A Scientific Dissent from Wikipedianism, A Crockwork Orange Options

[Derktar]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...er:Orangemarlin
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=210232016
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=210231458

I don't know - we have an active contributor to Wikipedia Review apparently editing on behalf of another Wikipedia Review editor (who happens to be a permabanned editor). Not too big a leap at all... Guettarda (talk) 03:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

That's right folks, I forgot to mention we re-programmed Krimpet a week or so ago and we are finally putting her to use.

So sorry you had to wander into that mess Krimpet.

[Moulton]

Good grief.

[Kato]

The treatment of Rosalind Picard's biography by this clique of Raul, OrangeMarlin and co, is an absolute scandal.

It is described here...

http://wikipediareview.com/blog/20080405/s...with-wikipedia/

[Somey]

Disgusting!

It's a good example, though, of how the deck is completely stacked in favor of revenge-grabbers - not only because of the civility and "AGF" rules that protect them as long as they retain that veneer of politeness, but because of natural human emotional and behavioral predictability. People trying to do something positive can almost always be bullied into submission by people trying to do something negative, because negative emotions and thoughts are much easier to sustain, if not escalate. That's part of man's basic animal nature: It takes a real effort to do something positive, but people who are into negativity can pretty much go at it all night, if that's what it takes.

It kind of makes sense that it would be over this issue, too, when you think about it.

[Moulton]

I would be interested in working constructively with responsible and mature admins — people of the caliber of Doc Glasgow — to devise a mutually agreeable way to solve the festering problems that have produced such a long-running Kafkaesque nightmare for everyone.

This is exactly what I'm hoping to see too - a mutually agreeable solution to the BLP disaster led by trusted, principled folks (and I'm not going to lie and pretend I'm one of them (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)) who can hear concerns from all sides. What's troubling is that this combative eye-for-an-eye outing approach, which just makes much of the WP community less receptive to any reform out of spite, is constantly setting back any hope of fixing things by driving the principled folks away.

Krimpet took quite a hammering in that disgraceful AN/I kerfuffle.

Still, I believe what's needed is a Truth and Reconciliation Process.

But I have no idea who would step forward to chair anything like that.

[Somey]

Opt-out... Reciprocity... Opt-out... Reciprocity... Opt-out... Reciprocity...

[Derktar]

Opt-out... Reciprocity... Opt-out... Reciprocity... Opt-out... Reciprocity...

Maybe we could just devote a whole day to displaying a big banner that says this before entering the site.

I doubt they would get it even if that happened though.

[Moulton]

Here is some useful information...

The two-sentence, 32-word, untitled petition that Picard and 100 other scientists and academics signed in 2001 reads as follows:

We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.

Picard says this:

My agreement with the petition's first statement is based mostly on my experiments trying to get statistical physics simulations to generate complex specific patterns out of randomness. I don't know anybody who would disagree with the second statement in the petition.

To my mind, the only thing wrong with the second statement is that it's not broad enough. As a science educator, I encourage students to carefully examine the evidence for any theory.

As to the complexity of life, no one knows how DNA-based life as we know it ever got started in the first place. The puzzle of abiogenesis remains an unsolved problem in molecular biology.

[Jacina]

The way I see it is that we have 2 Theories (probably more but 2 "main" ones)

1. Evolution (and all its variants and whatnot)
2. Creation (and all its variants and whatnot)

Both are THEORIES both will probably NEVER be proved 100% (because doing that would require observation (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif) ), both have some things pointing to them, and some against.

However Wikipedia only allows for ONE theory (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[Somey]

Ehh, hopefully we can agree to disagree on the whole evolution vs. creationism thing...

As for me, I'm certainly what one would call an "evolutionist" - which is to say that I have no qualms with the idea that evolution is a proven theory, and I'd be perfectly happy if people stopped calling evolution a "theory" and started referring to it as a "fact," which is what some scientists are actually starting to do in response to the recent ID business.

However, I do have qualms with people being targeted by WP attack editors and system-gamers just for having signed some stupid petition, getting lumped in with a bunch of people they have nothing to do with, and then never being able to get their privacy and their professional reputations back because those same attack editors insist that anyone who questions them has to "AGF."

It's just morally wrong to do that to a person, at least over something like that. I could probably see it if they'd mistakenly signed a petition that clearly advocated wiping out everyone under the age of 14 by feeding them to a swarm of locusts, though.

[Proabivouac]

The way I see it is that we have 2 Theories (probably more but 2 "main" ones)

1. Evolution (and all its variants and whatnot)
2. Creation (and all its variants and whatnot)

Both are THEORIES both will probably NEVER be proved 100% (because doing that would require observation (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif) ), both have some things pointing to them, and some against.

However Wikipedia only allows for ONE theory (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

I disagree. Mere evolution is descent with modification. That most or all extant species developed from a single ancestor is obvious. That random mutation and natural selection are causes of susequent variation is similarly obvious. That they are the main or only causes is not as clear.

What we can say is that there is no coherent counter-explanation at this time, other than the, erm, deus ex machina of the creationists.

None of that touches on abiogenesis, really, expect by analogy: naturalism has worked well until now, so we can expect that this explanation is similarly naturalistic. There is of course no way to say that God didn't guide any or all of this change, but there is no evidence for it, besides the unauthored claims of scripture.

Even scripturally, Genesis is weak: not only doesn't the author identify himself, he makes no claim to have witnessed any of the events described, nor does he cite any chain of authority to this effect. It is as if people of the future came upon a contemporary book with really big letters which began, "Once upon a time…" and believed what followed, where it would be bad enough to assume that we believed it.

Additionally, I see no reason to believe that either the Jews or Jesus took this story seriously, or considered belief in it an important part in religion, other than the fact of its inclusion in scripture…and do we have any idea who made that decision, or why?

This post has been edited by Proabivouac:

[Kato]

The way I see it is that we have 2 Theories (probably more but 2 "main" ones)

1. Evolution (and all its variants and whatnot)
2. Creation (and all its variants and whatnot)

Both are THEORIES both will probably NEVER be proved 100% (because doing that would require observation (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif) ), both have some things pointing to them, and some against.

However Wikipedia only allows for ONE theory (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Evolution is observable and beyond dispute. Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection to explain the complexity of life is a Scientific Theory, not some half baked theory we come up with lying on our backs staring at the moon. That other thing you mention has nothing to do with scientific theory, nor the article in question. I don't think you'll find anyone to agree with you here.

But if you want to discuss these matters, please do so in the "Politics, Religion and Such" forum.

[Somey]

Additionally, I see no reason to believe that either the Jews or Jesus took this story seriously, or considered belief in it an important part in religion, other than the fact of its inclusion in scripture…and do we have any idea who made that decision, or why?

Hard to say, but as long as nobody tries to claim it was SlimVirgin's doing, I'll be happy.

[Proabivouac]

However, I do have qualms with people being targeted by WP attack editors and system-gamers just for having signed some stupid petition, getting lumped in with a bunch of people they have nothing to do with, and then never being able to get their privacy and their professional reputations back because those same attack editors insist that anyone who questions them has to "AGF."

I also take issue the fact that the controllers of this article are pseudonymous, while Ms. Picard is not. Who is responsible for ensuring the fairness and veracity of that article?

I could probably see it if they'd mistakenly signed a petition that clearly advocated wiping out everyone under the age of 14 by feeding them to a swarm of locusts, though.

Does the world really need more unwanted children?

[Somey]

Who is responsible for ensuring the fairness and veracity of that article?

Well, y'see, the internet is like, uh, like a series of tubes....

I could probably see it if they'd mistakenly signed a petition that clearly advocated wiping out everyone under the age of 14 by feeding them to a swarm of locusts, though.

Does the world really need more unwanted children?

Okay, how about if the petition advocated wiping out everyone over the age of 14?

[Jacina]

Ah /shrug boils down to observation at the start, which is where the point of contention lies mainly.

One option does not wholly discount the other to boot.




I do think calling it a "whitewash" is quite POV though, was it a bad thing to sign? Obviously depends on your POV.

[UserB]

Additionally, I see no reason to believe that either the Jews or Jesus took this story seriously, or considered belief in it an important part in religion, other than the fact of its inclusion in scripture…and do we have any idea who made that decision, or why?

If Jesus was just a man who would have had to make a decision what he believed about origins (as opposed to the Christian belief that Jesus is God the Son, the second person of the Trinity, who knows for a fact what happened because He was there), then all of Christianity is a vicious hoax anyway.

The Christian belief in the literal truth of the whole of scripture comes from, among other places, Matthew 5:18 where Jesus says, "I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." You can read more about the theology of it at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inspiration (which is really a rather poor article).

[Moulton]

I don't know anyone who disputes evolution as Darwin defined it — the emergence of new species via descent with modification and natural selection.

On the other hand, I don't know anybody who has a good theory about how life as we know it arose in the first place. That's where the "complexity of life" issue is the main obstacle to be overcome. DNA and its replication cycle is complex. How that complex molecular machinery ever got started remains a scientific mystery. Perhaps it will solved in this century.

The evidence for Darwin's model is compelling. But it's also important to examine that evidence with a skeptical eye. Some of the evidence trotted out to support Darwin's model isn't probative. That's like including extraneous material in the proof of a mathematical theorem. It's important to appreciate which evidence is probative.

One valid complaint about Darwin's model is that it's a qualitative model rather than a quantitative one. What's needed is a stochastic model that corresponds to Stephen Jay Gould's notion of Punctuated Equilibrium. Stanislaw Ulam is one of the few mathematicians to make significant contributions to this important frontier. Ulam's seminal contributions to theoretical biology should not be overlooked.

And scientists who are concerned about these questions should not be confused with religious fundamentalists who prefer non-scientific explanations for the unanswered questions about the origin and complexity of life.

[that one guy]

CBM has some respect in my book. Krimpet gets a shit ton of respect for putting up with first being attacked on the secret mailing list, then putting up with this and what not.

Guettarda reminds me of another editor (guess who?) and seems to argue just for the sake of arguing.

My two cents on it all.

Also: Krimpet shows she's perfectly capable of defending herself (though she does call the people here loons).

[Moulton]

Reading that firestorm in the wake of Krimpet's contested edits, I can imagine how Moses must have felt when he parted the waters. Half of the suds line up on one side of the gap, and half line up on the other. Where is the middle ground?

This post has been edited by Moulton:

[Jon Awbrey]

Reading that firestorm in the wake of Krimpet's contested edits, I can imagine how Moses must have felt when he parted the waters. Half of suds line up on one side of the gap, and half line up on the other. Where is the middle ground?

To hell with that! Where is higher ground!

Besides, I heard he did it with Jelloâ„¢.

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

[Moulton]

It looks like most of the remaining debate has settled into the bottom of the talk page for Picard's bio.

If anyone has any interest in a rebuttal to Filll's misinformation, I suppose I could post it here, but I reckon that would be like pissing into the wind.

[Somey]

Well, at least he admits to what he and his team are doing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=210336704

Sorry, but the only reason she is on Wikipedia is she signed the petition. She is not particularly notable as an academic. If you believe she is, spend a week or two writing a proper biography for her in a sandbox and let others look at it. And yes lots and lots of people have tried to claim she did not sign and wanted us to write that she did not sign and the New York Times writer is a stupid #$%^&* for writing that she signed. And just trying to hide the fact that she signed and the NYT wrote an article about it probably is not going to fly. If this is so all-fired important to you, why are you afraid of doing any real work? Stop complaining and do some real writing.

All lies, of course. Nobody, nobody at all, is trying to claim that Picard didn't sign the petition, or that she was a "stupid #$%^&*" for doing so, and certainly not that she wrote what she signed! (where the f*** did that come from?). And nobody is trying to hide the fact that the NYT wrote an article that mentioned her as one of the signers, either.

We're simply saying that this shouldn't be treated as anything beyond the signing of a petition, i.e, a minor incident that shouldn't form the basis of an entire biography on the world's most heavily-scraped and -searched information site.

Anyone who takes Filll up on his offer to write about Picard in a "sandbox" is wasting their time, obviously - his team will never stop attacking Rosalind Picard, and they will never let this end.

"Stop complaining and do some real writing" is the standard rejoinder for people on WP who are faced with evidence of their own abuses and have no valid counter-arguments whatsoever.

[Moulton]

Half the lies Filll is posting there aren't even true.

[dogbiscuit]

Well, at least he admits to what he and his team are doing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=210336704

...and in that rant, he admits to doing one large chunk of original research.

This is a classic case where a Primary Source (shock, horror) would resolve the issue. Put the two line petition up without the bastardised interpretation. The argument has never been about the petition, it has been about how a disreputable organisation has distorted the meaning of that petition and a group of editors have chosen to set that distorted interpretation up because of a piece in the NYT which decided on a particular interpretation.

[Moulton]

The NYT piece covered the controversy, but didn't endorse one interpretation or another. Two of the signers quoted in the story gave their own interpretation, which differed from the DI's interpretation, and also from the headline-writer's interpretation. The word "anti-evolution" does not appear in the text of the NYT article, nor on the newly launched web site the story was about.

[Jon Awbrey]

The puzzle of abiogenesis remains an unsolved problem in molecular biology.

That's nothing compared to the mystery of abinitiogenesis.
And Guy said, "Let There Be Arch Coal!"

And There Was Arch Coal.

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

[Sceptre]

Ack, Guettarda is not one of my favourite admins. I seem to remember him advocating for keeping this BLP nightmare. Kudos to Krimpet for at least trying to get rid of it - it is minor coatracking at the least.

[that one guy]

The good old "You share viewpoint X with banned user Y so therefore you're proxying for them" argument was played. Lovely

[dogbiscuit]

It is worth noting this vote stacking technique that our whiter than white defender of the faith OrangeMarlin uses.

[Proabivouac]

The good old "You share viewpoint X with banned user Y so therefore you're proxying for them" argument was played. Lovely

It appears to have become almost obligatory to insult the participants of this forum in general. Those who have registered here are then obliged to lob some insults of their own to prove their loyalty to WP.

It seems obvious that Krimpet was moved to take a look based on what appeared here on WR. Why not just admit it?

Clearly, all of them are reading the Review as well, or they wouldn't be aware of who posts here, or what we discuss.

This post has been edited by Proabivouac:

[Moulton]

I don't know how Krimpet came onto the case, but I thank her for having the courage to wade in.

In the end, Kim Bruning brought in another editor, Ottava Rima, who did a wonderful job fixing up the biography.

The dust probably hasn't settled yet, but hopefully we've turned a major corner today.

My deepest appreciation to Krimpet, Kim Bruning, Ottava Rima, and the many courageous defenders who stood up to the ID Cabal in the talk page discussions.

[tarantino]

After being slapped down on AN/I, Raul654 has protected Rosalind Picard. The anti-ID clique, having nothing better to do, then converges on Affective computing because they can. Nothing to see here, no siree.

[The Joy]

After being slapped down on AN/I, Raul654 has protected Rosalind Picard. The anti-ID clique, having nothing better to do, then converges on Affective computing because they can. Nothing to see here, no siree.

Actually, the ID Cabal is now singing on Rosalind Picard's article talk page. They are like vultures waiting for the lions to move away from the carcass.

There is no curse in Elvish, Entish, Jon Awbrey or the tongues of men for this treachery!

Moulton, has Ms. Picard called attention to this travesty to the press? Because I think Brian Bergstein or Cade Metz needs to see this debacle. I sense another Seigenthaler scandal approaching.

[Kato]

The talk page is embarrassing to read. It took me approximately 20 seconds of research to figure out what happened regarding this petition, when I first heard about it from Moulton last year. Yet these so called "scientists" on the talk page are going round in circles, talking out of their back-sides, and have missed the whole damn point of why people are complaining about the bio.

For the record, I am no scientist, but I'm a big supporter of Richard Dawkins in his campaign to challenge all forms of mumbo-jumbo that permeate our culture. So one could say I'm at least as adamant about rejecting bullshit as the likes of OrangeMarlin and co. But if these Wikipedia goons can't even figure out the basic facts in this case - how the petition was used and the scientists manipulated etc - then they should get the hell off the site. I throw them in the can with the clods who go around dowsing for water and praying to their moon gods for good weather.

Complete turkeys who should be ashamed of themselves.

Dawkins is right. Wikipedia presents great opportunity, and huge danger. When Dawkins presented his nightmarish vision of "evidence devalued" by Wikipedia and similar forums on his series "Enemies of Reason", he was backed by a huge scrolling screen of Wikipedia pages, accompanied by spooky music. He would likely disagree with Picard over the intricacies of Darwinian theory, but he would be appalled by the mistreatment of Picard at the hands of Wikipedia.

[Giggy]

It seems obvious that Krimpet was moved to take a look based on what appeared here on WR. Why not just admit it?

Yeah, but what's wrong with that...not seeing a problem with going to improve an article that's been tagged for cleanup - just that the tagging was done here, instead of using an ugly template message.

Kudos to Krimpet, aka Mrs. Moulton (or so we are to be told (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif) )

[The Joy]

Why are administrators letting the ID crowd get away with such uncollegial behavior? They are running off anyone that comes along. I've never seen such blind anger and pure hatred on a WP talk page before.

[Jon Awbrey]

After being slapped down on AN/I, Raul654 has protected Rosalind Picard. The anti-ID clique, having nothing better to do, then converges on Affective computing because they can. Nothing to see here, no siree.

Actually, the ID Cabal is now singing on Rosalind Picard's article talk page. They are like vultures waiting for the lions to move away from the carcass.

There is no curse in Elvish, Entish, Jon Awbrey or the tongues of men for this treachery!

Moulton, has Ms. Picard called attention to this travesty to the press? Because I think Brian Bergstein or Cade Metz needs to see this debacle. I sense another Seigenthaler scandal approaching.

Do not underestimate the re*cussedness of Elves, Ents, or Awbreys.

But this is such a typical phenomenon in Wikipedia, and its prevalence is one of the things that puts the lie to those who say, There Is No Central Control (WP:TINCC).

Sure, there are many areas of The Backwoods, The Boonies, The Hinterland, The Outback, The Steppes, The Great Northern Wasteland where editors develop content in relative peace and quiet. But there is no place that is safe from being slashed and burned and salted once the Keystone Kabal Kops get a Wiki-Whiff of their Wiki-Prey's blood, toil, tears, and sweat upon those grounds. And Wikipedia gives them all the tools they need to police the thoughts of any outpost that does not toe their Wiki-Party Line.

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

This post has been edited by Jon Awbrey:

[Giggy]

Why are administrators letting the ID crowd get away with such uncollegial behavior? They are running off anyone that comes along. I've never seen such blind anger and pure hatred on a WP talk page before.

Because some admins are in the ID crowd too, and that crowd shouts louder.

[The Joy]

Why are administrators letting the ID crowd get away with such uncollegial behavior? They are running off anyone that comes along. I've never seen such blind anger and pure hatred on a WP talk page before.

Because some admins are in the ID crowd too, and that crowd shouts louder.

Wouldn't a block speak louder than any shouting? Wouldn't a block silence the shouting?

Why would Raul or any highly-respected Wikipedian defend these people?