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]

Filll admits the petition can be interpreted seventeen ways from Sunday...

My personal view, which disagrees with some sources, is that the petition is written so vaguely that every single scientifically literate person, would agree with it. --Filll (talk) 00:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Now I happen to think that a scientifically literate person (such as James Tour or Rosalind Picard) might agree that scientists should examine the evidence for any proposed theory with a skeptical eye.

And so I suggested this way of writing the paragraph on the James Tour BLP...

Controversial petition

In February 2006, the New York Times reported that Dr. Tour was one of a small number of nationally prominent researchers out of several hundred scientists and engineers whose names appeared on the Discovery Institute's newly launched website promoting a controversial petition characterized as "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism", which states "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." Tour's field of organic chemistry is a branch of scientific research which establishes his credentials as a practitioner and advocate of the protocols of the scientific method as they apply to all branches of science. The controversy arises from confusion over whether the statement is an expression of the technical protocols of the scientific method or an expression favoring a political agenda regarding the teaching of scientific subjects related to evolution.

[Kato]

Filll admits the petition can be interpreted seventeen ways from Sunday...

My personal view, which disagrees with some sources, is that the petition is written so vaguely that every single scientifically literate person, would agree with it. --Filll (talk) 00:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Now I happen to think that a scientifically literate person (such as James Tour or Rosalind Picard) might agree that scientists should examine the evidence for any proposed theory with a skeptical eye.

And so I suggested this way of writing the paragraph on the James Tour BLP...

Controversial petition

In February 2006, the New York Times reported that Dr. Tour was one of a small number of nationally prominent researchers out of several hundred scientists and engineers whose names appeared on the Discovery Institute's newly launched website promoting a controversial petition characterized as "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism", which states "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." Tour's field of organic chemistry is a branch of scientific research which establishes his credentials as a practitioner and advocate of the protocols of the scientific method as they apply to all branches of science. The controversy arises from confusion over whether the statement is an expression of the technical protocols of the scientific method or an expression favoring a political agenda regarding the teaching of scientific subjects related to evolution.

Rework the "Tour's field of organic..." But otherwise, that seems a dry, neutral, accurate and satisfactory account of events.

By the way, I'm staggered by the naivety of the signers. But again, that is beside the point. There's no accounting for you lab coat wearing eggheads.

[Moulton]

Rework the "Tour's field of organic..." But otherwise, that seems a dry, neutral, accurate and satisfactory account of events.

It was immediately reverted on the grounds of WP:POINT in favor of an interpretation that Tour was a raving lunatic who was out marching for ID.

By the way, I'm staggered by the naivety of the signers. But again, that is beside the point. There's no accounting for you lab coat wearing eggheads.

No more naive than my presumption that Wikipedia was a real encyclopedia that adhered to some realistic standard of accuracy, excellence, and ethics in media.

How silly of me to have imagined that.

[Kato]

Rework the "Tour's field of organic..." But otherwise, that seems a dry, neutral, accurate and satisfactory account of events.

It was immediately reverted on the grounds of WP:POINT in favor of an interpretation that Tour was a raving lunatic who was out marching for ID.

By the way, I'm staggered by the naivety of the signers. But again, that is beside the point. There's no accounting for you lab coat wearing eggheads.

No more naive than my presumption that Wikipedia was a real encyclopedia that adhered to some realistic standard of accuracy, excellence, and ethics in media.

How silly of me to have imagined that.

Indeed. Most of us fell for that one. I certainly did, much to my chagrin. That sense of being cheated, having my talents and time wasted on that sham before the truth became blatantly obvious is probably one of my motivations for exposing the site's flaws now.