Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Slim ownership of WP:V
> Wikimedia Discussion > Editors > Notable editors > SlimVirgin
papaya
After a loooong, drawn out compromise session, Blueboar comes up with a new formula to blunt the "not truth" dumb line, so when the discussion dies down and someone moves to close the discussion a few days early, SV seizes the opportunity to turn the whole thing on its head and attempt to force the whole process to start over.
jd turk
QUOTE(papaya @ Mon 31st October 2011, 11:27pm) *

After a loooong, drawn out compromise session, Blueboar comes up with a new formula to blunt the "not truth" dumb line, so when the discussion dies down and someone moves to close the discussion a few days early, SV seizes the opportunity to turn the whole thing on its head and attempt to force the whole process to start over.


That whole discussion just makes my head hurt. Too much. That's why nothing gets done over there, it seems. Any discussion of any substance gets talked to death, with a dozen little side battles spinning off of the main event.
-DS-
Unsurprisingly, there are many of the usual names weighing in on SV's side. Jayjg, Will Beback, Crum375.....
Herschelkrustofsky
QUOTE(-DS- @ Tue 1st November 2011, 3:08am) *

Unsurprisingly, there are many of the usual names weighing in on SV's side. Jayjg, Will Beback, Crum375.....
Such a lovely bunch. Here's a link to the discussion which I presume we are discussing.
Sololol
Blueboar's suggestion is perfectly reasonable. If this weren't a war of egos something like this would have been put into policy years ago. Currently there's no real way in which to resolve conflicting information from reliable sources, wrong information from reliable sources outside of their area of expertise and even incorrect information. Compromise and common sense ought to cover this policy gap but they do not. A lot of the WP criticism in our little Internet community is overblown, conspiratorial or down-right whiny but this points to a very real structural flaw in Wikipedia that no one can discount; an encyclopedia that cannot filter out incorrect information is critically defective.
It's the blimp, Frank
Will Beback says "The point is that we may add sufficiently verifiable material, regardless of whether it is true or not. We can report what high quality reliable sources say even if we also have contradictory information." And of course, this allows us to push POV and add propaganda.
HRIP7
QUOTE(It's the blimp, Frank @ Tue 1st November 2011, 6:29pm) *

Will Beback says "The point is that we may add sufficiently verifiable material, regardless of whether it is true or not. We can report what high quality reliable sources say even if we also have contradictory information." And of course, this allows us to push POV and add propaganda.

Yep. Basically, a number of those wishing to retain the old wording don't want to lose one of their most convenient means of keeping undue (or BLP-violating) material in WP.

What, you're saying it's not true? Well, read WP:V: it doesn't have to be true to be in Wikipedia. EOD.
Herschelkrustofsky
I might go a step further and say that it's a license to lie. If it were a real encyclopedia, anything that was the slightest bit questionable would simply be excluded. A real encyclopedia is expected to be authoritative. What Slim and her crew want is to simply be able to slough off the blame for irresponsible crap on to some purported "source."

Allow me to put in a plug for my blog post on this topic.
papaya
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Tue 1st November 2011, 5:53pm) *

I might go a step further and say that it's a license to lie. If it were a real encyclopedia, anything that was the slightest bit questionable would simply be excluded. A real encyclopedia is expected to be authoritative. What Slim and her crew want is to simply be able to slough off the blame for irresponsible crap on to some purported "source."


Well, yeah. And in some ways even worse, it's an endorsement of amplifying the mistakes and carelessness of others. It should not be a big deal that, when the NYT makes a boneheaded mistake, we ignore them. Right now we're having a big battle over a cheap energy scam because we can't clamp down on it by saying, "look, I don't care about their documentation, the science is all wrong, and besides this looks like every other such scam device that ever came along." Brittanica just yawns and says "call us back when you have a working power plant," and we should too. Instead, we have some fool at Forbes who is too dim (or whatever) to figure it out, and nobody can say, "look, this guy is an idiot; ignore him."

Abd
This gets involved. If you find it objectionable that a discussion actually goes into some depth, you may be part of the problem at Wikipedia. For an alternative, consider asking for a summary, if you need it. tl;dr could mean "If you think it's Too Long, Don't Read it."

QUOTE(papaya @ Tue 1st November 2011, 10:43pm) *
Well, yeah. And in some ways even worse, it's an endorsement of amplifying the mistakes and carelessness of others. It should not be a big deal that, when the NYT makes a boneheaded mistake, we ignore them. Right now we're having a big battle over a cheap energy scam because we can't clamp down on it by saying, "look, I don't care about their documentation, the science is all wrong, and besides this looks like every other such scam device that ever came along." Brittanica just yawns and says "call us back when you have a working power plant," and we should too. Instead, we have some fool at Forbes who is too dim (or whatever) to figure it out, and nobody can say, "look, this guy is an idiot; ignore him."
The problem is structural, for sure.

The basic concept is that if it's in reliable source (which has to do with independence, really, not with what people ordinarily understand as "reliable," not directly), it can be in the project. However, that doesn't say how it's presented. That's up to ... consensus. And Wikipedia never figured out how to do genuine consensus. It's possible, but it takes skilled facilitation, frequently. Instead we get "rough consensus," which means, in short, if there is more of us than you, tough luck for you, unless you have more administrators, in which case we kiss your ass or we are history. If it takes more than a few sentences of "discussion," forget it. We are too busy.

These are all problems that have been faced in standard institutions, and there are many known methods for resolving them. Try suggesting one of these on Wikipedia, if you want a short life there.

Above, papaya may be referring to something relating to Energy Catalyzer, which is notable and which should therefore have some coverage. This may have infected Cold fusion. Papaya has, shall we say, oversimplified the situation. The cold fusion community, which is mostly scientists, and senior ones at that, is mostly skeptical about the Rossi device, but some think it might be working. The Rossi device is not science, it's business and engineering. There is no scientific reason why it can't work, because there is no solid operating theory. You can't rule out the possibility of something that functions through an "unknown reaction." There are reasons to think that some kind of low-energy nuclear reaction is possible, i.e., that little detail called experimental evidence, and this is now reasonably covered in mainstream reliable source (peer-reviewed journals), but is still mostly excluded from Wikipedia. But that doesn't mean that Rossi has discovered a way to make this practical, the published experimental evidence is about a reaction that, it's been clear for years, isn't close to being practical, it's entirely too fragile. But someone might hit the jackpot and figure it out.

That's what Rossi is claiming, but he is, shall we say, eccentric. At best. This is real news, but isn't yet "real science." And that's how it should be covered, by the impact, as has appeared in reliable source. Presented by consensus.

All this "show us a working power plant" side-steps the very real issue that something might be real but unreliable or impractical. Nobody in the cold fusion community was seriously surprised that Rossi claimed success, others had been working in the nickel-hydrogen system, with scattered reports of significant excess energy. However, getting this to work continuously rather than merely until the reaction sites are poisoned was the big advance claimed. Rossi isn't a scientist and doesn't much allow serious scientific investigation of this. He's got some great excuses from defective patent law and practice. So it's a mess.

I see now Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Energy Catalyzer. Yeah. Forbes. There is no doubt in my mind about the notability of the topic. You might notice a participant in editing that article and commenting in the AfD: Brian Josephson. Nobel Prize, who is Brian Josephson (T-C-L-K-R-D) . He seems to be convinced the thing works. I'm not. We have conversations about it. Great guy. Actually listens.

I socked on that article for a while as EnergyNeutral (T-C-L-K-R-D) , until someone smelled "sock" and an arb checked it. I hadn't been at all careful. I was doing good work, and being supported by some who had been, shall we say, on the "other side" from me. That's probably because I was actually seeking consensus, including with them.... Of course, I'd been doing that for years....

When I jumped in, the forces were gathering to block Mr. Josephson. I asked him (off-wiki) to tone it down, and he did. And the article became more neutral, which, of course, won't satisfy the anti-fringe crowd, who want to totally exclude whatever they don't understand from the project, or, if they can't get that, then label it with tags or descriptions that represent factional judgments, not true neutrality.

Possibly I should have let them do it. That would have been great publicity, eh?

"Most scientists think cold fusion is not a real phenomenon" is probably true, if by "most scientists" we mean most people who would be called scientists, rather than those with specific knowledge in the specific field. Which is what field? Nuclear physics?

Nuclear physicists are trained in the techniques of nuclear physics, and are familiar with a particular set of theories, which have been very successful in making accurate predictions under narrow constraints (essentially, two-body problems, as found in most particle physics). However, I learned from Richard P. Feynman that we did not have the mathematical tools to apply quantum mechanics to the solid state, and it turns out that there were quite a number of quantum physicists who, when "cold fusion" was announced in 1989, noted the same thing. It wasn't impossible, merely unexpected. And that is still true, and we still don't know what is actually happening, though the latest published major review of the field says that there are "plausible theories." None of which produce much accuracy in prediction. No cigar yet. It's a Nobel Prize for someone who figures this one out in detail, but I'm not holding my breath.

The math is still horrific. So what actually happens? Experimental evidence from the old Pons-Fleischmann approach: deuterium is being converted into helium, that's well-established. But it's probably not the classic idea of a collision between two deuterons, it's something else. For Rossi, this is not the reaction. Rossi's claims, however, cannot be trusted, even his friends suggest that his behavior reasonably leads to serious suspicion of fraud. Most real information remains proprietary, so it's no wonder that people remain skeptical.

In any case, cold fusion is an experimental phenomenon, found originally using the techniques of electrochemistry, and being a very difficult experiment. Physicists with no experience tried for a few weeks to reproduce what had been found with five years of work by one of the world's foremost electrochemists, and it was still marginal, Pons and Fleischmann only found excess heat in about 15% of experiments. (More recent work, state of the art, is up to almost 100%, but the magnitude of the results is still highly variable. There are unknown or very difficult-to-control conditions required.) When these physicists failed, they announced that it was all bogus.

I think this is fun. I like it that there exist things we don't understand yet. Some people don't like that, to be sure. So they exclude it and explain it away by imagining that competent scientists, successful in their careers, are simply making mistakes. And repeating them because of wishful thinking and collective delusion. Talk about collective delusion, indeed!

Unlike N-rays and polywater, though, the original (Pons-Fleischmann) effect does not disappear with increased accuracy of measurement and better control, and no coherent explanation has appeared that fits the data, other than the very general claim made by Fleischmann when they finally published, "unknown nuclear reaction." "Unknown," because it obviously did not fit the well-known d-d fusion, but "nuclear," because of the energy density. No known energy storage mechanism could match that. Further, helium as the "ash," which was confirmed by roughly 1993, and which confirmation still stands, reproduced, ices it. Only a nuclear reaction could produce helium at the known energy for d-d fusion, 24 MeV/He-4, which really confirms the calorimetry, which was the basis for the Pons-Fleischmann claims. (They reported neutrons. That was an error.)

But that energy doesn't prove "d-d fusion," because any reaction that starts with deuterium and produces helium will produce that energy, and there exist a number of candidates. Further, the reaction must be catalyzed in some way, and how to catalyze it is the trillion dollar question.
Abd
Ah, the usual idiots. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Energy Catalyzer. The AfD didn't have a chance, the topic is clearly notable. It's also not "Cold fusion," so simply. It's a different reaction, and it's unclear if it would be called "fusion" if it's real.

In any case, there is coverage of the topic in media reliable source. The anti-fringe contingent thinks that all knowledge is "scientific," hence the demand for peer-reviewed sources. That is appropriate for Cold fusion, except that there they have a problem: the preponderance of what is in peer-reviewed RS is against their position. So they use non-PR sources to establish that cold fusion is rejected. And then they reject PR sources (mainstream journals) because the authors are "believers," i.e., like duh! Somehow that RS standards are about the publisher, not the author completely escapes them.

So we have Mast Cell opining:
QUOTE
Keep: The article is painfully unencyclopedic, and should probably be merged into cold fusion. But, the cold-fusion enthusiasts seem committed to establishing a beachhead on Wikipedia. Since it's apparently vital to them to have a playground on this site, we may as well leave them this article for them to do as they see fit. It's keeping them busy, and probably making life easier for the editors at cold fusion. MastCell Talk 21:56, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
The "cold fusion enthusiasts" mostly gave up on Wikipedia long ago, the experts and skilled editors (like Pcarbonn) were banned, and most of those "believers" involved with Energy Catalyzer are apparently new to the field.

Aggh. Why am I reading Wikipedia Review? I'd not even notice this crap if not for checking here.
QUOTE
Merge into cold fusion, as it has a similar status. Mathsci (talk) 22:36, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Really? The Rossi E-cat has zero coverage in peer-reviewed mainstream publications. Cold fusion has over 1000 peer-reviewed articles, including a recent review (Storms, 2010, Naturwissenschaften). Supposedly a peer-reviewed review is golden for science articles. Fat chance. That was established by RfAr/Fringe science, which ArbComm tromped on in RfAr/Abd-William M. Connolley. Not that they realized it.

Mathsci apparently believes he knows better than the journal referees. And what is that knowledge based on? Math? Cool! According to what theory?
Abd
OMG, Hipocrite (T-C-L-K-R-D) showed up in the AfD for Energy Catalyzer, full of radical misinformation:
QUOTE
Delete and banhammer a bunch of SPAs I have reviewed the sourcing. Aside from Ny Teknik, which appears to be a mouthpiece for the "inventors," and "New Energy Times," a pseudo-blog published by a frequently blocked/banned/whatever wikipedian, and a bunch of other blogs, SEO aggregates and credulous sources that repeat the blogs, there's also one reliable source - a blog by a Forbes contributor. There's a lot of text, and a lot of sources, due to the pressure by actual paid advocates who are engaging in what appears to be challenged as fraud by many. This is an entity attempting to sell units to the general public - and we're basically complicit. Hipocrite (talk) 19:55, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Ny Teknik is an established technology journal. Most Ny Teknik editors think the device is bogus, but they have done investigative reporting. New Energy Times is published by StevenBKrivit (T-C-L-K-R-D) who is not banned, and has never been blocked, AFAIK, and who is probably (marginally) notable, he's been covered in reliable sources.. He's very negative on the E-Cat, though positive on "Low Energy Nuclear Reactions." "paid advocates" is highly unlikely. And nothing is being sold to the general public. Those who have negotiated with Rossi are consenting adults who are quite aware of the risks. And that's a huge story all of its own; in any case, anyone who depends on a Wikipedia article for information on which to base an investment decision deserves to lose his shirt for terminal idiocy.

I haven't reviewed that article recently, but the sourcing was reasonably solid when I did, about six months ago. I'd taken out the stuff that wasn't solid, as did others who are far, far from being shills for Rossi. But there are many poorly-informed but highly motivated -- read "excited" -- newcomers to the field. In any case, Hipocrite is demonstrating (his? her?) famous disregard for truth. And verifiability as well.
It's the blimp, Frank
I have a fun suggestion for somebody that has a Wikipedia account. Using only the most high-quality sources, assemble a time-line of Iran's progress toward developing a nuclear weapon. It will look something like this:

2001 -- Iran reported to be one year away from developing a tactical nuclear weapon
2002 -- Iran reported to be one year away from developing a tactical nuclear weapon
2003 -- Iran reported to be one year away from developing a tactical nuclear weapon
2004 -- Iran reported to be one year away from developing a tactical nuclear weapon
2005 -- Iran reported to be one year away from developing a tactical nuclear weapon
2006 -- Iran reported to be one year away from developing a tactical nuclear weapon
2007 -- Iran reported to be one year away from developing a tactical nuclear weapon
2008 -- Iran reported to be one year away from developing a tactical nuclear weapon
2009 -- Iran reported to be one year away from developing a tactical nuclear weapon
2010 -- Iran reported to be one year away from developing a tactical nuclear weapon
2011 -- Iran reported to be one year away from developing a tactical nuclear weapon

Then insert it into some relevant articles, and defend it against all comers on the basis of WP:V.

This issue will probably be heating up shortly. The public needs to know. Including that kid in Africa, if he hasn't been hit by a drone yet.
that one guy
What really pissed me off is that Slim basically forum shopped when she realized it wasn't going to end her way, so she brought it to ANI and got a watchlist notice posted. That's the key here. She forum shops worse than Ryulong has in the past.
dogbiscuit
QUOTE(that one guy @ Thu 3rd November 2011, 2:29pm) *

What really pissed me off is that Slim basically forum shopped when she realized it wasn't going to end her way, so she brought it to ANI and got a watchlist notice posted. That's the key here. She forum shops worse than Ryulong has in the past.

What amazes me is that it was SlimVirgin's refusal to accept any alteration or criticism of policy, refusal to acknowledge that there was anything inappropriate with her tag-teaming with Crum375 that drove me away from being a low level contributor at Wikipedia - and Blueboar was talking common sense way back then. Sane discussion of these problems is derided there.

What you will then find is someone who is on the right side can swoop in, claim higher knowledge and simply changes the policy to suit them, and uses admin powers to hold those alterations in place - the well timed protection which just happens to be at the version which suits the side.

yecch.gif
Detective
I'm not one to give WP the benefit of the doubt, but there is something to be said in favour of giving all sides of the story, provided it is done in a genuinely unbiased way (a big if, of course). If an editor can find genuinely good sources saying something, even if it is rejected by the great majority of other sources, then it would be wrong for something claiming to be the sum of all human knowledge to ignore that. There should be an acknowledgement that "a few authorities say that the sky is usually green[127][129][133], although this view is strongly deprecated by other sources [128][130]".

If, however, something is only asserted by total crackpots, it should be ignored or shunted off somewhere else, e.g. Flat Earthers. I leave others to decide how to deal with Ottava and Communicat.
It's the blimp, Frank
It seems that Wikipedians routinely confuse "the sum of all human knowledge" with "the sum of all human opinion."
communicat
QUOTE(Detective @ Fri 4th November 2011, 4:52pm) *

I'm not one to give WP the benefit of the doubt, but there is something to be said in favour of giving all sides of the story, provided it is done in a genuinely unbiased way (a big if, of course). If an editor can find genuinely good sources saying something, even if it is rejected by the great majority of other sources, then it would be wrong for something claiming to be the sum of all human knowledge to ignore that. There should be an acknowledgement that "a few authorities say that the sky is usually green[127][129][133], although this view is strongly deprecated by other sources [128][130]".

If, however, something is only asserted by total crackpots, it should be ignored or shunted off somewhere else, e.g. Flat Earthers. I leave others to decide how to deal with Ottava and Communicat.

No, I've not yet been hit by a drone; but before that happens, allow me to say WP's NPOV rules are lucid and rational, and Detective above has summarised them adequately and concisely. So WP policy as such and in that particular regard is not at fault. It's the "human factor" that's to blame, i.e. blatant failure/refusal to recognise and/or implement policy, to the extent that such failure/refusal becomes effectively the established norm, and hence a kind of unofficial policy in itself.

I'm unable to offer advice on how to deal with Ottava, other than to put him on ignore, as I've done. But with regard to Communicat, one way of dealing with Communicat is simply to label him an "obnoxious cunt", as Tarc does, and then go off in a huff without addressing the serious but apparently embarrassing NPOV issues raised by Communicat. Nor is Tarc alone in that approach. Bless 'em all.
iii
QUOTE(Detective @ Fri 4th November 2011, 10:52am) *

If an editor can find genuinely good sources saying something, even if it is rejected by the great majority of other sources, then it would be wrong for something claiming to be the sum of all human knowledge to ignore that. There should be an acknowledgement that "a few authorities say that the sky is usually green[127][129][133], although this view is strongly deprecated by other sources [128][130]".

If, however, something is only asserted by total crackpots, it should be ignored or shunted off somewhere else, e.g. Flat Earthers.


And by what metric do you propose to determine that the Green Skiers are authorities while the Flat Earthers are crackpots?

The "sum of all human knowledge" is a worthless canard. Wikipedia functions as a first-stop-spot for research for many who are unaware of its limitations. Those that realize that, including educators, PR-representatives, image consultants, and other propagandists of various stripes, will forever be removing "knowledge" from Wikipedia regardless of the authoritativeness of the silliness-purveyor until or unless Wikipedia shuts down its editing functionality.
It's the blimp, Frank
QUOTE(communicat @ Fri 4th November 2011, 4:14pm) *

It's the "human factor" that's to blame, i.e. blatant failure/refusal to recognise and/or implement policy, to the extent that such failure/refusal becomes effectively the established norm, and hence a kind of unofficial policy in itself.


I think this is correct. Should we hold the ArbCom accountable? In the recent "BLP" case, the ArbCom's official pronouncement was "Gee, it looks like people are breaking the rules. We, the mighty ArbCommers, hereby ask politely that in the future, people ought to try harder to obey the rules."
communicat
QUOTE(It's the blimp, Frank @ Fri 4th November 2011, 8:00pm) *

QUOTE(communicat @ Fri 4th November 2011, 4:14pm) *

It's the "human factor" that's to blame, i.e. blatant failure/refusal to recognise and/or implement policy, to the extent that such failure/refusal becomes effectively the established norm, and hence a kind of unofficial policy in itself.


I think this is correct. Should we hold the ArbCom accountable? In the recent "BLP" case, the ArbCom's official pronouncement was "Gee, it looks like people are breaking the rules. We, the mighty ArbCommers, hereby ask politely that in the future, people ought to try harder to obey the rules."

Don't even think of holding Arbcom accountable. Arbcom, by its own admission, has neither the capacity nor the inclination to resolve content disputes. This is the main structural defect in WP's so-called dispute resolution mechanism. True, Arbcom has an ostensible mandate to evoke extraordinary measures, such as obtaining independent, expert opinion in instances of intractible content disputes. But to the best of my knowledge it has never, ever done so. Conflict is intrinsic to the way WP operates.
that one guy
Everyone seems to forget ArbCom's twin sister, MedCom. Jimbo set the two of them up at the same time, ArbCom for behavior, MedCom for content. MedCom is not binding so people tend to overlook it.
communicat
QUOTE(that one guy @ Fri 4th November 2011, 10:34pm) *

Everyone seems to forget ArbCom's twin sister, MedCom. Jimbo set the two of them up at the same time, ArbCom for behavior, MedCom for content. MedCom is not binding so people tend to overlook it.

Take a look at Arbcom's job description; you'll see (unless it's been changed lately) that Arbcom's brief is stated to include "complex content issues", at least in theory. In practice it's a different story. As for mediation: that can be a complete waste of time: named parties can simply refuse to participate, and the applicant can't do anything about it -- except endure the dispute dragging on interminably, or until it ends up at Arbcom, where the dispute is "resolved" eventually by banning the compainant.
Abd
QUOTE(communicat @ Fri 4th November 2011, 11:14am) *
allow me to say WP's NPOV rules are lucid and rational, and Detective above has summarised them adequately and concisely. So WP policy as such and in that particular regard is not at fault. It's the "human factor" that's to blame, i.e. blatant failure/refusal to recognise and/or implement policy, to the extent that such failure/refusal becomes effectively the established norm, and hence a kind of unofficial policy in itself.
I'll agree. The policies are often excellent. But excellent policy with no reliable enforcement mechanism can be worse than useless. It deceives users, especially newcomers, but often even the relatively experienced, into expecting one thing when what actually happens is quite different.

Wikipedia never set up a reliable enforcement structure, something not easily corrupted. I believe it's possible, but the community has almost violently rejected such a thing. That is, the active core, which considers itself the "community," has rejected it. The real community has practically no voice except a passive one, based on the ability to simply go away.

Wikipedia is a Ponzi scheme, burning out "investors." That wasn't intrinsic in the vision, but was inevitable because the vision was never grounded in the practical realities of organizational structure. It was naive.

I just looked at the AfD for Energy Catalyzer, and the editing of that article. What a waste of time! Policy was completely clear, but there is an active contingent of users, including administrators, which has never accepted basic policy, and substitutes something entirely different. And they get away with it, all the time. I confronted this, which is precisely why I was banned. I was being successful at enforcing policy, as an ordinary user. It had to be stopped.

That article will never settle without some serious facilitation of consensus, probably combined with semiprotection or even full protection. Wikiversity allows forking, which would allow alternate versions of an article to exist, and then it's possible to choose one with an RfC, and protect it, while work continues on the next version. See the Wikiversity page on the Energy Catalyzer, and a subpage which was intended to be used to study the Wikipedia article. It's possible to create, as student exercises, alternate versions of the Wikipedia article, as subpages, if local consensus can't be found on a single page. I'd certainly help if anyone tries to do this. By the way, I'm highly skeptical of Rossi's work. But it is also not a theoretical impossibility that he's found something of interest. Which is irrelevant to the Wikipedia article, which, consensus was, amazingly, should be based on ... what's in reliable source. As ordinarily defined for news and business. This isn't "science," not yet, anyway. It is of some "scientific interest," whatever that is.

Further, we see all the time that Wikipedia article pages are not to be used to discuss the topic. Wikiversity talk pages may be used for this, and, to some extent, even mainspace pages. Really, articles where many attempt to discuss the topic should have an interwiki link to Wikiversity. In theory. In fact, the antifringe contingent has acted forcefully to suppress such links, even though they are obviously allowed by policy. I've seen the argument that Wikiversity is not a reliable source. True. But that argument would prevent See Also links to other Wikipedia articles. Rather, Wikiversity is covered by the same neutrality policy as all WMF wikis. We just handle it differently than Wikipedia, and our approach definitely allows and encourages discussion, as would be expected in brick and mortar educational institutions.

I have seen the knowledge of a field actually progress from a Wikiversity discussion, because it led to some cogent questions for experts, and an expert then wrote a paper responding to the question.
It's the blimp, Frank
QUOTE(communicat @ Fri 4th November 2011, 8:26pm) *

QUOTE(It's the blimp, Frank @ Fri 4th November 2011, 8:00pm) *

QUOTE(communicat @ Fri 4th November 2011, 4:14pm) *

It's the "human factor" that's to blame, i.e. blatant failure/refusal to recognise and/or implement policy, to the extent that such failure/refusal becomes effectively the established norm, and hence a kind of unofficial policy in itself.


I think this is correct. Should we hold the ArbCom accountable? In the recent "BLP" case, the ArbCom's official pronouncement was "Gee, it looks like people are breaking the rules. We, the mighty ArbCommers, hereby ask politely that in the future, people ought to try harder to obey the rules."

Don't even think of holding Arbcom accountable. Arbcom, by its own admission, has neither the capacity nor the inclination to resolve content disputes.
Huh? Arbcom is supposed to deal with bad behavior, and chronic violation of the rules is bad behavior.
communicat
QUOTE(It's the blimp, Frank @ Sat 5th November 2011, 3:46am) *

QUOTE(communicat @ Fri 4th November 2011, 8:26pm) *

QUOTE(It's the blimp, Frank @ Fri 4th November 2011, 8:00pm) *

QUOTE(communicat @ Fri 4th November 2011, 4:14pm) *

It's the "human factor" that's to blame, i.e. blatant failure/refusal to recognise and/or implement policy, to the extent that such failure/refusal becomes effectively the established norm, and hence a kind of unofficial policy in itself.


I think this is correct. Should we hold the ArbCom accountable? In the recent "BLP" case, the ArbCom's official pronouncement was "Gee, it looks like people are breaking the rules. We, the mighty ArbCommers, hereby ask politely that in the future, people ought to try harder to obey the rules."

Don't even think of holding Arbcom accountable. Arbcom, by its own admission, has neither the capacity nor the inclination to resolve content disputes.
Huh? Arbcom is supposed to deal with bad behavior, and chronic violation of the rules is bad behavior.

Precisely; but it gets worse. Flagrant disregard for the key principle of NPOV also reflects a severely retarded intellectual capacity, and a chronic inability to rise above a Dark Age mentality. Wikipedians can learn a lot from modern quantum physics. The behaviour of light, for example, can be explained either in terms of the movement of waves or the movement of particles. Both explanations are equally valid and they are not mutually exclusive. In short, a neutral explanation of what constitutes light is that it consists simultaneously of both waves and particles, and an either/or position and outcome depends essentially on the presence of an observer.

Of course it's a bit more complicated than that, but the theory still serves as a useful analogy for an understanding of what NPOV should properly be. (In Eastern mysticism, sages of ancient times had already recognised the same basic principle of quantum theory, which they referred to as "yin-yan", a fundament of the proto-scientific religion Taoism).

My point is that NPOV, if it is to be properly applied, is an intellectually challenging and potentially stimulating endeavour, but wikipedians are simply too irresponsible, too backward, too undisciplined, and/ or too lazy to meet that challenge.
Detective
QUOTE(iii @ Fri 4th November 2011, 5:53pm) *

QUOTE(Detective @ Fri 4th November 2011, 10:52am) *

If an editor can find genuinely good sources saying something, even if it is rejected by the great majority of other sources, then it would be wrong for something claiming to be the sum of all human knowledge to ignore that. There should be an acknowledgement that "a few authorities say that the sky is usually green[127][129][133], although this view is strongly deprecated by other sources [128][130]".

If, however, something is only asserted by total crackpots, it should be ignored or shunted off somewhere else, e.g. Flat Earthers.


And by what metric do you propose to determine that the Green Skiers are authorities while the Flat Earthers are crackpots?

I have already answered that. "If an editor can find genuinely good sources saying something", e.g. (hypothetically) that the sky is green, that is my metric. I concede that then you have the problem of deciding what are genuinely good sources, which is very difficult without expert knowledge. It is a fundamental problem with the WP model that expertise is ignored, even deprecated. Still, I think that we'd all agree that if something is stated in a reputable peer-reviewed journal, or a book published by the press of a leading university, it must have some credibility.
communicat
QUOTE(Detective @ Sat 5th November 2011, 4:44pm) *

QUOTE(iii @ Fri 4th November 2011, 5:53pm) *

QUOTE(Detective @ Fri 4th November 2011, 10:52am) *

If an editor can find genuinely good sources saying something, even if it is rejected by the great majority of other sources, then it would be wrong for something claiming to be the sum of all human knowledge to ignore that. There should be an acknowledgement that "a few authorities say that the sky is usually green[127][129][133], although this view is strongly deprecated by other sources [128][130]".

If, however, something is only asserted by total crackpots, it should be ignored or shunted off somewhere else, e.g. Flat Earthers.


And by what metric do you propose to determine that the Green Skiers are authorities while the Flat Earthers are crackpots?

I have already answered that. "If an editor can find genuinely good sources saying something", e.g. (hypothetically) that the sky is green, that is my metric. I concede that then you have the problem of deciding what are genuinely good sources, which is very difficult without expert knowledge. It is a fundamental problem with the WP model that expertise is ignored, even deprecated. Still, I think that we'd all agree that if something is stated in a reputable peer-reviewed journal, or a book published by the press of a leading university, it must have some credibility.

With regard to credibility: advocacy group sources are banned; yet there are some very knowledgeable advocacy groups with experts on their staff. This is an example of WP's very simplistic one-size-fits-all approach to sourcing rules. Because some advocacy groups are questionable, all are banned. Because many self-published sources are vanity publishing, all are banned -- even if written by experts in their respective fields. It figures: simplistic rules for simpleton editors and admins.
It's the blimp, Frank
QUOTE(communicat @ Sat 5th November 2011, 3:56pm) *

advocacy group sources are banned
Is that really true? If so, it is very selectively enforced. Look at SlimVirgin's animal rights articles as an example.
communicat
QUOTE(It's the blimp, Frank @ Sat 5th November 2011, 6:07pm) *

QUOTE(communicat @ Sat 5th November 2011, 3:56pm) *

advocacy group sources are banned
Is that really true? If so, it is very selectively enforced. Look at SlimVirgin's animal rights articles as an example.

That's what the rules stated while I was still active at WP some time ago; some of my edits were deleted on that basis. As I seem to recall, even UN specialist agencies were then regarded as "advocacy groups". The "rules" or their implementation might or might not have changed since then -- they seem to have a habit of doing so from time to time and without warning.

At the moment, as when I was still at WP, advocacy appears to equated with propaganda. WP:NOT states Wikipedia is not for "advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind". See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Advocacy I guess enforcement depends on who your friends are, and Slimvigin certainly seems to have a lot of those.
iii
QUOTE(communicat @ Sat 5th November 2011, 8:15am) *

Precisely; but it gets worse. Flagrant disregard for the key principle of NPOV also reflects a severely retarded intellectual capacity, and a chronic inability to rise above a Dark Age mentality. Wikipedians can learn a lot from modern quantum physics. The behaviour of light, for example, can be explained either in terms of the movement of waves or the movement of particles. Both explanations are equally valid and they are not mutually exclusive. In short, a neutral explanation of what constitutes light is that it consists simultaneously of both waves and particles, and an either/or position and outcome depends essentially on the presence of an observer.

Of course it's a bit more complicated than that, but the theory still serves as a useful analogy for an understanding of what NPOV should properly be. (In Eastern mysticism, sages of ancient times had already recognised the same basic principle of quantum theory, which they referred to as "yin-yan", a fundament of the proto-scientific religion Taoism).


Spare me such mumbo-jumbo. Both the wave and the particle theories are wrong. The prescription that accords with the data is that of the waveparticle. An appropriate encyclopedic approach would be to exclude the views of both the wave-ists and the particle-ists and not accommodate incorrectness.

QUOTE(Detective @ Sat 5th November 2011, 10:44am) *
I concede that then you have the problem of deciding what are genuinely good sources, which is very difficult without expert knowledge. It is a fundamental problem with the WP model that expertise is ignored, even deprecated. Still, I think that we'd all agree that if something is stated in a reputable peer-reviewed journal, or a book published by the press of a leading university, it must have some credibility.


"Good sources", "reputable peer-reviewed journals", and the "press of a leading university" are the stuff of protracted and pointless arguments on Wikipedia. The mouth-breathers who usually end up winning these arguments tend to be the obsessives with enough time on their hands to wear down the patience of their opponents. That's how Wikipedia works.
communicat
QUOTE
Spare me such mumbo-jumbo. Both the wave and the particle theories are wrong. The prescription that accords with the data is that of the waveparticle. An appropriate encyclopedic approach would be to exclude the views of both the wave-ists and the particle-ists and not accommodate incorrectness.

Actually, the correct term is "wave–particle duality", (which is also linked to the Uncertainty Principle), As I said, it gets complicated; but the basic analogy holds true with regard to NPOV -- the operative words being "duality" and "uncertainty". Too many wikipedians are all too certain they are absolutely right and they will accommodate no alternative view; which would of necessity mean having to learn to live with uncertainty if content is to be truly encyclopedia. But I can see no useful purpose in being drawn into a tedious argument with contributor "iii" who's already started using derogatory words like "mumbo jumbo" to show how certain he/she is of his/her own position (which incidentally is not an entirely correct position, nor is it all-encompassing).
iii
QUOTE(communicat @ Sat 5th November 2011, 6:44pm) *

Actually, the correct term is "wave–particle duality", (which is also linked to the Uncertainty Principle), As I said, it gets complicated; but the basic analogy holds true with regard to NPOV -- the operative words being "duality" and "uncertainty". Too many wikipedians are all too certain they are absolutely right and they will accommodate no alternative view; which would of necessity mean having to learn to live with uncertainty if content is to be truly encyclopedia. But I can see no useful purpose in being drawn into a tedious argument with contributor "iii" who's already started using derogatory words like "mumbo jumbo" to show how certain he/she is of his/her own position (which incidentally is not an entirely correct position, nor is it all-encompassing).


Mmhmm. I'd wager my hat that you can't provide to us a single solution to the Dirac or Schrödinger Equations. Yes, you are the expert in quantum mechanics, clearly. Great to know that you're one of the brilliant minds involved in writing the internet's most popular encyclopedia.
communicat
QUOTE(iii @ Sun 6th November 2011, 1:19am) *

QUOTE(communicat @ Sat 5th November 2011, 6:44pm) *

Actually, the correct term is "wave–particle duality", (which is also linked to the Uncertainty Principle), As I said, it gets complicated; but the basic analogy holds true with regard to NPOV -- the operative words being "duality" and "uncertainty". Too many wikipedians are all too certain they are absolutely right and they will accommodate no alternative view; which would of necessity mean having to learn to live with uncertainty if content is to be truly encyclopedia. But I can see no useful purpose in being drawn into a tedious argument with contributor "iii" who's already started using derogatory words like "mumbo jumbo" to show how certain he/she is of his/her own position (which incidentally is not an entirely correct position, nor is it all-encompassing).


Mmhmm. I'd wager my hat that you can't provide to us a single solution to the Dirac or Schrödinger Equations. Yes, you are the expert in quantum mechanics, clearly. Great to know that you're one of the brilliant minds involved in writing the internet's most popular encyclopedia.

No, I'm not an expert in quantum mechanics, but I do understand the basics; nor am I involved in writing WP. I'm simply proposing a useful analogy borrowed from physics, in the probably futile hope that someone in any position of authority at WP might be encouraged to start implementing the spirit and letter of existing NPOV rules. Perhaps that "someone" might even be you, in which case the very best of luck to you. You'll need it. wave.gif
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.