A Scientific Dissent from Wikipedianism, A Crockwork Orange Options

[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 Jello™.

Jon

[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

[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: Mon 5th May 2008, 7:57pm

[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 )

[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

This post has been edited by Jon Awbrey: Tue 6th May 2008, 3:48am

[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?