A Scientific Dissent from Wikipedianism, A Crockwork Orange Options

[Moulton]

More from Moulton's talk page...

Filll, you can find dogbiscuit's reply to you here. —Moulton (talk) 11:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I looked. He sees the world in black and white, not even shades of grey, and certainly not in color I guess. And he just goes with what he thinks is some obvious reason, assuming things about my personal beliefs and those of others to force some interpretation of his own creation on the situation. What some people do not seem to get is, my personal beliefs in the matter are irrelevant here - everyone's are. We have a set of rules for WP. And we follow the rules, as best as we can.

Would you want to play basketball with someone who demonstrated by their deeds and actions they did not want to play by the rules? Suppose one of the opposing teams stated that they intended to allow 20 players on the floor at once, and to introduce 3 basetballs into play instead of just one? Suppose that one of the opposing teams demanded that they be allowed to pass the ball to the crowd and have the crowd pass it back to one of their players, without stopping the play? Suppose that one of the opposing teams demanded that they receive no penalty for intentionally tripping members of the other team? And so on? Do you think that the league would let them continue to play with their own made up rules? Do you think that everyone would give in to their demands? What if they were asked to read the rule book and follow the rules and they refused repeatedly? What do you think would happen?

I believe that it is quite likely that you will dismiss this as inaccurate, or an inapplicable analogy, or try to ignore it, or to find some loophole, or claim I am being unfair. Do you think that might be part of the reason you are in the situation you find yourself in? Interesting question, don't you think?--Filll (talk) 12:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Watcha think?

[dogbiscuit]

More from Moulton's talk page...

Filll, you can find dogbiscuit's reply to you here. —Moulton (talk) 11:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I looked. He sees the world in black and white, not even shades of grey, and certainly not in color I guess. And he just goes with what he thinks is some obvious reason, assuming things about my personal beliefs and those of others to force some interpretation of his own creation on the situation. What some people do not seem to get is, my personal beliefs in the matter are irrelevant here - everyone's are. We have a set of rules for WP. And we follow the rules, as best as we can.

Would you want to play basketball with someone who demonstrated by their deeds and actions they did not want to play by the rules? Suppose one of the opposing teams stated that they intended to allow 20 players on the floor at once, and to introduce 3 basetballs into play instead of just one? Suppose that one of the opposing teams demanded that they be allowed to pass the ball to the crowd and have the crowd pass it back to one of their players, without stopping the play? Suppose that one of the opposing teams demanded that they receive no penalty for intentionally tripping members of the other team? And so on? Do you think that the league would let them continue to play with their own made up rules? Do you think that everyone would give in to their demands? What if they were asked to read the rule book and follow the rules and they refused repeatedly? What do you think would happen?

I believe that it is quite likely that you will dismiss this as inaccurate, or an inapplicable analogy, or try to ignore it, or to find some loophole, or claim I am being unfair. Do you think that might be part of the reason you are in the situation you find yourself in? Interesting question, don't you think?--Filll (talk) 12:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Watcha think?

I think that I am very much a grey person. The point of the rules is that they are subject to interpretation. He seems to subscribe to a belief that he is not interpreting rules but simply applying them.

It is interesting that his analogy is just what I could use to describe the ID crowds actions - except they are waving the rule book at me and saying "Here are the rules, we are right" without actually bothering to look, because they've played for so long they just know they are.

I don't want to descend into trial by example, but my view was formed by assertions that using adverts from the Times was some kind of quality sourcing, the determination to apply a rule blindly - they've read the assertion that mainstream newspapers are good quality sources, the advert appeared in a mainstream newspaper therefore the contents of the advert must have had some sort of editorial approval. That source should never have been any part of the argument, it is simply a primary source. Clearly, the other element, the massive extrapolation of Picard's belief system based on the signature is an incredible use of synthesis. Go and read WP:NOR and you will find that someone spent some time trying to get wording that says: if you use any sort of analysis, you have to source that analysis, you cannot simply use a primary source and synthesise your own controversial analysis.

Put simply, where is the source that shows that Picard knowingly signed a petition that was sponsored by the DI and was intended to support Intelligent Design (Creationism) over Darwinism (Evolution) and is an ongoing supporter of the DI? There is no source that has that analysis, therefore there is not a valid source, by the rules, to put that analysis in place. It is not a case of you needing to find sources to rebut this assertion, so that there can be a to and fro debate. Yes, it may well be noteworthy that she signed this petition, but I would want more evidence than a mention in one single newspaper article before I would consider it noteworthy (there is even a policy that explicitly covers that somewhere too).

Filll's problem is that he knows you did your own OR to rebut the nonsense on the page and probably is thinking at cross-purposes, he is happily using the rules to reject YOUR argument. However, I get the impression he has never really examined the original sourcing to justify the ID Crowd line, where there was a massive reliance on one single article in the NYT and presumptions and interpretations layered upon it. It is just poor quality editing, full stop.

[Moulton]

All the NYT story of 2006 reveals is that Picard's name is one of a number of names who are listed on the newly launched DissentFromDarwin.Org web site. You can report what the DI claims that means, but you can't elevate the claims of PR site like that to the level of a {fact} on the ground, especially given that coterminous analysis by Skip Evans of the NCSE dissecting those doubtful claims and declaring them so much horse dookie. To get that the first 100 scientists actually signed anything at all, you have to go to the facsimile of the anti-PBS ad, which exhibits the totality of what those 100 scientists put their name to. To say more than that is not only synthesis, it's demonstrably false by any reasonable objective journalistic standard.

I could have taken that same 32-word untitled statement and published a different ad with the headline, "100 Scientists Call for Rigorous Adherence to the Protocols of the Scientific Method When Reviewing the Evidence for Scientific Theories". Moreover, I daresay those 100 scientists would not have taken issue with that headline. Then if I start a PR website called RigorInScience.Org, and invite more people to sign, would I be in the clear if I asserted that the initial 100 signers put their name to the "Call for Rigor In Science Petition"? What if I called it the "Dissent From Sloppy Science" Petition, instead?

Do you think Hrafn, Fill, or ConfuciousOrnis would have accepted that equally plausible interpretation and label to the otherwise untitled 32-word statement?

[thekohser]

...And we follow the rules, as best as we can.

Would you want to play basketball with someone who demonstrated by their deeds and actions they did not want to play by the rules? Suppose one of the opposing teams stated that they intended to allow 20 players on the floor at once, and to introduce 3 basetballs into play instead of just one? ...
--Filll (talk) 12:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[/indent]

Watcha think?

What do I think? I think he misspelled "basetballs". It should be "bassetballs":

[Moulton]

Greg, you are more incorrigible than David Berlinski.

[Moulton]

Media Ethics: Into the pot, already boiling

What Is the Rate of Progress?
Wednesday, May 21, 2008

On Monday, I published an article on the Media Ethics blog entitled, What Is the Name of This Problem?

I also copied it, verbatim, to a discussion thread on Wikipedia Review.

Today, I noticed on my watchlist that there had been some new activity on the article on A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism.

Yesterday, it seems, a Wikipedian named WAS 4.250, boldly undertook to correct a long-festering inaccuracy in that article. And he also posted a comment about it on the article's talk page. Having moved the ball closer to the goal line of accuracy, excellence, and ethics, the defending editors pushed back with all their might, so there was modest net gain in yardage at the end of two days. The article still does not acknowledge that the name, "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" was originally just the headline on the Anti-PBS ad of 2001.

I suppose I might have used the same 32-word petition in an ad headlined "100 Scientists Urge Rigorous Adherence to the Protocols of the Scientific Method When Examining Evidence in Support of Scientific Theories" followed by a couple of paragraphs of advertising copy explaining what that means. And I suppose I could have later launched a promotional web site, RigorInScience.Org, soliciting even more signatures. I wonder if those 100 scientists would have smiled in approval or frowned in disapproval of the way I had interpreted and promoted their previously untitled statement.

When I wrote the blog article on Monday, the key references were #19 and #20, buried deep in the article. Now the key references are #1 and #2. That's as it should be, since they are the references one must examine to sort {fact} from fiction PR spin.

So good for you, WAS 4.250. You're a mensch in my book. We've come a long way in a mere 10 months. We're halfway to the goal now. Zeno would be kvelling in his grave.

And thanks to Wikipedian PelleSmith, too, for pointing out that whatever goes for the main article goes for the WP:COATRACKS out there in that ever-hazardous BLP space.

[Kato]

We've come a long way in a mere 10 months. We're halfway to the goal now. Zeno would be kvelling in his grave.

What you mean 'we,' white man?

[Moulton]

We've come a long way in a mere 10 months. We're halfway to the goal now. Zeno would be kvelling in his grave.

What you mean 'we,' white man?

Poetic license in the spirit of community making and bridge building.

[Moulton]

The collegial and congenial Dr. Filll analyzes Moulton's Objectives...

Your objectives

I guarantee if you do not agree to follow the rules and take instruction in how to behave here, you will have the same experience you did the last time. You might even be shown the door quicker.

I know you want to "improve" the system, according to your own intuition and undestanding. My interpretation is that you want to dictate rules to tens of thousands of other users, based on nothing besides the fact that you are Moulton. That is not how a collaborative, consensus-driven enterprise like Wikipedia works. The fact that you even believe it is possible when you do not understand the system is mind-boggling, and shows you are not much of a "scientist" or "researcher" at all.

If you want to try to improve the system (as I and many others do), you have to understand it first. And you will not understand it by sitting over at WR and throwing stones at Wikipedia with other malcontents. And you will not understand the system by demanding that you be allowed to disobey all the policies and practices and conventions, and to insult others at will who are only trying to follow the rules, and do so with impunity and no consequences.

I would suggest that you do what I did; pick some very bland topics you are interested in, like the theatre, or some playwrite, or chess, or Arabic poetry and build up a few FA and GA articles over a few months. Get at least 20,000 edits under your belt, and write a good 100 articles or more.

Then try a controversial article in an area in which you are not personally involved, like "race and IQ" or "chiropractic" or "electronic voice phenomenon". Get at least 500 edits on the talk page of a controversial article trying to broker a consensus between warring factions and get the article closer to the standards that Wikipedia aspires to (not your standards, but Wikipedia's).

Put some time in closing threads at the COI noticeboard or a few other noticeboards.

Then and only then will you have enough background to begin suggesting changes to Wikipedia's culture. Then and only then will you understand enough for your statements on improving Wikipedia to make any sense. Then and only then will anyone pay attention to you at all, and even then you will mostly be ignored.

That is reality. Deal with it. Otherwise, you are like an illiterate high school dropout demanding a chaired position in the English Department at Harvard. It ain't gunna happen.--Filll (talk | wpc) 15:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I very much appreciate Filll's warm and welcoming remarks helping to orient me to the Wikipedia community culture.

[Jon Awbrey]

The collegial and congenial Dr. Filll analyzes Moulton's Objectives …

Your objectives

I guarantee if you do not agree to follow the rules and take instruction in how to behave here, you will have the same experience you did the last time. You might even be shown the door quicker.

I know you want to "improve" the system, according to your own intuition and undestanding. My interpretation is that you want to dictate rules to tens of thousands of other users, based on nothing besides the fact that you are Moulton. That is not how a collaborative, consensus-driven enterprise like Wikipedia works. The fact that you even believe it is possible when you do not understand the system is mind-boggling, and shows you are not much of a "scientist" or "researcher" at all.

If you want to try to improve the system (as I and many others do), you have to understand it first. And you will not understand it by sitting over at WR and throwing stones at Wikipedia with other malcontents. And you will not understand the system by demanding that you be allowed to disobey all the policies and practices and conventions, and to insult others at will who are only trying to follow the rules, and do so with impunity and no consequences.

I would suggest that you do what I did; pick some very bland topics you are interested in, like the theatre, or some playwrite, or chess, or Arabic poetry and build up a few FA and GA articles over a few months. Get at least 20,000 edits under your belt, and write a good 100 articles or more.

Then try a controversial article in an area in which you are not personally involved, like "race and IQ" or "chiropractic" or "electronic voice phenomenon". Get at least 500 edits on the talk page of a controversial article trying to broker a consensus between warring factions and get the article closer to the standards that Wikipedia aspires to (not your standards, but Wikipedia's).

Put some time in closing threads at the COI noticeboard or a few other noticeboards.

Then and only then will you have enough background to begin suggesting changes to Wikipedia's culture. Then and only then will you understand enough for your statements on improving Wikipedia to make any sense. Then and only then will anyone pay attention to you at all, and even then you will mostly be ignored.

That is reality. Deal with it. Otherwise, you are like an illiterate high school dropout demanding a chaired position in the English Department at Harvard. It ain't gunna happen. Filll (talk | wpc) 15:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I very much appreciate Filll's warm and welcoming remarks helping to orient me to the Wikipedia community culture.

I have heard Wikipediots recite this same form of argument on many occasions …

There is something oddly familiar about it …

Oh, right, now I remember … It's an argument that

Expertise Matters!

Kinda ironic, though, coming from them …

Jon

This post has been edited by Jon Awbrey: Thu 22nd May 2008, 8:10pm

[Lar]

I very much appreciate Filll's warm and welcoming remarks helping to orient me to the Wikipedia community culture.

His bedside manner may leave something to be desired but this is the same thing a lot of people, including myself, have been telling you for some time.

You don't have to go along with how things are done at WP to have a happy life. There are plenty of other things to do in life that can make you happy.... But typically you do have to edit within the rules (or a reasonable approximation based on your good faith best understanding of them) if you want to edit there. You're not wrong for not wanting to do that, but I don't see you getting unblocked for very long until you internalise what people are telling you. I told you this a while ago.

Like I said, I think I have a collegial and congenial relationship with you. I think you have some valuable insights to share, but until you abide by the rules, you can't edit successfully there, and until you pay your dues, ain't no one gonna listen. You gotta go along to get along.

Does that make me a WP "fixer"? Maybe. But I've effected more change there (and had more fun there, for most definitions of "fun") than you have.

This post has been edited by Lar: Thu 22nd May 2008, 8:12pm

[Jon Awbrey]

I very much appreciate Filll's warm and welcoming remarks helping to orient me to the Wikipedia community culture.

His bedside manner may leave something to be desired but this is the same thing a lot of people, including myself, have been telling you for some time.

You don't have to go along with how things are done at WP to have a happy life. There are plenty of other things to do in life that can make you happy … But typically you do have to edit within the rules (or a reasonable approximation based on your good faith best understanding of them) if you want to edit there. You're not wrong for not wanting to do that, but I don't see you getting unblocked for very long until you internalise what people are telling you. I told you this a while ago.

Like I said, I think I have a collegial and congenial relationship with you. I think you have some valuable insights to share, but until you abide by the rules, you can't edit successfully there, and until you pay your dues, ain't no one gonna listen. You gotta go along to get along.

Does that make me a WP "fixer"? Maybe. But I've effected more change there (and had more fun there, for most definitions of "fun") than you have.

And here's my advice to you, Lar.

Take those words, inscribe them on a large slice of Velveeta® Cheese, wrap it in plastic, stick it in the fridge.

Jon

This post has been edited by Jon Awbrey: Thu 22nd May 2008, 8:26pm

[Kato]

But typically you do have to edit within the rules.

Lar, you talk about "editing within the rules". Ignore all rules. And does anyone think that Filll, Felonius Monk and others were editing within any rules? Of course they weren't. They were edit warring, not assuming good faith, not applying NPOV, not adhering to the basic tenets of BLP, blocking people they were engaging in disputes with etc etc. How on earth is anyone expected to figure out what rules to follow in that environment?

[Lar]

But I've effected more change there (and had more fun there, for most definitions of "fun") than you have.

Lar, you talk about "editing within the rules". Ignore all rules. And does anyone think that Filll, Felonius Monk and others were editing within any rules? Of course they weren't. They were edit warring, not assuming good faith, not applying NPOV, not adhering to the basic tenets of BLP, blocking people they were engaging in disputes with etc etc. How on earth is anyone expected to figure out what rules to follow in that environment?

Ya that behaviour is a problem. But that behaviour is the exception, not the norm. That is not to say that the behaviours you describe are acceptable, they are not. But they are outside the rules. The rules are not that hard to figure out, really. My wife has been reverted, I think, once, and never ever got into an edit war, much less ever been blocked. She has fun, and she does good work. It's possible to edit happily and peacefully.

Do you have to be a happy editor at WP to have a fun life? Heck, no, there are lots of other things to do in the world. But if you want to be a happy editor you have to act like the 5 pillars apply to you, even if others don't in your view, always do so. This is not at all unusual, we have bad people in real life but you don't see people saying "I don't understand the rules of driving" just because someone runs a red light in front of them.

Do with that what you will.

Oh and Jon, given how hard it is to write on Velveeta®, and that it is harder for smaller letters than for larger one, where can I get a slice of Velveeta big enough to inscribe all that stuff???

[Jon Awbrey]

Oh and Jon, given how hard it is to write on Velveeta®, and that it is harder for smaller letters than for larger one, where can I get a slice of Velveeta® big enough to inscribe all that stuff???

It was only a serving suggestion.

Just be sure to write 'em on something that you like to eat a whole lot of …

Jon

[Somey]

Then and only then will you have enough background to begin suggesting changes to Wikipedia's culture. Then and only then will you understand enough for your statements on improving Wikipedia to make any sense. Then and only then will anyone pay attention to you at all, and even then you will mostly be ignored.

Who the heck is this guy? He sounds like the headmaster of a British public school for unruly young boys.

[Jon Awbrey]

Then and only then will you have enough background to begin suggesting changes to Wikipedia's culture. Then and only then will you understand enough for your statements on improving Wikipedia to make any sense. Then and only then will anyone pay attention to you at all, and even then you will mostly be ignored.

Who the heck is this guy? He sounds like the headmaster of a British public school for unruly young boys.

You've heard of Will Beback?

Well, this is his duller and more pedantic brother, Thenandonlythen Will.

Don't all rush off to register it at once …

Jon

[Milton Roe]

Then and only then will you have enough background to begin suggesting changes to Wikipedia's culture. Then and only then will you understand enough for your statements on improving Wikipedia to make any sense. Then and only then will anyone pay attention to you at all, and even then you will mostly be ignored.

Who the heck is this guy? He sounds like the headmaster of a British public school for unruly young boys.

It's neurolinguistic programming. If you have somebody read it to you with a neutral voice, it has a certain alphawave producing effect. MEGO. Soon you'll find that you're becoming more and deeply relaxed. Your eyes are becoming heavy. You find that your limbs are becoming heavy. Always at all times you're becoming more and more deeply relaxed....






Oh, you're awake, now! Now, I have some pictures of some nice animals to show you, and I want you to tell me the first word you think of.

-M

This post has been edited by Milton Roe: Thu 22nd May 2008, 8:59pm

[Moulton]

From Moulton's Talk Page...

Let's cut to the chase.

Let's cut to the chase. You need to say you will go along with how things are done here and then do so to the best of your ability, or it is pointless to unblock you. It would also be helpful if you were less frustrating to talk to. You have a way of being an exasperating conversation partner. Do you agree to edit wikipedia in a way that you honestly believe will usually be met with acceptance (and to back off in any specific instance when you find your belief was wrong) ? Will you try? If not, then we are just wasting our time. Please answer yes or no and not another one of your exasperating philosophical excursions. Will you try? WAS 4.250 (talk) 01:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Mu. —Moulton (talk) 02:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

That behavior is behavior that is not trying, so even though your answer is "That is an invalid question"; it is in fact a "No" answer. WAS 4.250 (talk) 09:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, WAS, but I had already promised Kim Bruning that I was fine with the WP:5P, modulo the substitution of objective (as I understand it) in lieu of WP:NPOV which I frankly find incomprehensible, disputatious, and argumentative. I generally don't find objective to be as problematic or argumentative as WP:NPOV. I asked Kim if my participation here from August 21st through September 11th of last year departed from WP:5P in any substantive or problematic way. His answer was that to the best of his knowledge I did not depart from WP:5P, but he couldn't be absolutely 100% positive. Your question, above, was worded in a way that seemed to be at odds with my understanding of Kim's offer. Hope this helps.

Moulton (talk) 14:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

My offer was inclusive NPOV, but we'd show you how it worked. I think WAS will support you if you state that you will try to follow the five pillars. Worst case you don't quite manage, or don't enjoy working in that manner, in which case you can walk away, but you will still have the benefit of an improved reputation. If you say No, there is absolutely nothing to be gained, and this opportunity will not come again. --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

As you know, Kim, I have stated that I have always been fine with the five pillars (modulo interpreting NPOV to be essentially synonymous with 'objective'), and (as far as I know) my participation here has never departed in any substantive degree from the five pillars. If there proves to be any substantive distinction between 'objective' and NPOV, I am fine with letting Ottava explain to me the distinction and demonstrate how to correct any resultant discrepancy. I have never stopped endeavoring to do my best, even under difficult circumstances. While I have no reliable way to predict whether my work will be met with acceptance or rejection, I nonetheless confidently believe that my work will ultimately be perceived and recognized as achieving a normative standard of accuracy, excellence, and ethics in online media, appropriate to the enterprise of crafting a respectable encyclopedia that concords with the educational mission of the WMF.

Moulton (talk) 18:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I know where you're coming from and how you mean those words, and we've had a cordial discussion, and that's coming almost all the way. But it's too little too late. :-( --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC) ironically, if you'd have used less words, it might work out

[Milton Roe]

Ya that behaviour is a problem. But that behaviour is the exception, not the norm. That is not to say that the behaviours you describe are acceptable, they are not. But they are outside the rules. The rules are not that hard to figure out, really.

They aren't? Oh, good, we have somebody here who asserts the rules are easy to figure out, and doesn't just snigger that okay they are nutso, so IAR and write well and pretend you believe in them.

Here are a few starts:

Wikipedia is supposed to strive for "verifiable accuracy". Verifiable turns out to refer to certain types of sources. Accuracy-- well, it's not defined. And with good reason, for in most languages "accuracy" means some sort of correspondance to reality, which is to say, to objective truth. Or at least, to truth as agreed to, by most experts. Especially as regards the sciences, but all domains of intellectual inquiry have their own standards.

From WP:V "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—meaning, in this context, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true."

No help there. We're not interested in just checking that the cite says what WP says it does. That's just the V part. We're interested if the source itself is correct. That's the R or reliable part.

Okay, so you track that down. When you go to find out what WP thinks a "reliable source" is, then you get WP:RS, which insists that sources be those that are "trustworthy" and with "a reputation for fact checking and accuracy." These are direct policy quotes. In other words, they are those we think are likely to be TRUE. Hmmm.

Accuracy is mentioned in WP:VS. What is "accuracy" in this context? Let us take the physical sciences again, where things are easy. Does accuracy not usually mean "correspondance to physical reality," as when we're given a synthetic fact like the mass of a proton, in grams? Does accuracy not mean truth? What does "trustworthy" mean as regards to the source itself, other than likelihood not to report error, lies, or other untruth? And "fact checking," please? What would "fact checking" possibly consist of, if not that somebody has investigated the objective truth of statements? IOW, why would we care if our sources engage in fact checking, if we're not interested in facts???

What is a "fact" if not a statement which is regarded by the majority of experts to be true? "Consistant" is NOT the same as "reliable" and "trustworthy." A source may be consistantly wrong. But how to tell? Here's a gem from WP:RS: "The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context, which is a matter of common sense and editorial judgment." But alas, other names for your own common sense and your own editorial judgment, are POV-pushing and WP:SYNTH. Yes I understand that NPOV doesn't ask for no POV, but it does demand judgments regarding "due weight" which are (as a matter of common sense) impossible to agree on, even for experts, and still less possible for non experts, who, even if they're supposed to be relying on expert opinion, can't be trusted to know who the experts are, much less understand what they're writing.

The world "authoritative" is used. But seems to me meaningless without the idea of truth. If I'm an authority on something, what is it that makes me special? That I know about my subject? Know WHAT about it? Know lies about it? Know erroneous things about it? What is it I know about a subject which makes me an authority? Am I only an authority due to being acknowledged by other authorities? That's sort of recursive, is it not? It might actually operate when it comes to religion, but what about when we go to the real world? When do we get to the part where the airplane flies, the bridge stays up, and the computer network doesn't crash? These are not matters of opinion only. So where do they fit into WP's search for authority, reliablity, and trustworthiness? So far as I can see, nowhere. WP's official policy (frequently ignored, fortunately) is to be written as though an encyclopedia about the world written by people who've been born in the basement of a library, and never been outside its walls. All they have to go on is what they read, and can cite. But that's no way to write about reality. It tends to give you sex manuals written by virgins, and even worse, articles on physics written by people who aren't good with math. Wikipedia has an "expert review needed for this article" tag, but I don't know why, since officially they should never need it.

What is best to cite, even if you're stuck-for-life in a library? Here, we hit WP's official views on "knowledge". Ready for bias? There's a whole paragraph on RS which argues that News Organizations are reliable if they are "high end," and material from them is welcomed. Yes, the world "welcomed" is actually used, as though for respected guests: "Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market, such as the The Washington Post, The Times of London, and The Associated Press." Never mind that the opinion of historians and scientists (not to mention most journalists, who don't trust each other an inch) is that newspapers, not excluding "high-quality end of the market" ones are highly unreliable in what they say factually. For one thing, they have no time to get things more than approximately right, and they have heavy bias against fully reporting their own past errors, which they only do enough of, to give readers the (false) impression that they're trying to be somehow exhaustive about this. According to Wikipedia, the idea that newspapers are unreliable, is formally, and as a matter of policy, wrong. Er, which is to say, as a statement, it's not TRUE. Oh, bother.

Anyway, you were explaining how the official rules are easy to figure out. Obviously I've failed to do it, easy or no. So just explain a bit where I missed the idea, since I need help. Assume I'm an educated layman.

Milt

This post has been edited by Milton Roe: Fri 23rd May 2008, 2:05am