ScienceApologist block, NewArbcom lays it down Options

[Moulton]

I'm a professional scientist and science educator, affiliated with the Boston Museum of Science, MIT, Harvard, Stanford, the University of Memphis, and Utah State University. I was a Distinguished Member of Technical Staff at AT&T Bell Laboratories.

I went to WP to correct and improve some badly-written articles that touched on science, scientific research, and scientists where I have some experience and expertise.

I ran into flack with the likes of OrangeMarlin and his allied editors on the Wikipedia Project on Intelligent Design. They were pushing an editorial point of view that was unscientific, politically motivated, and appallingly unencyclopedic.

Their treatment of me was scandalous, unprofessional, unethical, and a disgrace to the project.

OK, I will have a look at this (remember the scientific viewpoint is not adherence to any particular theory, such as Big Bang or evolution). It is a method that requires strict use of evidence, peer review process, neutrality &c. In the interests of this, if you give me some diffs, I will take a look at them, and around anything you provide. PM if you want.

Let's do this out in the open, if you don't mind.

Now the reason I'm here, on WR, and not on WP working to improve articles, is because one of the WP admins affiliated with the Wikipedia Project on Intelligent Design formed a haphazard theory, adopted it as an unshakable belief, and summarily acted upon it without examining the evidence.

Here is her theory:

KillerChihuaha asserts that I have "no interest in writing an encyclopedia." And on that basis, she executes an indefinite block.

Now that's an example of a Theory of Mind, which is testable by examining the evidence in a scientific manner. I offered evidence to refute her specious theory of mind.

Before coming to Wikipedia, I co-authored an 8-page peer-reviewed encyclopedia article entitled "Electronic (Virtual) Communities" in The Encyclopedia of International Media and Communications (2004).

Forming erratic theories of mind is a tactic sometimes known as Soviet Psychology, to dismiss dissidents who are critical of the regime. That's a shameful political maneuver that has no basis in ethics or science.

Is that the practice and model you want Wikipedia to adopt?

Because if they can do it to me, they can do it to anyone.

[Kyaa the Catlord]

OrangeMarlin and his friends are strong supporters of the "Dominionism" theory that some mainstream Christian leaders, politicians and organizations are trying to take over the United States and turn it into a theocracy. They have very weak sources for this theory and its associated articles, lists and template but hey, they have numbers to shout down opposition and override any attempts to improve or even simply make their articles follow the wikipedia policies and guidelines.

OK that's useful where-is-North information. Being an Anglican on the liberal-ish side, and therefore generally suspicious of the fundamentalist Christianity of the happy-clappy and US Conservapedia variety, I'm sympathetic to their view, then, up to a point. But lest I be biased because of this, can you give me any examples of where their tactics were egregious, in your view. I promise to take a look.

Even a liberal should be able to disengage enough to realize that using guilt-by-association and self-published sources (written on the homepage of one of the primary authors of the Dominionism page) runs afoul of wikipedia "policy".

(Please keep in mind, I'm not a very good example of the "mainstream" of WR. Actually, I sometimes stick out like a sore thumb. So don't base your idea of what WR is like on me, please.)

This post has been edited by Kyaa the Catlord: Mon 31st December 2007, 2:03pm

[Peter Damian]

Now the reason I'm here, on WR, and not on WP working to improve articles, is because one of the WP admins affiliated with the Wikipedia Project on Intelligent Design formed a haphazard theory, adopted it as an unshakable belief, and summarily acted upon it without examining the evidence.

OK I have read through this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_tal...comment/Moulton

and I'm very sorry to say (very sorry indeed, because it will win me no friends here) that I am broadly sympathetic to the position of those who blocked you.

This may be because you weren't very good at presenting the case in your favour. (It does no good at all to open a statement saying X has a theory of mind where the emboldened term then links to some incomprehensible WP article). I can't comment on that, I am only basing it on what I read in the linked-to pages.

It all chimes in with much of what you say in this forum: you keep on banging on about 'rule based systems' and so on. I haven't the faintest idea what you are talking about, and nor I suspect does anyone else here.

Again, sorry to have to say this, to a fellow refugee.

[Yehudi]

Guy thinks that all reasonable people (ie white, English, Anglican, Heterosexual males who like cycling and women with big breasts) think the same way he does

Do we have a reliable source that he's a practising Anglican?

[Moulton]

Now the reason I'm here, on WR, and not on WP working to improve articles, is because one of the WP admins affiliated with the Wikipedia Project on Intelligent Design formed a haphazard theory, adopted it as an unshakable belief, and summarily acted upon it without examining the evidence.

OK I have read through this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_tal...comment/Moulton

and I'm very sorry to say (very sorry indeed, because it will win me no friends here) that I am broadly sympathetic to the position of those who blocked you.

This may be because you weren't very good at presenting the case in your favour. (It does no good at all to open a statement saying X has a theory of mind where the emboldened term then links to some incomprehensible WP article). I can't comment on that, I am only basing it on what I read in the linked-to pages.

That reinforces my stated objective, to improve the quality of articles on WP, so bring them up to a respectable level of accuracy, excellence, and ethics in online media. It was becoming clear to me that the members of the Wikipedia Project on Intelligent Design didn't have a very good understanding of ideas like negative reframing or theory of mind, and were thus making sophomoric errors with respect to editorial judgments involving those concepts.

It all chimes in with much of what you say in this forum: you keep on banging on about 'rule based systems' and so on. I haven't the faintest idea what you are talking about, and nor I suspect does anyone else here.

Again, sorry to have to say this, to a fellow refugee.

Don't run away. I am a science educator, albeit one who frankly struggles to discover how to communicate subtle but profoundly important ideas to the lay public.

If you will bear with me, we can craft a worthwhile conversation in which these ideas become clear.

This post has been edited by Moulton: Mon 31st December 2007, 2:39pm

[Peter Damian]

It was becoming clear to me that the members of the Wikipedia Project on Intelligent Design didn't have a very good understanding of ideas like negative reframing or theory of mind, and were thus making sophomoric errors with respect to editorial judgments involving those concepts.

Er, yes, indeed. (Edges nervously towards the door).

[Moulton]

It was becoming clear to me that the members of the Wikipedia Project on Intelligent Design didn't have a very good understanding of ideas like negative reframing or theory of mind, and were thus making sophomoric errors with respect to editorial judgments involving those concepts.

Er, yes, indeed. (Edges nervously towards the door).

Before you dash off to your next urgent appointment of the day, can you summarize in a brief paragraph or two how you came to be a "fellow refugee"?

[the fieryangel]

It all chimes in with much of what you say in this forum: you keep on banging on about 'rule based systems' and so on. I haven't the faintest idea what you are talking about, and nor I suspect does anyone else here.

Again, sorry to have to say this, to a fellow refugee.

Don't run away. I am a science educator, albeit one who frankly struggles to discover how to communicate subtle but profoundly important ideas to the lay public.

If you will bear with me, we can craft a worthwhile conversation in which these ideas become clear.

This is precisely what happens to every educator who tries to play by Wikipedia's rules. I've seen this over and over again. If you try to explain things to them using the kind of language they're used to, you get "no reliable sources" and "fringe theory". You can quote articles, academic journals, papers, presentations all you want, but if it ain't in their sources (ie whatever they have on their shelves) it's not "reliable".

If you try to explain things on your terms, using academic language and the kind of thought processes which are normal in academic discussion, you're being elitist, are "probably a nut", and are violating NOR/POINT/whatever else they're pushing.

The whole process leads to whatever group controls the majority position to use the rulebook to exclude the others, including experts. Experts force other editors to see that they aren't as qualified as they thought they were to write an encyclopedia. This goes against the entire aim of the site, which is to validate this "groupThink" position.

So, to discuss any editor's comments outside of this system has no meaning. It doesn't matter what they said or what this might imply. The only meaning can be inferred from the workings of the system itself.

It was becoming clear to me that the members of the Wikipedia Project on Intelligent Design didn't have a very good understanding of ideas like negative reframing or theory of mind, and were thus making sophomoric errors with respect to editorial judgments involving those concepts.

Er, yes, indeed. (Edges nervously towards the door).

You know, it is generally accepted here that we do not have to think the same things.

I fail to see why having people who have different thoughts on subjects should be such a cause for such anxiety. Surely anyone involved in scientific investigation must be aware that not everyone necessarily accepts the same ideas at any one particular time. Is this not the norm? It certainly is in the humanities.

Perhaps you might feel more comfortable at Guy's own wiki?

This post has been edited by the fieryangel: Mon 31st December 2007, 3:12pm

[Peter Damian]

Before you dash off to your next urgent appointment of the day, can you summarize in a brief paragraph or two how you came to be a "fellow refugee"?

I'm afraid I can't. Mine was one of the old accounts before Wiki became famous. It is my real name, and they placed a block such that everyone at the IP where I work (very large organisation) could see the supposed 'block offence', with my real name. Very unpleasant, and they still have that over me. So a warning, never every edit WP except from home (which I invariably did, except for the one day the block happened). They still have this over me, so I have to be circumspect about what I know.

In general terms, I mentioned on a sympathiser's talk page that I was leaving WP, and might contact 'the relevant organisations'. Bang, they were following my edit trail, and that was it (WP:LEGAL). But (a) I don't see it was a threat, because a threat has to be addressed to a person whose behaviour you are trying to influence, and this was just a passing remark to a friend who had no direct interest in the matter ( I was leaving anyway.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Mon 31st December 2007, 3:13pm

[Moulton]

This is precisely what happens to every educator who tries to play by Wikipedia's rules.

Actually, the best educators understood that they would have to sacrifice themselves in the cause of introducing a new idea that would overthrow the prevailing myth of their time.

In Philosophy, Socrates exemplified this observation.

In Science, Galileo exemplifies it.

In Theology, Jesus is the canonical example.

Today's prevailing myth is the one that dates back to Hammurabi of Babylonia (and before him to Solon of Sumeria). It's the myth known as Law and Order -- the belief that rule-driven systems are inherently orderly, stable, and predictable.

Dostoevsky parodied that notion in Crime and Punishment.

Since then, others have filled in the mathematical theory that reveals why rule-driven systems are inherently chaotic, and why the goal that Hammurabi had in mind is better achieved by a functional regulatory structure that is grounded in what is today known as Systems Science.

[dtobias]

If you try to explain things on your terms, using academic language and the kind of thought processes which are normal in academic discussion, you're being elitist, are "probably a nut", and are violating NOR/POINT/whatever else they're pushing.

I find a good deal of what passes for "academic" thought to be gibberish, myself. Didn't somebody, a few years ago, write a purposely meaningless and incomprehensible article and manage to get it published in one of the academic journals as a supposed serious work? Anything to do with "deconstructionism" is particularly rampant with that sort of thing. There are some words, like "semiotics", that make my eyes glaze over whenever they show up in discourse.

[Moulton]

Have you read Umberto Eco's novel, The Name of the Rose or seen the movie version with Sean Connery?

[the fieryangel]

This is precisely what happens to every educator who tries to play by Wikipedia's rules.

Actually, the best educators understood that they would have to sacrifice themselves in the cause of introducing a new idea that would overthrow the prevailing myth of their time.

In Philosophy, Socrates exemplified this observation.

In Science, Galileo exemplifies it.

In Theology, Jesus is the canonical example.

Today's prevailing myth is the one that dates back to Hammurabi of Babylonia (and before him to Solon of Sumeria). It's the myth known as Law and Order -- the belief that rule-driven systems are inherently orderly, stable, and predictable.

Dostoevsky parodied that notion in Crime and Punishment.

Since then, others have filled in the mathematical theory that reveals why rule-driven systems are inherently chaotic, and why the goal that Hammurabi had in mind is better achieved by a functional regulatory structure that is grounded in what is today known as Systems Science.

I completely agree with all of this...which is entirely the reason why I will never edit WP. First of all, I'm not interesting in being the "Sacrificial Lamb" of the month...Secondly, everything that I would have to add on any subject that I understood anything about would be perceived as "original research" and probably something along the lines of a "fringe theory".

The point being, since modification of the system is not possible, the only "positive" action can be working towards dismantling the system, from my point of view.

[Peter Damian]

I find a good deal of what passes for "academic" thought to be gibberish, myself. Didn't somebody, a few years ago, write a purposely meaningless and incomprehensible article and manage to get it published in one of the academic journals as a supposed serious work? Anything to do with "deconstructionism" is particularly rampant with that sort of thing. There are some words, like "semiotics", that make my eyes glaze over whenever they show up in discourse.

The famous 'Sokal hoax'. There are of course fringes and cults within what passes as science. Though, note, the hoax concerned the area of philosophy, not science.

[the fieryangel]

If you try to explain things on your terms, using academic language and the kind of thought processes which are normal in academic discussion, you're being elitist, are "probably a nut", and are violating NOR/POINT/whatever else they're pushing.

I find a good deal of what passes for "academic" thought to be gibberish, myself. Didn't somebody, a few years ago, write a purposely meaningless and incomprehensible article and manage to get it published in one of the academic journals as a supposed serious work? Anything to do with "deconstructionism" is particularly rampant with that sort of thing. There are some words, like "semiotics", that make my eyes glaze over whenever they show up in discourse.

Perhaps you might want to consider that some (not all) academics have a sense of humor.

Secondly, words have specific meanings in specific contexts. Sometimes the word "semiotic" is the only one that fits the meaning of a certain community. In order to understand the meaning of specific phrases and words, one must understand the context of the community in which the words are spoken.

This is true for Academics...and also for Wikipedia.

[Joseph100]

I can't wait until OrangeMarlin, Guettarda and that sort get blocked.

Perhaps I made a mistake registering at this site, or at least should have done some research. I'm openly pro-science, and I support everything that the pro-scientists are saying on that page. I don't know anything else they have said.

What do other people here think? If there is notable anti-science bias on this site, it's time to leave.

I'm a professional scientist and science educator, affiliated with the Boston Museum of Science, MIT, Harvard, Stanford, the University of Memphis, and Utah State University. I was a Distinguished Member of Technical Staff at AT&T Bell Laboratories.

I went to WP to correct and improve some badly-written articles that touched on science, scientific research, and scientists where I have some experience and expertise.

I ran into flack with the likes of OrangeMarlin and his allied editors on the Wikipedia Project on Intelligent Design. They were pushing an editorial point of view that was unscientific, politically motivated, and appallingly unencyclopedic.

Their treatment of me was scandalous, unprofessional, unethical, and a disgrace to the project.

Amen, Bro. Sing it out... Science and facts and authority have no meaning to the Jimbo Juice Jerks that administer the "project".

See a picture of a "steward" of Wikpedia and see the wisdom of wikipeid in this face...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:DerHexer.png



How can you expect a pointy capped, power drunk teen punk to have any education and wisdom to understand "science" while chanting "sum of all human knowledge" and eating hot pockets/chugging JimboJuice, while on a 36hour marathon editing/reverting/chanting session.

Dealing with such miscreants is such a wast of life. Dealing with a greedy ringmasters of Wikipeida is a waste. The only thing wikipedia should have it's plug pulled, the Domain/ and other assets sold and the proceeds donated to some brick and mortar library.

May be the donation dry up or a big fat class action suit is dumped on Wikipeida foundation to compel them to close shop.

This post has been edited by Kato: Thu 3rd January 2008, 5:39pm

[Saltimbanco]

Perhaps I made a mistake registering at this site, or at least should have done some research. I'm openly pro-science, and I support everything that the pro-scientists are saying on that page. I don't know anything else they have said.

What do other people here think? If there is notable anti-science bias on this site, it's time to leave.

I suspect that there is a fair amount of support for fringe-ish science-ism here. Probably a few regulars here were banned at Wikipedia for promoting such things, probably a few of them with good cause.

So, should you leave? No. This is really the crux of the systemic failure of Wikipedia: how it promotes one way of thinking over another. Each of us has his own idea of what is an appropriate perspective on whatever matters we took the time to write about at Wikipedia, and sometimes those ideas include opinions on which perspectives should be completely silenced or presented as fringe beliefs. How can the wheat be separated from the chaff?

Wikipedia's solution has been to allow, with no particular requirement for qualifications, certain people to be elevated by support of their peers to positions of authority from which they can impose their preferred perspectives onto the project. And naturally that has been a failure, because among people who believe that their perspective is correct and that reasoned discussion will amply demonstrate it, becoming a Wikipedia administrator is an annoyance and a responsibility that they'd just as soon avoid; but among people who recognize that their perspective will need a little boost to prevail among the non-cogniscenti, adminship - and moreover the clannish, mutually re-inforcing behavior that a lot of administrators have adopted - is an obvious goal. And so you get a cluster-fuck.

Anti-science bias has probably been one of the least successful on Wikipedia, from what I have seen. But the problem there is illustrative: how much space, and how much credence, should be given to Intelligent Design or other "alternative" takes on matters that science considers its own? And how can such a happy medium reliably be reached on a project like Wikipedia?

[Moulton]

The point being, since modification of the system is not possible, the only "positive" action can be working towards dismantling the system, from my point of view.

Actually, there is a functional course of action that falls short of directly working toward dismantlement.

That course of action is illustrated by the examples I highlighted -- revealing the true nature of the beast. Dostoevsky illustrated one way to do this, via a well-crafted story. Dostoevsky's method ingeniously solved the "sacrificial lamb" problem by a novel method. You see, fiction is a great scam. You get to tell the truth by pretending to lie.

Socrates, Jesus, and Galileo personally enacted their stories, unavoidably accepting the role of the sacrificial lamb. With the invention of the literary form known as the novel, the author can shift the role of change-agent to a storybook character.

Of course nowadays, novels work best when they are transformed into blockbuster movies, Broadway musicals, or comic operas.

It's only a matter of time before someone (presumably someone with a lot more talent than me) writes and produces such a musical parody. I'd love to see Johnny Depp play the starring role.

[the fieryangel]

It's only a matter of time before someone (presumably someone with a lot more talent than me) writes and produces such a musical parody. I'd love to see Johnny Depp play the starring role.

If somebody wants to write a script, I'll write the music!

(thanks...I might just do this...)

[Moulton]

Is DerHexer a redhead?

So were Socrates, Galileo, and Darwin.