talk) 14:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
- Decline Glrx (talk) 20:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
- As Glrx has rejected me as mediator, I will leave a note and leave the case open. Hipocrite (talk) 13:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)