|
Help
This forum is for discussing specific Wikipedia editors, editing patterns, and general efforts by those editors to influence or direct content in ways that might not be in keeping with Wikipedia policy. Please source your claims and provide links where appropriate. For a glossary of terms frequently used when discussing Wikipedia and related projects, please refer to Wikipedia:Glossary.
|
|
A Scientific Dissent from Wikipedianism, A Crockwork Orange |
|
|
Somey |
|
Can't actually moderate (or even post)
Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,816
Joined:
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275
|
Disgusting!
It's a good example, though, of how the deck is completely stacked in favor of revenge-grabbers - not only because of the civility and "AGF" rules that protect them as long as they retain that veneer of politeness, but because of natural human emotional and behavioral predictability. People trying to do something positive can almost always be bullied into submission by people trying to do something negative, because negative emotions and thoughts are much easier to sustain, if not escalate. That's part of man's basic animal nature: It takes a real effort to do something positive, but people who are into negativity can pretty much go at it all night, if that's what it takes.
It kind of makes sense that it would be over this issue, too, when you think about it.
|
|
|
|
Moulton |
|
Anthropologist from Mars
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
|
QUOTE(Krimpet @ Sun 27th April 2008, 7:39pm) QUOTE(Moulton @ Sun 27th April 2008, 6:17pm) I would be interested in working constructively with responsible and mature admins — people of the caliber of Doc Glasgow — to devise a mutually agreeable way to solve the festering problems that have produced such a long-running Kafkaesque nightmare for everyone. This is exactly what I'm hoping to see too - a mutually agreeable solution to the BLP disaster led by trusted, principled folks (and I'm not going to lie and pretend I'm one of them (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)) who can hear concerns from all sides. What's troubling is that this combative eye-for-an-eye outing approach, which just makes much of the WP community less receptive to any reform out of spite, is constantly setting back any hope of fixing things by driving the principled folks away. Krimpet took quite a hammering in that disgraceful AN/I kerfuffle. Still, I believe what's needed is a Truth and Reconciliation Process. But I have no idea who would step forward to chair anything like that.
|
|
|
|
Moulton |
|
Anthropologist from Mars
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
|
Here is some useful information... The two-sentence, 32-word, untitled petition that Picard and 100 other scientists and academics signed in 2001 reads as follows: QUOTE(Untitled Petition of 2001) 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. Picard says this: QUOTE(Rosalind Picard) My agreement with the petition's first statement is based mostly on my experiments trying to get statistical physics simulations to generate complex specific patterns out of randomness. I don't know anybody who would disagree with the second statement in the petition. To my mind, the only thing wrong with the second statement is that it's not broad enough. As a science educator, I encourage students to carefully examine the evidence for any theory. As to the complexity of life, no one knows how DNA-based life as we know it ever got started in the first place. The puzzle of abiogenesis remains an unsolved problem in molecular biology.
|
|
|
|
Jacina |
|
Junior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 57
Joined:
Member No.: 5,555
|
The way I see it is that we have 2 Theories (probably more but 2 "main" ones) 1. Evolution (and all its variants and whatnot) 2. Creation (and all its variants and whatnot) Both are THEORIES both will probably NEVER be proved 100% (because doing that would require observation (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif) ), both have some things pointing to them, and some against. However Wikipedia only allows for ONE theory (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)
|
|
|
|
Somey |
|
Can't actually moderate (or even post)
Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,816
Joined:
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275
|
Ehh, hopefully we can agree to disagree on the whole evolution vs. creationism thing...
As for me, I'm certainly what one would call an "evolutionist" - which is to say that I have no qualms with the idea that evolution is a proven theory, and I'd be perfectly happy if people stopped calling evolution a "theory" and started referring to it as a "fact," which is what some scientists are actually starting to do in response to the recent ID business.
However, I do have qualms with people being targeted by WP attack editors and system-gamers just for having signed some stupid petition, getting lumped in with a bunch of people they have nothing to do with, and then never being able to get their privacy and their professional reputations back because those same attack editors insist that anyone who questions them has to "AGF."
It's just morally wrong to do that to a person, at least over something like that. I could probably see it if they'd mistakenly signed a petition that clearly advocated wiping out everyone under the age of 14 by feeding them to a swarm of locusts, though.
|
|
|
|
Proabivouac |
|
Bane of all wikiland
Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,246
Joined:
Member No.: 2,647
|
QUOTE(Jacina @ Mon 5th May 2008, 7:17am) The way I see it is that we have 2 Theories (probably more but 2 "main" ones) 1. Evolution (and all its variants and whatnot) 2. Creation (and all its variants and whatnot) Both are THEORIES both will probably NEVER be proved 100% (because doing that would require observation (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif) ), both have some things pointing to them, and some against. However Wikipedia only allows for ONE theory (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) I disagree. Mere evolution is descent with modification. That most or all extant species developed from a single ancestor is obvious. That random mutation and natural selection are causes of susequent variation is similarly obvious. That they are the main or only causes is not as clear. What we can say is that there is no coherent counter-explanation at this time, other than the, erm, deus ex machina of the creationists. None of that touches on abiogenesis, really, expect by analogy: naturalism has worked well until now, so we can expect that this explanation is similarly naturalistic. There is of course no way to say that God didn't guide any or all of this change, but there is no evidence for it, besides the unauthored claims of scripture. Even scripturally, Genesis is weak: not only doesn't the author identify himself, he makes no claim to have witnessed any of the events described, nor does he cite any chain of authority to this effect. It is as if people of the future came upon a contemporary book with really big letters which began, "Once upon a time…" and believed what followed, where it would be bad enough to assume that we believed it. Additionally, I see no reason to believe that either the Jews or Jesus took this story seriously, or considered belief in it an important part in religion, other than the fact of its inclusion in scripture…and do we have any idea who made that decision, or why? This post has been edited by Proabivouac:
|
|
|
|
Kato |
|
dhd
Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,521
Joined:
Member No.: 767
|
QUOTE(Jacina @ Mon 5th May 2008, 8:17am) The way I see it is that we have 2 Theories (probably more but 2 "main" ones) 1. Evolution (and all its variants and whatnot) 2. Creation (and all its variants and whatnot) Both are THEORIES both will probably NEVER be proved 100% (because doing that would require observation (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif) ), both have some things pointing to them, and some against. However Wikipedia only allows for ONE theory (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) Evolution is observable and beyond dispute. Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection to explain the complexity of life is a Scientific Theory, not some half baked theory we come up with lying on our backs staring at the moon. That other thing you mention has nothing to do with scientific theory, nor the article in question. I don't think you'll find anyone to agree with you here. But if you want to discuss these matters, please do so in the "Politics, Religion and Such" forum.
|
|
|
|
Somey |
|
Can't actually moderate (or even post)
Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,816
Joined:
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275
|
QUOTE(Proabivouac @ Mon 5th May 2008, 2:37am) Who is responsible for ensuring the fairness and veracity of that article? Well, y'see, the internet is like, uh, like a series of tubes.... QUOTE QUOTE I could probably see it if they'd mistakenly signed a petition that clearly advocated wiping out everyone under the age of 14 by feeding them to a swarm of locusts, though. Does the world really need more unwanted children? Okay, how about if the petition advocated wiping out everyone over the age of 14?
|
|
|
|
UserB |
|
Junior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 63
Joined:
Member No.: 4,555
|
QUOTE(Proabivouac @ Mon 5th May 2008, 3:30am) Additionally, I see no reason to believe that either the Jews or Jesus took this story seriously, or considered belief in it an important part in religion, other than the fact of its inclusion in scripture…and do we have any idea who made that decision, or why?
If Jesus was just a man who would have had to make a decision what he believed about origins (as opposed to the Christian belief that Jesus is God the Son, the second person of the Trinity, who knows for a fact what happened because He was there), then all of Christianity is a vicious hoax anyway. The Christian belief in the literal truth of the whole of scripture comes from, among other places, Matthew 5:18 where Jesus says, "I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." You can read more about the theology of it at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inspiration (which is really a rather poor article).
|
|
|
|
Moulton |
|
Anthropologist from Mars
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
|
I don't know anyone who disputes evolution as Darwin defined it — the emergence of new species via descent with modification and natural selection. On the other hand, I don't know anybody who has a good theory about how life as we know it arose in the first place. That's where the "complexity of life" issue is the main obstacle to be overcome. DNA and its replication cycle is complex. How that complex molecular machinery ever got started remains a scientific mystery. Perhaps it will solved in this century. The evidence for Darwin's model is compelling. But it's also important to examine that evidence with a skeptical eye. Some of the evidence trotted out to support Darwin's model isn't probative. That's like including extraneous material in the proof of a mathematical theorem. It's important to appreciate which evidence is probative. One valid complaint about Darwin's model is that it's a qualitative model rather than a quantitative one. What's needed is a stochastic model that corresponds to Stephen Jay Gould's notion of Punctuated Equilibrium. Stanislaw Ulam is one of the few mathematicians to make significant contributions to this important frontier. Ulam's seminal contributions to theoretical biology should not be overlooked. And scientists who are concerned about these questions should not be confused with religious fundamentalists who prefer non-scientific explanations for the unanswered questions about the origin and complexity of life.
|
|
|
|
that one guy |
|
Doesn't get it either.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 231
Joined:
From: A computer somewhere in this world
Member No.: 5,935
|
CBM has some respect in my book. Krimpet gets a shit ton of respect for putting up with first being attacked on the secret mailing list, then putting up with this and what not. Guettarda reminds me of another editor (guess who?) and seems to argue just for the sake of arguing. My two cents on it all. Also: Krimpet shows she's perfectly capable of defending herself (though she does call the people here loons).
|
|
|
|
Somey |
|
Can't actually moderate (or even post)
Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,816
Joined:
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275
|
Well, at least he admits to what he and his team are doing: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=210336704QUOTE(User:Filll @ 15:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)) Sorry, but the only reason she is on Wikipedia is she signed the petition. She is not particularly notable as an academic. If you believe she is, spend a week or two writing a proper biography for her in a sandbox and let others look at it. And yes lots and lots of people have tried to claim she did not sign and wanted us to write that she did not sign and the New York Times writer is a stupid #$%^&* for writing that she signed. And just trying to hide the fact that she signed and the NYT wrote an article about it probably is not going to fly. If this is so all-fired important to you, why are you afraid of doing any real work? Stop complaining and do some real writing. All lies, of course. Nobody, nobody at all, is trying to claim that Picard didn't sign the petition, or that she was a "stupid #$%^&*" for doing so, and certainly not that she wrote what she signed! (where the f*** did that come from?). And nobody is trying to hide the fact that the NYT wrote an article that mentioned her as one of the signers, either. We're simply saying that this shouldn't be treated as anything beyond the signing of a petition, i.e, a minor incident that shouldn't form the basis of an entire biography on the world's most heavily-scraped and -searched information site. Anyone who takes Filll up on his offer to write about Picard in a "sandbox" is wasting their time, obviously - his team will never stop attacking Rosalind Picard, and they will never let this end."Stop complaining and do some real writing" is the standard rejoinder for people on WP who are faced with evidence of their own abuses and have no valid counter-arguments whatsoever.
|
|
|
|
Proabivouac |
|
Bane of all wikiland
Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,246
Joined:
Member No.: 2,647
|
QUOTE(that one guy @ Mon 5th May 2008, 6:42pm) The good old "You share viewpoint X with banned user Y so therefore you're proxying for them" argument was played. Lovely It appears to have become almost obligatory to insult the participants of this forum in general. Those who have registered here are then obliged to lob some insults of their own to prove their loyalty to WP. It seems obvious that Krimpet was moved to take a look based on what appeared here on WR. Why not just admit it? Clearly, all of them are reading the Review as well, or they wouldn't be aware of who posts here, or what we discuss. This post has been edited by Proabivouac:
|
|
|
|
Moulton |
|
Anthropologist from Mars
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
|
I don't know how Krimpet came onto the case, but I thank her for having the courage to wade in.
In the end, Kim Bruning brought in another editor, Ottava Rima, who did a wonderful job fixing up the biography.
The dust probably hasn't settled yet, but hopefully we've turned a major corner today.
My deepest appreciation to Krimpet, Kim Bruning, Ottava Rima, and the many courageous defenders who stood up to the ID Cabal in the talk page discussions.
|
|
|
|
The Joy |
|
I am a millipede! I am amazing!
Group: Members
Posts: 3,839
Joined:
From: The Moon
Member No.: 982
|
QUOTE(tarantino @ Mon 5th May 2008, 10:36pm) After being slapped down on AN/I, Raul654 has protected Rosalind Picard. The anti-ID clique, having nothing better to do, then converges on Affective computing because they can. Nothing to see here, no siree. Actually, the ID Cabal is now singing on Rosalind Picard's article talk page. They are like vultures waiting for the lions to move away from the carcass. There is no curse in Elvish, Entish, Jon Awbrey or the tongues of men for this treachery! Moulton, has Ms. Picard called attention to this travesty to the press? Because I think Brian Bergstein or Cade Metz needs to see this debacle. I sense another Seigenthaler scandal approaching.
|
|
|
|
Kato |
|
dhd
Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,521
Joined:
Member No.: 767
|
The talk page is embarrassing to read. It took me approximately 20 seconds of research to figure out what happened regarding this petition, when I first heard about it from Moulton last year. Yet these so called "scientists" on the talk page are going round in circles, talking out of their back-sides, and have missed the whole damn point of why people are complaining about the bio. For the record, I am no scientist, but I'm a big supporter of Richard Dawkins in his campaign to challenge all forms of mumbo-jumbo that permeate our culture. So one could say I'm at least as adamant about rejecting bullshit as the likes of OrangeMarlin and co. But if these Wikipedia goons can't even figure out the basic facts in this case - how the petition was used and the scientists manipulated etc - then they should get the hell off the site. I throw them in the can with the clods who go around dowsing for water and praying to their moon gods for good weather. Complete turkeys who should be ashamed of themselves. Dawkins is right. Wikipedia presents great opportunity, and huge danger. When Dawkins presented his nightmarish vision of "evidence devalued" by Wikipedia and similar forums on his series "Enemies of Reason", he was backed by a huge scrolling screen of Wikipedia pages, accompanied by spooky music. He would likely disagree with Picard over the intricacies of Darwinian theory, but he would be appalled by the mistreatment of Picard at the hands of Wikipedia.
|
|
|
|
Giggy |
|
Ãœber Member
Group: Inactive
Posts: 755
Joined:
From: Australia
Member No.: 5,552
|
QUOTE(Proabivouac @ Tue 6th May 2008, 5:56am) It seems obvious that Krimpet was moved to take a look based on what appeared here on WR. Why not just admit it?
Yeah, but what's wrong with that...not seeing a problem with going to improve an article that's been tagged for cleanup - just that the tagging was done here, instead of using an ugly template message. Kudos to Krimpet, aka Mrs. Moulton (or so we are to be told (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif) )
|
|
|
|
Jon Awbrey |
|
Ï„á½° δΠμοι παθήματα μαθήματα γÎγονε
Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,783
Joined:
From: Meat Puppet Nation
Member No.: 5,619
|
QUOTE(The Joy @ Mon 5th May 2008, 10:50pm) QUOTE(tarantino @ Mon 5th May 2008, 10:36pm) After being slapped down on AN/I, Raul654 has protected Rosalind Picard. The anti-ID clique, having nothing better to do, then converges on Affective computing because they can. Nothing to see here, no siree. Actually, the ID Cabal is now singing on Rosalind Picard's article talk page. They are like vultures waiting for the lions to move away from the carcass. There is no curse in Elvish, Entish, Jon Awbrey or the tongues of men for this treachery! Moulton, has Ms. Picard called attention to this travesty to the press? Because I think Brian Bergstein or Cade Metz needs to see this debacle. I sense another Seigenthaler scandal approaching. Do not underestimate the re*cussedness of Elves, Ents, or Awbreys. But this is such a typical phenomenon in Wikipedia, and its prevalence is one of the things that puts the lie to those who say, There Is No Central Control (WP:TINCC). Sure, there are many areas of The Backwoods, The Boonies, The Hinterland, The Outback, The Steppes, The Great Northern Wasteland where editors develop content in relative peace and quiet. But there is no place that is safe from being slashed and burned and salted once the Keystone Kabal Kops get a Wiki-Whiff of their Wiki-Prey's blood, toil, tears, and sweat upon those grounds. And Wikipedia gives them all the tools they need to police the thoughts of any outpost that does not toe their Wiki-Party Line. Jon (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif) This post has been edited by Jon Awbrey:
|
|
|
|
Derktar |
|
WR Black Ops
Group: Moderators
Posts: 1,029
Joined:
From: Torrance, California, USA
Member No.: 2,381
|
QUOTE(The Joy @ Mon 5th May 2008, 9:39pm) QUOTE(Giggy @ Tue 6th May 2008, 12:21am) QUOTE(The Joy @ Tue 6th May 2008, 1:41pm) Why are administrators letting the ID crowd get away with such uncollegial behavior? They are running off anyone that comes along. I've never seen such blind anger and pure hatred on a WP talk page before.
Because some admins are in the ID crowd too, and that crowd shouts louder. Wouldn't a block speak louder than any shouting? Wouldn't a block silence the shouting? Why would Raul or any highly-respected Wikipedian defend these people? Raul owns the global warming articles, and there is overlap with the ID crowd.
|
|
|
|
Giggy |
|
Ãœber Member
Group: Inactive
Posts: 755
Joined:
From: Australia
Member No.: 5,552
|
QUOTE(The Joy @ Tue 6th May 2008, 2:39pm) QUOTE(Giggy @ Tue 6th May 2008, 12:21am) QUOTE(The Joy @ Tue 6th May 2008, 1:41pm) Why are administrators letting the ID crowd get away with such uncollegial behavior? They are running off anyone that comes along. I've never seen such blind anger and pure hatred on a WP talk page before.
Because some admins are in the ID crowd too, and that crowd shouts louder. Wouldn't a block speak louder than any shouting? Wouldn't a block silence the shouting? No, it wouldn't - think of them as Gianos (no offence, but it's the best example we have!), and you know a block will only result in more shouting.
|
|
|
|
The Joy |
|
I am a millipede! I am amazing!
Group: Members
Posts: 3,839
Joined:
From: The Moon
Member No.: 982
|
QUOTE(Giggy @ Tue 6th May 2008, 12:50am) QUOTE(The Joy @ Tue 6th May 2008, 2:39pm) QUOTE(Giggy @ Tue 6th May 2008, 12:21am) QUOTE(The Joy @ Tue 6th May 2008, 1:41pm) Why are administrators letting the ID crowd get away with such uncollegial behavior? They are running off anyone that comes along. I've never seen such blind anger and pure hatred on a WP talk page before.
Because some admins are in the ID crowd too, and that crowd shouts louder. Wouldn't a block speak louder than any shouting? Wouldn't a block silence the shouting? No, it wouldn't - think of them as Gianos (no offence, but it's the best example we have!), and you know a block will only result in more shouting. Has anyone tried disabling their e-mails and protecting their talk pages? That normally stops the shouting! I would be a cruel administrator, wouldn't I? I have an extraordinary amount of patience, but I would have to show these people the door. Especially with what they're doing to a BLP victim.
|
|
|
|
Somey |
|
Can't actually moderate (or even post)
Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,816
Joined:
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275
|
QUOTE(Cla68 @ Tue 6th May 2008, 1:28am) I just read the Picard article, and it appears to be fairly NPOV at the moment. The system "worked" in this case, thanks to Krimpet and the others who intervened. The anti-ID group is making a mistake with their thuggery because they've gone too far and are now on the radar of several editors and admins who are bothered enough by these editor's clownish antics to do something about it. I was impressed! (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/smiling.gif) I mean, we'll see how long it lasts and all, but it's certainly a lot better - the way the article looks at the moment, Rosalind Picard might not even choose to "opt out," assuming she were to ever get the chance. Meanwhile, I'd been holding off on starting my own petition, to promote my theory of the Universal Smelliness of German Cheeses. But hey, it might actually be safe now.
|
|
|
|
Moulton |
|
Anthropologist from Mars
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
|
QUOTE(The Joy @ Mon 5th May 2008, 10:50pm) Moulton, has Ms. Picard called attention to this travesty to the press? Because I think Brian Bergstein or Cade Metz needs to see this debacle. I sense another Seigenthaler scandal approaching. I rather doubt that Rosalind Picard has contacted the press, for two reasons. First, the events on her BLP have been unfolding so rapidly, and with such intensity, that I doubt she has been able to keep up. I've been following such fast-breaking firefights on WP for some time, and I was unable to stay abreast of this one, which began at noon on Sunday with Krimpet's first edits on the BLP. Second, Picard has neither the time nor the temperament to do what Siegenthaler or I did — namely publish essays, technical analyses, or Op-Ed pieces on episodes like this. Consider how much time and energy I have put into highlighting the BLP problem since last August. Picard has way too much important work to do in her faculty responsibilities at MIT to spend time putting a spotlight on the failings of Wikipedia. That's what the reformers of WR are here for. Let me illustrate... Among the essays and Op-Ed pieces I wrote was this blog post on the Media Ethics Blog at Utah State University. Among those participants here who visited that blog was PrivateMusings, who left me a comment that eventually led to my participation in Episode 6 of Not The Wikipedia Weekly ( WP:NTWW). As you know, Durova and Filll eventually became regulars on NTWW, with Durova hosting several sessions, including the recent one with Brian Bergstein of the Associated Press. For both political and technical reasons, I was only able to participate via private text chat with Durova. Nonetheless, I was able to pose germane questions that both Durova and Bergstein agreed were good questions. In view of the technical glitches during the recording, I followed up by E-Mail to Bergstein to invite him to reprise his comments that were lost in the Skypecast technical difficulties. He called me up yesterday, and we spoke by phone for a good hour. In the end, Brian decided not to publish any personal critical commentary of Wikipedia lest it taint his status as an objective reporter on the technology beat. Already, Seth Finkelstein and Cade Metz have had to deal with backlash from WP on that score, and Brian's judgment was that it was not in his best interests as a journalist to editorialize on the subject of his stories. However, he did ask me about my own history with Wikipedia, and I filled him in on the story, as best I was able to narrate it from the perspective of someone inside the story. I also told him about the firestorm that had gotten underway on Picard's BLP with Krimpet's edits of Sunday noon. As you may know, I made the acquaintance of Kim Bruning at the conclusion of the Skypecast session with Bergstein. Once the recording had ended, and after Bergstein had logged off, Durova added me to the voice conference and introduced me to Kim and some of the other panelists, who had asked why Greg and I had received less than a warm welcome to join the public Skypecast with Bergstein. Durova recited the background of my case, and I responded to questions from Kim and the others who had been unfamiliar with my case. Filll, who was also present, refused to present his side as long as I was present, so Adrian-DorfTrottel unceremoniously booted me off the Skypecast conference bridge to let Filll present his version without me being present to hear or rebut Filll. Both Durova and PrivateMusings were chagrinned at this uncongenial and uncollegial gesture of alienation, but let Filll have his say in camera without my presence. Afterwards, Kim Bruning and I conversed one-on-one on Skype, during which time he asked me to respond to his understanding of Filll's case against me. In the end, Kim made an offer: If Rosalind Picard would send him E-Mail with her concerns about the contents or tone of her biography, he would make a good faith effort to bring it into compliance with WP's standards and policies for BLPs. I followed up by communicating Kim's offer to Picard, with a copy to Kim. Because of her busy schedule, it took me a week to get some face-time with Picard to explain to her who Kim was and what he was offering. Picard asked me to summarize it all in E-Mail, which I did. On Sunday, Picard found the time to review the situation and compose her entreaty to Kim (with a copy to me). As it happens, Picard's message to Kim went out at 6PM on Sunday, just hours after Krimpet had quietly made two edits to Picard's bio. By the time I caught up with that, the edit war between Krimpet and the ID Cabal had erupted into an AN/I firestorm. Then, yesterday, Kim called in another editor, Ottava Rima, to repair Picard's bio. The colloquies on the talk page tell the rest of the story better than I can. In the meantime, I had sent Brian Bergstein a thank you message for his phone call to me, and left him an open invitation to look further into the story, should he find it of newsworthy value. I have no idea if Brian will look into it further, or decide whether it rises to reportable news by AP standards. My guess is that Cade Metz or Seth Finkelstein would be more likely to pick this story up than Brian, given all the factors that such a story would have to encompass.
|
|
|
|
Moulton |
|
Anthropologist from Mars
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
|
QUOTE(Giggy @ Mon 5th May 2008, 11:40pm) Kudos to Krimpet, aka Mrs. Moulton (or so we are to be told (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif) ) For the record, I had no direct contact with Krimpet, who evidently gleaned the story from postings here. When she made the edits to Picard's bio at noon on Sunday, I frankly didn't know who she was, having failed to remember that she and I had posted similar views in the NewYorkBrad thread. QUOTE(tarantino @ Mon 5th May 2008, 10:36pm) After being slapped down on AN/I, Raul654 has protected Rosalind Picard. The anti-ID clique, having nothing better to do, then converges on Affective computing because they can. Nothing to see here, no siree. Sigh. What are the members of the ID Cabal doing hacking up editing an article on Affective Computing, a technical subject on which they have no meaningful background or expertise?
|
|
|
|
Moulton |
|
Anthropologist from Mars
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
|
QUOTE(Cla68 @ Tue 6th May 2008, 2:28am) I just read the Picard article, and it appears to be fairly NPOV at the moment. The system "worked" in this case, thanks to Krimpet and the others who intervened. The anti-ID group is making a mistake with their thuggery because they've gone too far and are now on the radar of several editors and admins who are bothered enough by these editor's clownish antics to do something about it. While I regret the ugly politics that have surfaced in the wake of this case, I am gratified that, at long last, more responsible and professional admins have become aware of the problem and lent their weight and their good offices to correcting it. In due course, I hope to be able to identify and thank each of the responsible editors and admins who (better late than never) stepped up to the challenge of doing the right thing here. There is much more work to do. The Picard bio was just the tip of the iceberg for me. There is also the similar biography of James Tour, who was also featured in that same NYT story. The same undue weight and coatrack issues apply there, as well. QUOTE(Somey @ Tue 6th May 2008, 2:37am) I was impressed! (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) I mean, we'll see how long it lasts and all, but it's certainly a lot better - the way the article looks at the moment, Rosalind Picard might not even choose to "opt out," assuming she were to ever get the chance. Yes. What Kim Bruning and Ottava Rima pulled off yesterday was nothing short of a miracle. But I am also mindful of the difficulty of maintaining the high level of accuracy, excellence, and ethics that two or three courageous editors were able to achieve in yesterday's remarkable showdown with the ID Cabal. This post has been edited by Moulton:
|
|
|
|
Proabivouac |
|
Bane of all wikiland
Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,246
Joined:
Member No.: 2,647
|
QUOTE(The Joy @ Tue 6th May 2008, 3:41am) I've never seen such blind anger and pure hatred on a WP talk page before.
It gets much worse than this, actually. QUOTE(Moulton @ Tue 6th May 2008, 8:00am) What are the members of the ID Cabal doing hacking up editing an article on Affective Computing, a technical subject on which they have no meaningful background or expertise? While there were many problems with the article, I can think of no other answer here besides revenge. This is how Wikipedia editorial policy is formulated. There is no one who will take responsibility for the decisions that are made: formally, no decisions are being made. It's just volunteers, you know, helping out where they can according to WP policies. QUOTE(Derktar @ Tue 6th May 2008, 6:30am) Well this is how wikiworld works. Except eventually the heat dies down and uninvolved people stop caring/looking out and the thuggery begins again.
No one is blocked, no one is topic banned, and no one has been assigned responsibility for decisions about this (or any other) article. There is nothing to stop the problems from recurring; we can be fairly certain that they will. This post has been edited by Proabivouac:
|
|
|
|
Moulton |
|
Anthropologist from Mars
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
|
QUOTE(Proabivouac @ Tue 6th May 2008, 4:44am) QUOTE(The Joy @ Tue 6th May 2008, 3:41am) I've never seen such blind anger and pure hatred on a WP talk page before. It gets much worse than this, actually. Yes, it sometimes does. QUOTE(Proabiviouac) QUOTE(Moulton @ Tue 6th May 2008, 8:00am) What are the members of the ID Cabal doing hacking up editing an article on Affective Computing, a technical subject on which they have no meaningful background or expertise? While there were many problems with the article, I can think of no other answer here besides revenge. This is how Wikipedia editorial policy is formulated. There is no one who will take responsibility for the decisions that are made: formally, no decisions are being made. It's just volunteers, you know, helping out where they can according to WP policies. The irony is that I first went to Wikipedia last August, during a slow week, to see if WP even had an article on Affective Computing, and if it was in need of any updates, in anticipation of the start of another school year. And that's when I clicked on the name of the MIT faculty member who was the founder of the field of Affective Computing, and found this. Editing articles on Wikipedia is like playing Whack-A-Mole. QUOTE(Proabivouac @ Tue 6th May 2008, 4:49am) No one is blocked, no one is topic banned, and no one has been assigned responsibility for decisions about this (or any other) article. There is nothing to stop the problems from recurring; we can be fairly certain that they will. That's why I view this anecdotal case as indicative of a structural, systemic problem. Just fixing this one article does little more than shave off the tip of the iceberg. When I zoomed out from the first problematic article, I found it was far from a unique example. While this thread began with an opening sneeze involving Krimpet and OrangeMarlin, perhaps the thread title could be revised to more accurately capture the essence of the story as it unfolded during the course of the opera. The story reminds me of The Hary Janos Suite, but I daresay that's too obscure a musical reference to be meaningful to most observers here.
|
|
|
|
that one guy |
|
Doesn't get it either.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 231
Joined:
From: A computer somewhere in this world
Member No.: 5,935
|
The whole situation can be summed up as one big messy bold, revert, discuss. Except this time it became bold, revert, bitch and moan at each other, massively improve article, ???, PROFIT! (sorry, couldn't resist that).
Net positive for the article, net negative for some involved, and net zero for others involved.
|
|
|
|
Proabivouac |
|
Bane of all wikiland
Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,246
Joined:
Member No.: 2,647
|
QUOTE(Moulton @ Tue 6th May 2008, 9:05am) QUOTE(Filll) He presumes that his age and degree allow him to dictate to us and lecture to us, when many of us have more illustrious academic and professional credentials than he does
Many of us? On Wikipedia? QUOTE(Filll) I know his background, having been both at Bell Labs and MIT and a PhD (and a few other graduate degrees). http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=163556281Wait, Filll is himself claiming these credentials? Am I reading this incorrectly? I don't think so. Okay, this is a big deal. I don’t doubt it or undoubt it, but Filll, please produce some evidence for these claims. This post has been edited by Proabivouac:
|
|
|
|
Moulton |
|
Anthropologist from Mars
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
|
QUOTE(Proabivouac @ Tue 6th May 2008, 8:49am) QUOTE(Moulton @ Tue 6th May 2008, 9:05am) QUOTE(Filll) He presumes that his age and degree allow him to dictate to us and lecture to us, when many of us have more illustrious academic and professional credentials than he does. Many of us? On Wikipedia? I presume he means on Wikipedia, as that is where Filll is posting, in the annals of AN/I on the English Wikipedia. QUOTE(Proabiviouc) QUOTE(Filll) I know his background, having been both at Bell Labs and MIT and a PhD (and a few other graduate degrees). [ Possible Unblock of Moulton] Wait, Filll is himself claiming these credentials? Am I reading this incorrectly? I don't think so. Okay, this is a big deal. I don’t doubt it or undoubt it, but Filll, please produce some evidence for these claims. Fill has never disclosed his academic record or credentials to me, so I don't know. I only have two graduate degrees -- MS and Ph.D, both from Stanford University. So the reference to "a few other graduate degrees" would not apply to me. If User:Filll (Bob Stevens) was ever at Bell Labs or MIT, I never met him at either place.
|
|
|
|
Random832 |
|
meh
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,933
Joined:
Member No.: 4,844
|
QUOTE(Moulton @ Tue 6th May 2008, 1:15pm) QUOTE(Proabiviouc) QUOTE(Filll) I know his background, having been both at Bell Labs and MIT and a PhD (and a few other graduate degrees). [ Possible Unblock of Moulton] Wait, Filll is himself claiming these credentials? Am I reading this incorrectly? I don't think so. Okay, this is a big deal. I don’t doubt it or undoubt it, but Filll, please produce some evidence for these claims. Fill has never disclosed his academic record or credentials to me, so I don't know. I only have two graduate degrees -- MS and Ph.D, both from Stanford University. So the reference to "a few other graduate degrees" would not apply to me. If User:Filll (Bob Stevens) was ever at Bell Labs or MIT, I never met him at either place. It's an odd phrasing, but I think he's talking about you.
|
|
|
|
Jon Awbrey |
|
Ï„á½° δΠμοι παθήματα μαθήματα γÎγονε
Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,783
Joined:
From: Meat Puppet Nation
Member No.: 5,619
|
QUOTE(Kato @ Tue 6th May 2008, 9:51am) QUOTE(Moulton @ Tue 6th May 2008, 9:17am) But I am also mindful of the difficulty of maintaining the high level of accuracy, excellence, and ethics that two or three courageous editors were able to achieve in yesterday's remarkable showdown with the ID Cabal.
Moulton, the "achievement" is hollow. Wikipedia has no learning curve. There's nothing stopping the article reverting to its previous state at any time. And most articles do. Oh, now, Kato, you're just being bitter. Good thing there's a pill for that.* Jon (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif) * Side effects. Okay, so it's a bitter pill, too. What did you expect?
|
|
|
|
dogbiscuit |
|
Could you run through Verifiability not Truth once more?
Group: Members
Posts: 2,972
Joined:
From: The Midlands
Member No.: 4,015
|
QUOTE(Kato @ Tue 6th May 2008, 2:51pm) QUOTE(Moulton @ Tue 6th May 2008, 9:17am) But I am also mindful of the difficulty of maintaining the high level of accuracy, excellence, and ethics that two or three courageous editors were able to achieve in yesterday's remarkable showdown with the ID Cabal.
Moulton, the "achievement" is hollow. Wikipedia has no learning curve. There's nothing stopping the article reverting to its previous state at any time. And most articles do. I'd disagree. What that page does show is an indisputable example of tendatious and biased editing, especially Filll, (get back to the editing Guys) who invented a long original analysis that avoided addressing the fundamental issue, but a textbook example of the ID cabal at work, unable to grasp that they were making it all up. It is another brick in the wall. I think one reason SV is a relatively uncontroversial subject these days is that the publicity of her actions has been so widespread that she no longer holds the title of "widely respected admin". I take it that someone has worked down the petition line by line and attacked every signatory? Is it worth doing a check and seeing if the same behaviour has been applied? If it has, I'd be going for a block or a ban for, well, Lack of common Sense. What is really annoying is that I think most people would agree that the ID movement is a fringe movement, and certainly almost entirely American based with little traction elsewhere in the world. So it is really annoying that dolts like OrangeMarlin give it credibility by distorting the case to make it seem like they do not believe their cause can stand the cold light of day. It almost makes me want to edit in favour of ID to redress the balance! So Wikipedia does have a learning curve, it is just tediously slow, and as I was reminded, it requires the re-education of an infinite number of monkeys joining the project. Ah, I've just contradicted myself, I'll get me coat.
|
|
|
|
Moulton |
|
Anthropologist from Mars
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
|
QUOTE(Kato @ Tue 6th May 2008, 9:51am) QUOTE(Moulton @ Tue 6th May 2008, 9:17am) But I am also mindful of the difficulty of maintaining the high level of accuracy, excellence, and ethics that two or three courageous editors were able to achieve in yesterday's remarkable showdown with the ID Cabal. Moulton, the "achievement" is hollow. Wikipedia has no learning curve. There's nothing stopping the article reverting to its previous state at any time. And most articles do. I share your worry, Kato. The fact that they had to page-protect the Picard bio, coupled with the observation that two members of the ID Cabal then moved the battlefield over to the adjacent article on Affective Computing is evidence that the worry is well-grounded. I am both intrigued and perplexed by the lack of organizational learning at WP. It's not like Peter Senge's notion of a "learning organization" is all that obscure or unfamiliar to people at WP. But somehow or other, the learning process got arrested there. I'd dearly love to understand why (and whether it can be kick-started).
|
|
|
|
Jon Awbrey |
|
Ï„á½° δΠμοι παθήματα μαθήματα γÎγονε
Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,783
Joined:
From: Meat Puppet Nation
Member No.: 5,619
|
QUOTE(Moulton @ Tue 6th May 2008, 12:25pm) QUOTE(Kato @ Tue 6th May 2008, 9:51am) QUOTE(Moulton @ Tue 6th May 2008, 9:17am) But I am also mindful of the difficulty of maintaining the high level of accuracy, excellence, and ethics that two or three courageous editors were able to achieve in yesterday's remarkable showdown with the ID Cabal.
Moulton, the "achievement" is hollow. Wikipedia has no learning curve. There's nothing stopping the article reverting to its previous state at any time. And most articles do. I share your worry, Kato. The fact that they had to page-protect the Picard bio, coupled with the observation that two members of the ID Cabal then moved the battlefield over to the adjacent article on Affective Computing is evidence that the worry is well-grounded. I am both intrigued and perplexed by the lack of organizational learning at WP. It's not like Peter Senge's notion of a "learning organization" is all that obscure or unfamiliar to people at WP. But somehow or other, the learning process got arrested there. I'd dearly love to understand why (and whether it can be kick-started). In order to be capable of inquiry into a puzzling phenomenon, one has to be capable of entertaining many alternative hypotheses. When one hypothesis does not account for the observations, then it is time to consider another. Even though you know a lot of things, it is obvious from the things you say that you do not know Wikipedia very well at all. From what I've read of your story — heaven knows I haven't read it all — you got booted out of Wikipedia at very early stage, and this is probably why most of the things that you say are the sorts of things that most of us were saying at a very early stage of our trials there. So it is not too surprising that you seem to be stuck on the Nøøb Hypothesis that the Wikipediot Population at large, in compact with the Foundation that "services" it, really are trying to craft a quality information source, but just don't know how. I think that it might provide you with additional data and alternative hypotheses if you actually listened to the stories of others, instead of just preaching about plays and such. Just A Thought … Jon (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif) This post has been edited by Jon Awbrey:
|
|
|
|
Moulton |
|
Anthropologist from Mars
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
|
QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Tue 6th May 2008, 10:32am) QUOTE(Kato @ Tue 6th May 2008, 2:51pm) QUOTE(Moulton @ Tue 6th May 2008, 9:17am) But I am also mindful of the difficulty of maintaining the high level of accuracy, excellence, and ethics that two or three courageous editors were able to achieve in yesterday's remarkable showdown with the ID Cabal. Moulton, the "achievement" is hollow. Wikipedia has no learning curve. There's nothing stopping the article reverting to its previous state at any time. And most articles do. I'd disagree. What that page does show is an indisputable example of tendentious and biased editing, especially Filll, (get back to the editing Guys) who invented a long original analysis that avoided addressing the fundamental issue, but a textbook example of the ID cabal at work, unable to grasp that they were making it all up. That's an accurate assessment. Filll's representations are not especially well-grounded in evidence and reasoning. If I were there, I would supply copious evidence to debunk his assertions. But I am not there because Filll engineered the Spammish Inquisition to remove me. QUOTE I take it that someone has worked down the petition line by line and attacked every signatory? Is it worth doing a check and seeing if the same behaviour has been applied? If it has, I'd be going for a block or a ban for, well, Lack of common Sense. Filll, more than anyone on the WikiProject on Intelligent Design, reviewed every version of the list, every name on the list, and every effort by anyone known to have gotten their name off the list. I believe he may have been the one most instrumental in compiling the List of Signatories of the Dissent Petition. QUOTE What is really annoying is that I think most people would agree that the ID movement is a fringe movement, and certainly almost entirely American based with little traction elsewhere in the world. So it is really annoying that dolts like OrangeMarlin give it credibility by distorting the case to make it seem like they do not believe their cause can stand the cold light of day. It almost makes me want to edit in favour of ID to redress the balance! I am in favor of objective reporting, in a manner that achieves an impeccable standard of accuracy, excellence, and ethics in writing articles for an encyclopedia. QUOTE So Wikipedia does have a learning curve, it is just tediously slow, and as I was reminded, it requires the re-education of an infinite number of monkeys joining the project. I confess that I have utterly failed in my foolish quest to educate that cabal.
|
|
|
|
Moulton |
|
Anthropologist from Mars
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
|
From the talk page colloquy... QUOTE(Decorum) DecorumThings have been very heated for a few days at this article. Google does index talk pages, unfortunately, and I'm concerned that some of the commentary here is indecorous. Let's remember that this is a living person's biography. Suggest a judicious early archiving of some of these threads, and/or implementing expandable box format. DurovaCharge! 17:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC) If it wasn't for those walking in the footsteps of the banned user Moulton, we wouldn't be enjoying this fine conversation. Moulton's been recruiting meat puppets for this article for months at Wikipedia Review culminating in several large threads over the last 2 weeks and I have the diffs to prove it. Now in 24 hours we've had a wave of disruption from editors totally new to this article. Any of these who are active in the discussions at WR are simply acting on the behalf of a banned user, IOW, meat puppetry. I wonder if I'll see any names there I recognize from here? Odd nature (talk) 17:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
|
|
|
|
Sxeptomaniac |
|
Senior Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 332
Joined:
From: Fresno, CA
Member No.: 3,542
|
QUOTE(Moulton @ Tue 6th May 2008, 12:12pm) From the talk page colloquy... QUOTE(Decorum) DecorumThings have been very heated for a few days at this article. Google does index talk pages, unfortunately, and I'm concerned that some of the commentary here is indecorous. Let's remember that this is a living person's biography. Suggest a judicious early archiving of some of these threads, and/or implementing expandable box format. DurovaCharge! 17:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC) If it wasn't for those walking in the footsteps of the banned user Moulton, we wouldn't be enjoying this fine conversation. Moulton's been recruiting meat puppets for this article for months at Wikipedia Review culminating in several large threads over the last 2 weeks and I have the diffs to prove it. Now in 24 hours we've had a wave of disruption from editors totally new to this article. Any of these who are active in the discussions at WR are simply acting on the behalf of a banned user, IOW, meat puppetry. I wonder if I'll see any names there I recognize from here? Odd nature (talk) 17:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC) Heh. I found the whole "Moulton as puppetmaster" scenario quite laughable. We exchanged a number of PMs here on the issue, and I don't recall you ever asking me to do more than look at the problems. It seems beyond their comprehension that you could have had a valid reason for being upset with the articles' condition. Of course, since I've admitted communicating with you, the anti-ID crew now probably considers me your meatpuppet, in addition to their assumption that I'm already promoting ID, or some such nonsense. I also noticed the absurd branching out into Affective Computing, and Odd Nature decided to mess with the James Tour article as well. They couldn't have an absolute victory at Picard's article, so they went to find one somewhere else, I think.
|
|
|
|
Moulton |
|
Anthropologist from Mars
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
|
QUOTE(Sxeptomaniac @ Tue 6th May 2008, 6:53pm) Heh. I found the whole "Moulton as puppetmaster" scenario quite laughable. We exchanged a number of PMs here on the issue, and I don't recall you ever asking me to do more than look at the problems. It seems beyond their comprehension that you could have had a valid reason for being upset with the articles' condition. I'd be more than willing to release any PMs or E-Mails to dispel the notion that anyone is doing more than what their own conscience and personal values dictate. QUOTE Of course, since I've admitted communicating with you, the anti-ID crew now probably considers me your meatpuppet, in addition to their assumption that I'm already promoting ID, or some such nonsense. Didn't we overlap on WP before I was indef-blocked? I think you even commented in the RfC that Filll filed against me. QUOTE I also noticed the absurd branching out into Affective Computing, and Odd Nature decided to mess with the James Tour article as well. They couldn't have an absolute victory at Picard's article, so they went to find one somewhere else, I think. That will probably backfire on them.
|
|
|
|
Sxeptomaniac |
|
Senior Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 332
Joined:
From: Fresno, CA
Member No.: 3,542
|
QUOTE(Moulton @ Tue 6th May 2008, 4:16pm) QUOTE(Sxeptomaniac @ Tue 6th May 2008, 6:53pm) Heh. I found the whole "Moulton as puppetmaster" scenario quite laughable. We exchanged a number of PMs here on the issue, and I don't recall you ever asking me to do more than look at the problems. It seems beyond their comprehension that you could have had a valid reason for being upset with the articles' condition. I'd be more than willing to release any PMs or E-Mails to dispel the notion that anyone is doing more than what their own conscience and personal values dictate. Thanks. I'll let you know if I decide to do that, but I don't think it will be necessary, as vague insinuations are more their style. Making claims that can be actively proven false would defeat their purpose, I believe. QUOTE(Moulton @ Tue 6th May 2008, 4:16pm) QUOTE Of course, since I've admitted communicating with you, the anti-ID crew now probably considers me your meatpuppet, in addition to their assumption that I'm already promoting ID, or some such nonsense. Didn't we overlap on WP before I was indef-blocked? I think you even commented in the RfC that Filll filed against me. Yep. That would be my first interaction with you, actually. I noticed that, rather than work with you regarding the problems, they'd actively baited you into behavior that eventually helped them get you blocked. (I notice that they now refer to you as banned, which is not really the case, as far as I recall.)
|
|
|
|
dogbiscuit |
|
Could you run through Verifiability not Truth once more?
Group: Members
Posts: 2,972
Joined:
From: The Midlands
Member No.: 4,015
|
QUOTE(Cla68 @ Wed 7th May 2008, 12:38am) I wonder if OrangeMarlin, Jim62sch, and their friends are aware how close they are to having their real names in the press in a story about a group of POV-pushers on Wikipedia? They probably aren't aware, as they appear to be amazingly myopic.
What I find amazing is that these people, knowing that they are editing in the full view of a large number of watchers, including members of ArbCom (who themselves must be in more agonies of anticipation of how they are going to swing this one when it inevitably ends up at ArbCom) actually must believe what they are doing is sensible. That is the scary thing. I think they should be pulled over, sat them down and someone needs to play them the video tape evidence. Your good at RFCs aren't you? (And you should note that I am an editor of adequate standing as I make that comment). This is a gem: Fill's been watching too many episodes of 24. Beep, Beep, Beep, Beep
|
|
|
|
dogbiscuit |
|
Could you run through Verifiability not Truth once more?
Group: Members
Posts: 2,972
Joined:
From: The Midlands
Member No.: 4,015
|
QUOTE(Moulton @ Wed 7th May 2008, 1:15am) QUOTE(Sxeptomaniac @ Tue 6th May 2008, 7:54pm) I noticed that, rather than work with you regarding the problems, they'd actively baited you into behavior that eventually helped them get you blocked. (I notice that they now refer to you as banned, which is not really the case, as far as I recall.) The principal troller was User:Baegis, who registered expressly for that purpose. Stunning. Your case started out dry and dull, and then you keep throwing these things out, you little tinker. Did they identify whose sock it was? I presume you were too new at the time to grasp that it was such a blatant one. Too late for checkuser now I guess, need Durova's skills on that one.
|
|
|
|
Derktar |
|
WR Black Ops
Group: Moderators
Posts: 1,029
Joined:
From: Torrance, California, USA
Member No.: 2,381
|
QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Tue 6th May 2008, 5:28pm) QUOTE(Moulton @ Wed 7th May 2008, 1:15am) QUOTE(Sxeptomaniac @ Tue 6th May 2008, 7:54pm) I noticed that, rather than work with you regarding the problems, they'd actively baited you into behavior that eventually helped them get you blocked. (I notice that they now refer to you as banned, which is not really the case, as far as I recall.) The principal troller was User:Baegis, who registered expressly for that purpose. Stunning. Your case started out dry and dull, and then you keep throwing these things out, you little tinker. Did they identify whose sock it was? I presume you were too new at the time to grasp that it was such a blatant one. Too late for checkuser now I guess, need Durova's skills on that one. Too many times have we seen this before. A new user starting out, doesn't really know the ropes, they quickly find themselves at odds with one of the power-players and become immersed in the wiki-politics game and then BAM, they fall into the trap.
|
|
|
|
dogbiscuit |
|
Could you run through Verifiability not Truth once more?
Group: Members
Posts: 2,972
Joined:
From: The Midlands
Member No.: 4,015
|
QUOTE(Derktar @ Wed 7th May 2008, 1:30am) Too many times have we seen this before. A new user starting out, doesn't really know the ropes, they quickly find themselves at odds with one of the power-players and become immersed in the wiki-politics game and then BAM, they fall into the trap.
I do think Moulton should now be promoted to the highest rank of honour that we can provide*, not only socked out of existence, but blocked for not wanting to write an encyclopedia, and still fuelling a mega drama-fest edit war some 9 months after he last edited an article. Way to go, Moulton. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif) *Well, there had to be a catch, you've already got your own avatar and your own campaign, so I think we've run out of gifts. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)
|
|
|
|
Cla68 |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,763
Joined:
Member No.: 5,761
|
QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Tue 6th May 2008, 11:55pm) QUOTE(Cla68 @ Wed 7th May 2008, 12:38am) I wonder if OrangeMarlin, Jim62sch, and their friends are aware how close they are to having their real names in the press in a story about a group of POV-pushers on Wikipedia? They probably aren't aware, as they appear to be amazingly myopic.
What I find amazing is that these people, knowing that they are editing in the full view of a large number of watchers, including members of ArbCom (who themselves must be in more agonies of anticipation of how they are going to swing this one when it inevitably ends up at ArbCom) actually must believe what they are doing is sensible. That is the scary thing. I think they should be pulled over, sat them down and someone needs to play them the video tape evidence. Your good at RFCs aren't you? (And you should note that I am an editor of adequate standing as I make that comment). This is a gem: Fill's been watching too many episodes of 24. Beep, Beep, Beep, Beep Jim62sch has already been taken to ArbCom once for his behavior, so an RfC wouldn't be necessary for him. He's on his second strike. An RfC is very time-consuming to draft and I'd rather, of course, be working on articles on subjects that I find interesting to me. But, if they keep up this garbage and refuse to correct their behavior on their own, then some more adult intervention may become necessary.
|
|
|
|
tarantino |
|
the Dude abides
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,441
Joined:
Member No.: 2,143
|
QUOTE(Castle Rock @ Tue 6th May 2008, 11:03pm) God, he's a pathetic little man. PS Raul check WP:BLOCK, especially the part about blocking users you are in a dispute with. It's amusing that Rau654, Filll et. al. have chosen to engage Relata refero in a battle of wits, but have arrived unarmed save for Mark Pellegrini's banhammer. QUOTE You will be civil on this page, or I will block you myself. Is this clear? Raul654 Say, Mark, that isn't a killer chihuahua, is it?
|
|
|
|
Moulton |
|
Anthropologist from Mars
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
|
QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Tue 6th May 2008, 8:28pm) QUOTE(Moulton @ Wed 7th May 2008, 1:15am) QUOTE(Sxeptomaniac @ Tue 6th May 2008, 7:54pm) I noticed that, rather than work with you regarding the problems, they'd actively baited you into behavior that eventually helped them get you blocked. (I notice that they now refer to you as banned, which is not really the case, as far as I recall.) The principal troller was User:Baegis, who registered expressly for that purpose. Stunning. Your case started out dry and dull, and then you keep throwing these things out, you little tinker. Did they identify whose sock it was? I presume you were too new at the time to grasp that it was such a blatant one. Too late for checkuser now I guess, need Durova's skills on that one. Oh, he's still there. He even posted on this latest Roz Picard stuff. Search for his name in the talk page there. Filll thinks he's a great asset to the project.
|
|
|
|
Moulton |
|
Anthropologist from Mars
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
|
Filll admits the petition can be interpreted seventeen ways from Sunday... QUOTE(Filll on Picard Bio Talk Page) 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... QUOTE(Moulton's Proposed Wording) Controversial petitionIn 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 |
|
dhd
Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,521
Joined:
Member No.: 767
|
QUOTE(Moulton @ Wed 7th May 2008, 4:23am) Filll admits the petition can be interpreted seventeen ways from Sunday... QUOTE(Filll on Picard Bio Talk Page) 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... QUOTE(Moulton's Proposed Wording) Controversial petitionIn 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 |
|
Anthropologist from Mars
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
|
QUOTE(Kato @ Tue 6th May 2008, 11:37pm) 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. QUOTE 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 |
|
dhd
Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,521
Joined:
Member No.: 767
|
QUOTE(Moulton @ Wed 7th May 2008, 5:52am) QUOTE(Kato @ Tue 6th May 2008, 11:37pm) 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. QUOTE 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.
|
|
|
|
Kato |
|
dhd
Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,521
Joined:
Member No.: 767
|
If you read the WP article on " A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" it is biased from the start. (Again I may as well stress that I am a fully paid up member of RichardDawkins.net, have no time for any claims of "Intelligent Design", and would take a very dim view of anyone who tried to push that delusional mumbo-jumbo on my children) Below is an example of how the agenda has been pushed onto the subject matter: QUOTE A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism states that:
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.
The statement, and its title, refer to evolution as "Darwinism" or "Darwinian theory", both of which are vague, misleading and are not used by scientists to refer to current theories. In fact, the use of the term "Darwinism" in modern usage is usually a pejorative term employed only by creationists. The bolded section is completely unnecessary and is not even attributed. The whole article has been framed to discredit the Discovery Institute. Sure, DI are deluded and manipulative, but what happened to "show don't tell"?
|
|
|
|
Sxeptomaniac |
|
Senior Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 332
Joined:
From: Fresno, CA
Member No.: 3,542
|
QUOTE(Kato @ Tue 6th May 2008, 8:37pm) 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.
I don't know... I tend to view petitions as a starting point, nothing more. If someone asks me to sign a petition, I'll often sign it just to give the subject a chance for more debate, unless it's something I'm obviously opposed to. Of course, I don't really have to worry much about protecting my professional image, either (I doubt I ever will, for that matter). Perhaps some others think along similar lines, though. QUOTE(Kato @ Tue 6th May 2008, 10:33pm) If you read the WP article on " A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" it is biased from the start. (Again I may as well stress that I am a fully paid up member of RichardDawkins.net, have no time for any claims of "Intelligent Design", and would take a very dim view of anyone who tried to push that delusional mumbo-jumbo on my children) Below is an example of how the agenda has been pushed onto the subject matter: QUOTE A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism states that:
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.
The statement, and its title, refer to evolution as "Darwinism" or "Darwinian theory", both of which are vague, misleading and are not used by scientists to refer to current theories. In fact, the use of the term "Darwinism" in modern usage is usually a pejorative term employed only by creationists. The bolded section is completely unnecessary and is not even attributed. The whole article has been framed to discredit the Discovery Institute. Sure, DI are deluded and manipulative, but what happened to "show don't tell"? Ah, but they fear people making the "wrong" choices as to what to believe. Science is their religion, and they are the evangelists and defenders of the faith. (As sometimes people have misunderstood when I have commented in similar situations in the past, let me be absolutely clear: I am not saying that science is a religion. However, it can certainly be made into one, as with many other things.) This post has been edited by Sxeptomaniac:
|
|
|
|
Moulton |
|
Anthropologist from Mars
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
|
Returning now to the latest postings in the colloquies on the Picard BLP talk page, they are increasingly revealing now. It is becoming apparent that the editors in the WikiProject on Intelligent Design are hell-bent on publishing as encyclopedic fact a rather dubious theory of mind of a particular signer of the 2001 statement. But even if their haphazard theory of mind were accidentally correct, it would still be unpublishable since there is no clear evidence to support it. If anything, the evidence is that the subject of the bio is skeptical of all theories, from Darwin to ID, inclusive. Which, as I understand the Scientific Method, is a healthy attitude to take. For any theory or belief, what is the evidence and reasoning upon which a given theory or belief rests? I have co-authored several peer-reviewed papers with Picard, including one prize-winning conference paper that is highlighted on Picard's bio. I know from direct experience how intensely rigorous Picard is when it comes to reporting the results of scientific experiments and crafting scientific theories to explain the experimental observations at hand. Picard doesn't let any explanatory theory slip by without a rigorous examination of the evidence, and rigorous scientific reasoning to support it. For example, in her 1997 text on Affective Computing, she includes a description of my work in studying the relationship between emotions and learning ( pp. 93-94). But she does not present the theory I had proposed because, in 1997, we had not yet carried out any rigorous scientific studies to properly ground the proposed theory. She doesn't even mention in the book that we have a tentative theory. It wasn't until 2001 that we first published a conference paper proposing the theory. That was the peer-reviewed publication that won the Best Paper Award at the International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT 2001).
|
|
|
|
Moulton |
|
Anthropologist from Mars
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
|
QUOTE(Moulton @ Thu 24th April 2008, 5:23am) QUOTE(FCYTravis @ Thu 24th April 2008, 4:40am) What hath Wiki wrought? A dramatic exercise designed to reveal the unanticipated consequences of launching one of the most prominent ethically-challenged sites on the Internet. The above exchange occured in the wake of Doc Glasgow's departure from Wikipedia over the intractability of the BLP problem. Now, the latest example of the BLP problem is playing out on the very same biography that I first deigned to edit last August, in a futile effort to raise it (and others like it) to a respectable level of accuracy, excellence, and ethics in media. I note that FCYTravis (with whom I have not directly communicated, save for what he might have read in these threads), is making many of the same arguments I made, back in August.
|
|
|
|
Jon Awbrey |
|
Ï„á½° δΠμοι παθήματα μαθήματα γÎγονε
Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,783
Joined:
From: Meat Puppet Nation
Member No.: 5,619
|
QUOTE(Moulton @ Wed 7th May 2008, 7:59am) QUOTE(Sxeptomaniac @ Wed 7th May 2008, 2:50am) Science is their religion, and they are the evangelists and defenders of the faith.
I don't see it that way, for the simple reason that the members of the WikiProject on Intelligent Design have not demonstrated even an elementary ability to engage in scientific reasoning. When it comes to evidence and reasoning, I look to the protocols of the Scientific Method as the gold standard. I was frankly appalled (and still am) at the utter failure of the editors in that clique to form and articulate hypotheses that are supported by a critical examination of the evidence. If it were true that they are ardent in their belief and practice of the protocols of the Scientific Method, I daresay none of this disgraceful drama would ever have taken place. Moreover, no self-respecting scientist would ever engage in anything so silly and unscientific as the Spammish Inquisition, except as a theatrical farce. So tell me, in your Book Of Scientific Method (BOSM), 'splain to me again the part where it says: Step Ω. When faced with a disturbing conclusion, throw up your hands, do a funny double-take, emit rubish H'yuck-H'yuck-H'yuck sounds, and blather on about Comic Operas and Dithyrambs? 'Cause I Must've Been Playing Hooky That Day … Jon (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif) This post has been edited by Jon Awbrey:
|
|
|
|
Sxeptomaniac |
|
Senior Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 332
Joined:
From: Fresno, CA
Member No.: 3,542
|
QUOTE(Moulton @ Wed 7th May 2008, 4:59am) QUOTE(Sxeptomaniac @ Wed 7th May 2008, 2:50am) Science is their religion, and they are the evangelists and defenders of the faith. I don't see it that way, for the simple reason that the members of the WikiProject on Intelligent Design have not demonstrated even an elementary ability to engage in scientific reasoning. When it comes to evidence and reasoning, I look to the protocols of the Scientific Method as the gold standard. I was frankly appalled (and still am) at the utter failure of the editors in that clique to form and articulate hypotheses that are supported by a critical examination of the evidence. If it were true that they are ardent in their belief and practice of the protocols of the Scientific Method, I daresay none of this disgraceful drama would ever have taken place. Moreover, no self-respecting scientist would ever engage in anything so silly and unscientific as the Spammish Inquisition, except as a theatrical farce. That's true, but religion, especially when taken to extremes, has a way of corrupting the object of faith along the way. Surely you've noticed the similarities in the behavior of some of the group and and a foaming-at-the-mouth religious fundamentalist.
|
|
|
|
Moulton |
|
Anthropologist from Mars
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
|
QUOTE(Sxeptomaniac @ Wed 7th May 2008, 1:02pm) QUOTE(Moulton @ Wed 7th May 2008, 4:59am) If it were true that they are ardent in their belief and practice of the protocols of the Scientific Method, I daresay none of this disgraceful drama would ever have taken place. Moreover, no self-respecting scientist would ever engage in anything so silly and unscientific as the Spammish Inquisition, except as a theatrical farce. That's true, but religion, especially when taken to extremes, has a way of corrupting the object of faith along the way. Surely you've noticed the similarities in the behavior of some of the group and and a foaming-at-the-mouth religious fundamentalist. Well, they adopt their beliefs on pure faith, without grounding them in evidence and scientific reasoning, and then seek to coerce others into swallowing their novel beliefs, or else. QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Wed 7th May 2008, 11:21am) 'Cause I Must've Been Playing Hooky That Day … Apparently so. Or as Yehudi might put it, Ma-nishtanah ha-yom ha-zeh?
|
|
|
|
dogbiscuit |
|
Could you run through Verifiability not Truth once more?
Group: Members
Posts: 2,972
Joined:
From: The Midlands
Member No.: 4,015
|
QUOTE(Moulton @ Thu 8th May 2008, 4:14pm) QUOTE(Moulton @ Tue 6th May 2008, 5:05am) While this thread began with an opening sneeze involving Krimpet and OrangeMarlin, perhaps the thread title could be revised to more accurately capture the essence of the story as it unfolded during the course of the opera.
The story reminds me of The Hary Janos Suite, but I daresay that's too obscure a musical reference to be meaningful to most observers here. Does anyone have any suggestions for a more meaningful topic title, given that we've now zoomed out a bit from the tip of the iceberg to discover other sharks in the water besides an orange marlin? Nothing polite comes to mind. I would note that I did nominate them for tag team of the year back here, albeit with dodgy spelling. The hatchet job on the article on Affective Computing is appalling. Tagging stuff that is a straightforward uncontroversial explanation with fact and vague. It is not about writing an article, it is about discrediting the subject to embarrass you and Picard. If its vague, reword it. If you can't, why are you trying to edit something you don't know anything about and the previous authors did. The edit history shows a hit squad swarming. Nasty people.
|
|
|
|
Sxeptomaniac |
|
Senior Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 332
Joined:
From: Fresno, CA
Member No.: 3,542
|
QUOTE(Moulton @ Thu 8th May 2008, 8:40am) Somewhere between last December and this week, someone removed from James Tour's BLP his published disclaimer that he is not a proponent of ID. QUOTE(Gone missing from Tour's BLP...) On his web page labeled "Evolution/Creation" [http://www.jmtour.com/?page_id=27], Tour writes that "I have been labeled as an Intelligent Design (ID) proponent. I am not. I do not know how to use science to prove intelligent design." Is there some reason that express disclaimer vanished from Tour's bio? It's part of the same editing behavior that messed up Affective computing (notice that Odd Nature gutted it under the rather deceptive summary "copyedit". I had to focus on preventing the article from saying that Tour signed a petition promoting ID, then the debate over at Rosalind Picard. I was going to go back and do some repair work on that section of Tour's article today. It's rather frustrating how the debate at Picard's article turned out. Guettarda suggests a version of what had been argued for all along, and suddenly it's OK. The only possible explanation I can give is that the anti-ID crowd had to see the suggestion come from someone they consider one of their own. At least Guettarda seems to have some reading comprehension skills. This post has been edited by Sxeptomaniac:
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
| |