ScienceApologist block, NewArbcom lays it down Options

[Peter Damian]

As part of the war against Science being waged by the 'New Arbcom' ScienceApologist has been blocked.

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

by Rlevse 22:19, 30 December 2007. FT2 wading in bigtime to help his crank-and-cult mates, but quite a few science-community people now involved. The crime is to call someone's argument 'ridiculously fatuous'. SA's page probably the best place to get a view.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ScienceApologist

Some of it is hilarious. But read Guy's comments in full.

This is a symptom of a larger problem, in my view. We have become the number one most important place for proponents of fringe theories and minority views, to get those views across. There exists a significant number of editors whose mission on Wikipedia is to skew content to better reflect their POV.
[…]
The paranormal is essentially a belief system, but presented by adherents as if it were reality. And there are very few well-informed pro-science editors who watchlist these articles, which means that those who do are in a more or less constant state of seige. They feel isolated and under attack, and not without reason.
[Guy (Help!) 11:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)]

Go there, Guy. Wish I could help out. Oh well, the entire community of "well-informed pro-science editors" is going to end up on WR sooner or later.

[edit] Guy is advocating a 'support network' for pro-science Wikists.

So, what we need to do, for the encyclopaedia, is to build up a support network for editors defending NPOV on articles under sustained attack. This is not to doubt the good faith of those promoting the on-mainstream - they sincerely believe that they are right, just as young earth creationists sincerely believe they are right - but their view is not the mainstream view, and NPOV requires that the mainstream view is used as a benchmark and referent when discussing these topics.

Silly boy. Definitely against the NewArbCom rules. Cruising for a block, I'd say. He fails to understand that NPOV means 'notable point of view'. Since flat-earth, time-expansion, homeopathy, young-erath creationism et al are all notable, they deserve equal airtime. And if this frustrates you just for a second, and you commit breach of incivility rules, out you go.

Yet more. Orange Marlin fights back

I think this block is ridiculous. SA is a strong, intelligent editor of this project. And since I expect my block to be coming within the next 10-14 days, I'll state this very plainly. The POV-bullshit from certain quarters is getting out of hand. NPOV is being violated in so many areas, and we are fighting so hard to to keep it NPOV, that it is getting frustrating. Actions against SA is causing the burn-out of good editors. The POV warriors win through attrition. And because most admins now are "elected" based on the ability to fight vandals and not really do anything special rather than provide any sort of leadership (and leadership takes risks, takes integrity and takes teamwork), no one stands with the individuals that have to fight the POV warriors. So instead of someone jumping on the POV warriors, so you don't burn out editors like SA, you leave them alone. The admins that used to take a stand (there used to be a few dozen, but I noticed more and more are leaving, and a lot more are keeping low) are scared of the supporters of the POV-warriors.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Mon 31st December 2007, 12:24pm

[the fieryangel]

Silly boy. Definitely against the NewArbCom rules. Cruising for a block, I'd say.

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 and so anyone else is obviously a troll pushing a fringe theory. Plus, if it's not on his IPOD, it's not important.

It must be nice to live in a World where everything is so clearly defined. I vaguely remember when my World was something like that...when I was four or five years old...

[Peter Damian]

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 and so anyone else is obviously a troll pushing a fringe theory. Plus, if it's not on his IPOD, it's not important.

Ad hominem. What is wrong with what he is actually saying, on that page?

[the fieryangel]

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 and so anyone else is obviously a troll pushing a fringe theory. Plus, if it's not on his IPOD, it's not important.

Ad hominem. What is wrong with what he is actually saying, on that page?

What is wrong? What isn't wrong?

Guy, as usual, is making a general, sweeping statement based on his own (limited) understanding of the subject without citing any real life evidence or statements made by people that actually understand what he's attempting to discuss. He's done it about pretty much everything under the Sun, from bicycle helmets to women opera composers. Now he's doing it for "scientific fringe theories".

What he should be doing is allowing those who understand the subject to comment and shutting up.

As far as stooping to use Ad hominem arguments against Guy; since there isn't any substance to speak of, what else is one supposed to do? It's the entire approach of Wikipedia, which can be boiled down to the idea that the sum of all human knowledge is what WE know. What this effectively does is create a situation which validates the thinking of those, such as Guy, who are convinced that they do indeed know everything.

The more I work in my selected field of research, the more I see how impossible it is to understand anything. I strongly disagree that this kind of reasoning which paints the World in great strokes of black and white can ever express anything remotely close to the idea of the sum of all human knowledge: indeed, by limiting said knowledge, by definition it cannot.

This post has been edited by the fieryangel: Mon 31st December 2007, 12:43pm

[Kyaa the Catlord]

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

[Peter Damian]

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.

[the fieryangel]

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 do not have an anti-science bias, however I am a scholar in the humanities (musicology). My comments were not aimed to promote an anti-science bias, but rather to point out to you that Guy has a long, well-documented history of making sweeping generalizations which only serve to confirm that his own personal vision of the World is correct (please see his subforum in the Editors section here for many more shining examples).

I personally am not qualified to make any sorts of judgments regarding the validity of scientific theories, but I do resent the process by which Wikipedia weeds out ideas which they judge to be "fringe theories", without taking into account current scholarship in the fields discussed. Often these judgments are made either by children or by "armchair experts" such as Mr. Chapman here. The idea has been put forward, here and elsewhere, that this process is an expression of an inherent bias against experts. This has also been discussed at length on this site.

If you are an expert in scientific issues, your insight will be very useful in discussing the validity of these theories. However, the underlying process is something that has discussed at length here. My comments are concerning this process, not the actual validity of the ideas themselves.

This post has been edited by the fieryangel: Mon 31st December 2007, 12:54pm

[msharma]

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 totally with you in that fringe-y nonsense is overrunning WP. That being said, this particular block is a straightforward application of the ArbCom restrictions; the guy was rude and assumed bad faith, regardless of whether he was right (which he was).

On an unrelated note, the reason you're not getting as much support here is that Guy has come down strongly for SA, and a good number of people at WR use a simple rule of thumb: if Guy's for it, there's something wrong with it.

[Moulton]

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.

[Kyaa the Catlord]

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 do not like the tactics that OrangeMarlin, Guettarda and their ilk use. I'm not anti-science, I like science and have participated in a lot of science related articles (I like spacecraft, planetary science, that sort of stuff). Its the hot button polictically motivatived POV pressure with abusive admin tool hijinks that I do not support.

[Moulton]

I do not like the tactics that OrangeMarlin, Guettarda and their ilk use.

Their tactics are brilliant if one considers WP to be an MMPORG where the goal is to eliminate all rival editors.

Their tactics are shameful if one considers WP to be a respectable collaboration of editors who strive to craft encyclopedic articles that rise to a reasonable level of accuracy, excellence, and ethics in online media.

[GlassBeadGame]

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.

No anti-science bias at all. What you might mistake for such a "bias" is respect for minority positions and a concern that WP is flattening the range of acceptable discussion and imposing a stifling conformity. I can't help notice that science proponents you quote are not making reasoned arguments. They are merely making accusations that those they oppose them are anti-science. Sweeping conclusory remarks like those are no substitute for rational discourse but they are certainly useful in a dysfunctional social networking environment where influence and alliances trump reason at every turn. Unfortunately the science editors have learned this lesson, too. Speaking for myself only, it is not that I don't agree with the science editors on a wide range of matters. I do. I just no longer believe that WP is capable of sorting out scientific validity on the merits.

[dtobias]

I think you may find that this site does sometimes give more credence to fringe theories than you think they deserve, because it attracts people disgruntled (fairly or not) with Wikipedia, and that includes proponents of various non-mainstream stuff, much of which is hokum, who feel they're being persecuted by the establishment (including the Wikipedia establishment). However, though you might applaud the "WikiClique" (as represented by the likes of Guy) when they're standing up for what happens to agree with what you believe in, you're likely to eventually get disgruntled yourself when those people show a similar degree of flippant pseudo-righteousness to an arrogant degree in favor of something you happen to disagree with, and then you'll see why people here dislike those people so much.

If what you say is correct about the new ArbCom showing more favor to fringe advocates, going against the likes of Guy, that should prove interesting; since people here generally dislike both the ArbCom and Guy, they might hope for a battle between them to Mutually Assured Destruction.

[Peter Damian]

[...] the reason you're not getting as much support here is that Guy has come down strongly for SA, and a good number of people at WR use a simple rule of thumb: if Guy's for it, there's something wrong with it.

That is ad hominem in a nutshell. X has talked crap in the past, ergo X is now talking crap (without any serious look at what X is saying right now). You may all be right, all I am interesting in what he is saying now. As follows - I put Guy's remarks in quotes, with my comments.

1.

The dispute on SA's page is symptom of a larger problem.

Comment: I agree
2.

Wp is the number one most important place for proponents of fringe theories and minority views.

Comment: Well there is Usenet, but no one takes this seriously, and no schools use it. WP is the number one place that is used by schools, and is taken seriously by many (though still not many academics)
3.

There exists a significant number of editors whose mission on Wikipedia is to skew content to better reflect their POV.

Wholeheartedly agree.
4.

The new age crap is its own little world with virtually no external referents, no proper treatment by the scientific mainstream other than to laugh and point.

Agree
5.

The scientific community has little interest in refuting NewAgism.

Generally true.
6.

Frustrating if you have to deal with it on WP.

Absolutely agree, I have first hand experience of this.
7.

Gives the example of 9-11 conspiracies.

Agree, 9-11 conspiracy is well-known problem for those who are interested in solid, evidence-based historical analysis.
8.

Most of these articles attract only those who are here to promote the non-mainstream POV.

Absolutely true.
9.

There are very few well-informed pro-science editors who watchlist these articles, which means that those who do are in a more or less constant state of seige.

Don't know about science articles, but I was the last to leave my own field, after it was over-run by the NewAgers.
10.

So, what we need to do, for the encyclopaedia, is to build up a support network for editors defending NPOV on articles under sustained attack.

Mild disagree, too late to do that.

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.

I think you may find that this site does sometimes give more credence to fringe theories than you think they deserve, because it attracts people disgruntled (fairly or not) with Wikipedia, and that includes proponents of various non-mainstream stuff, much of which is hokum, who feel they're being persecuted by the establishment (including the Wikipedia establishment).

You have expressed my reservations well.

[Moulton]

The undeniable fact is that WP has become a battleground where editors with competing agendas duke it out. The winners are those who can exploit the hodgepodge of WP:Rules to disempower and disable their rivals. In the long run, WP morphs into an MMPORG that revolves around the clever exploitation of the WP:Rules.

Now here's a mathematical fact that has been known for over a century...

Rule-driven systems are, in general, not orderly, stable, and predictable. In general rule-driven systems yield dynamics that are unfathomably chaotic at worst and enthrallingly gamelike at best.

These results date back to Poincare, but also include seminal contributions from John von Neumann, John Forbes Nash, and Edward Lorentz.

[Kyaa the Catlord]

I do not like the tactics that OrangeMarlin, Guettarda and their ilk use.

Their tactics are brilliant if one considers WP to be an MMPORG where the goal is to eliminate all rival editors.

Their tactics are shameful if one considers WP to be a respectable collaboration of editors who strive to craft encyclopedic articles that rise to a reasonable level of accuracy, excellence, and ethics in online media.

I agree. Its a shame they haven't gotten rid of that annoying little "not a battlefield" thing.

And my encounters with them have not been on science related articles, they continue to wage their war and leap to each other's defense on articles which are fringe theories which they support.

This post has been edited by Kyaa the Catlord: Mon 31st December 2007, 1:37pm

[msharma]

[...] the reason you're not getting as much support here is that Guy has come down strongly for SA, and a good number of people at WR use a simple rule of thumb: if Guy's for it, there's something wrong with it.

That is ad hominem in a nutshell. X has talked crap in the past, ergo X is now talking crap (without any serious look at what X is saying right now).

Absolutely, and the fact that Guy is broadly correct in this instance shows the limitations of ad hominem thinking.

[Peter Damian]

And my encounters with them have not been on science related articles, they continue to wage their war and leap to each other's defense on articles which are fringe theories which they support.

Can you give me an example? Again, PM if you like.

[Kyaa the Catlord]

And my encounters with them have not been on science related articles, they continue to wage their war and leap to each other's defense on articles which are fringe theories which they support.

Can you give me an example? Again, PM if you like.

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.

A question for you, do you support Guy's suggestion of having a "support network"? I see this as the creation of a forum for off-wiki canvassing and the very idea is troubling.

Would you support the same sort of forum for pro-Israel editors to discuss changes in support of presenting their viewpoint in articles? Or pro-ID editors?



This post has been edited by Kyaa the Catlord: Mon 31st December 2007, 1:52pm

[Peter Damian]

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.