Odd Nature has been personally attacked! Options Rating

[Sxeptomaniac]

His main purpose at Wikipedia appears to be waging war against beliefs he considers unscientific, and not sharing knowledge.

Actually, that's not a bad thing in principle (provided you're right, of course); correcting palpable errors is just as important to an encyclopaedia as adding fresh information.

I think correcting errors is a good thing (I've fixed some rather odd ones myself lately). However, I am opposed to an encyclopedia telling people what to believe. I think the difference between the lead at WP and the article at Britannica on ID illustrates the difference. The WP version is a redundant mess; it works so hard to tell the reader that ID isn't science that it isn't very clear at all. Meanwhile, the Britannica article just gets to the point and explains the belief and the issues surrounding it.

[Kelly Martin]

I think correcting errors is a good thing (I've fixed some rather odd ones myself lately). However, I am opposed to an encyclopedia telling people what to believe. I think the difference between the lead at WP and the article at Britannica on ID illustrates the difference. The WP version is a redundant mess; it works so hard to tell the reader that ID isn't science that it isn't very clear at all. Meanwhile, the Britannica article just gets to the point and explains the belief and the issues surrounding it.

Wikipedia has a large cadre of editors (e.g. Ragesoss) who are convinced that the so-called "scientific point of view" is equivalent to the "neutral point of view". This cadre, amongst other things, runs around ensuring that any topic designated by them as a "pseudoscience" is thoroughly marked as such, lest unsuspecting people think possibly that astrology or tarot or such other things have any validity.

[Milton Roe]

I think correcting errors is a good thing (I've fixed some rather odd ones myself lately). However, I am opposed to an encyclopedia telling people what to believe. I think the difference between the lead at WP and the article at Britannica on ID illustrates the difference. The WP version is a redundant mess; it works so hard to tell the reader that ID isn't science that it isn't very clear at all. Meanwhile, the Britannica article just gets to the point and explains the belief and the issues surrounding it.

Wikipedia has a large cadre of editors (e.g. Ragesoss) who are convinced that the so-called "scientific point of view" is equivalent to the "neutral point of view". This cadre, amongst other things, runs around ensuring that any topic designated by them as a "pseudoscience" is thoroughly marked as such, lest unsuspecting people think possibly that astrology or tarot or such other things have any validity.

And at last, the only possible definition of neutral point of view: it's MY point of view! Since narcissistically I'm the center of the universe, my point of view must by definition be neutral, because it's right in the middle of everything, as I can clearly see.

Hope that's clear to you all too, now. That's why we have so many editors at WP who are all convinced they personally are at the NPOV point, and everybody else has drifted off a bit. Well, they're all correct. I think Einstein was the first to point out how this could actually work.

Helpfully,

MR

[guy]

Wikipedia has a large cadre of editors (e.g. Ragesoss) who are convinced that the so-called "scientific point of view" is equivalent to the "neutral point of view". This cadre, amongst other things, runs around ensuring that any topic designated by them as a "pseudoscience" is thoroughly marked as such, lest unsuspecting people think possibly that astrology or tarot or such other things have any validity.

Of course, NPOV as interpreted on WP requires us to give the proponents of astrology, tarot and other such stuff - and even zoophilia and spanking of boy scouts - their fair share of the sunlight. Is that a reducto ad absurdum of NPOV?

Well, they're all correct. I think Einstein was the first to point out how this could actually work.

Wasn't it Giordano Bruno, who was burnt at the stake for his trouble?

[Moulton]

Wasn't it Giordano Bruno, who was burnt at the stake for his trouble?

Giordano Bruno (1548, Nola – February 17, 1600, Rome) was an Italian philosopher, priest, cosmologist, and occultist. Bruno is known for his use and development of the art of memory, a mnemonic system based upon organized knowledge. He was also an early proponent of the idea of an infinite and homogeneous universe. Burnt at the stake as a heretic by the Roman Inquisition, Bruno is seen by some as the first "martyr [1] for science."

I wonder if he resurrected himself with a passel of sock puppets.

[Moulton]

The Kibosh Project

FT2 has this posted on his user page. He originally posted it at Wikipedia_talk:Neutrality_Project.

Neutrality Project

NPOV Misunderstanding

Wikipedia articles are not required to invent or embellish an opposing point of view if there isn't one. We are reporting upon a subject, whatever the article topic may be. Within that, some facts (or their interpretations) will be contested, others will be mostly accepted, others again will be almost universally accepted. We are obligated to ensure that when the article is complete, it mirrors and characterises, without re-enacting, the subject to which it refers, and the presence of opposing views in the article is purely a function of whether there were significant opposing views in the subject itself.

The acid test if NPOV is achieved, is the map-territory relation -- the extent to which the article can be used as a "map" to guide a lay-person through the "territory" of the subject, including its relevant detours, conflicts and highways. Like a map, no article perfectly mirrors a siubject, nor is this expected; if it did it would have to re-enact and be as large as the subject itself. There is a "cutoff" of detail, called "notability" in Wikipedia, and a good map must have enough detail, but not too much as to be unwieldy and unhelpful in navigating ones way.

-- FT2 (Talk | email) 02:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The reference to map-territory relation is significant. This tells me that FT2 is a Systems Thinker who thinks in terms of (subjective) mental models as approximations to objective reality. For a scientist, the fidelity between the map and the territory is highly valued. For a politician, the fidelity between the portrayal and the territory is not a core value. It is customary for politicians to routinely engage in haphazard character assassination.

Thus the contest between FT2 and the WikiClique on ID is clearly seen to be a contest between Homo Scientificus and Homo Politicus Cabalicus.

The nominal dramatic plot in these contests is that Homo Politicus Cabalicus (Dominus Corruptibus Felonious Monkey Businus) ruthlessly kiboshes Homo Scientificus (Moultonicus Outcasticus).

All that's left is for Ernie Kovacs to gin up a comedy sketch, featuring The Nairobi Trio...

The Nairobi Trio

Scathing Glances and Hard Looks

[guy]

There's always an opposing point of view. If we really believed in NPOV, the article on the size and shape of the Earth (whatever it's called) would give the evidence for a flat Earth.

[Dzonatas]

There's always an opposing point of view. If we really believed in NPOV, the article on the size and shape of the Earth (whatever it's called) would give the evidence for a flat Earth.

Or, at least show why people believe or believed that the Earth is/was flat.

[tarantino]

The Kibosh Project


The reference to map-territory relation is significant. This tells me that FT2 is a Systems Thinker who thinks in terms of (subjective) mental models as approximations to objective reality.

Yes, it is significant. Map-territory relation is one of the core presuppositions of neuro-linguistic programming.

[Dzonatas]

Yes, it is significant. Map-territory relation is one of the core presuppositions of neuro-linguistic programming.

Oh no! Don't click on hyperlinks or you might be mapped to another territory of the Internet!

[Proabivouac]

Yes, it is significant. Map-territory relation is one of the core presuppositions of neuro-linguistic programming.

FT2 is projecting his NLP gobbledygook onto Wikipedia policy

[Moulton]

Yes, it is significant. Map-territory relation is one of the core presuppositions of neuro-linguistic programming.

FT2 is projecting his NLP gobbledygook onto Wikipedia policy

I know next to nothing about NLP.

But I have a Ph.D. from Stanford University in Systems Theory.

The iconic phrase, "The Map is not the Territory" is the metaphor for "The Model is not the System."

In Systems Modeling, we build analytical or mathematical models of the systems we are interested in. The models are estimates or approximations to the system. Time and again, we are reminded that the Model is not the System.

René Magritte's Representative Model of a Pipe