Thank you very much for commenting on the
Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy page. I greatly appreciate not only your logic but your civility.
My heading refers to my observation that Wikipedia has become a monster of sorts. It seems human nature needs checks and balances....and a police force. You are an admirable and rare example of following the rules you make for others, but I see
Lord of the Flies playing out here. I'm requesting a stronger regulating authority at Wikipedia--a police force, if you will.
The only other online site in which I participate is
FunTrivia, a family-friendly quiz site ruled by a benevolent dictator with a loyal cadre of lieutenants who ensure we adhere to his rules, not least of which is civility. Can you not do the same? I believe we would see much more progress on the encyclopedia if you did.
Here are some of my thoughts:
To a
fellow editor: Although not designed as such, WP is, among other things, a social experiment, whether Jimbo accepts that fact or not. I've long thought it was similar to the boys on that island [in Lord of the Flies]—a microcosm where human nature takes its inevitable course as the pecking order is established and justice lurches blindly.
To another
fellow editor: As you can't help but being aware, I think the article should be titled "Climategate." Nevertheless, we have to work within the framework that is actually present, not the ideal one laid out in the 5 Pillars and the many pages of policy. There are clearly controlling editors who will not even look at the sources we provide, who will not even consider or investigate the fact that "Climategate" is the most common term. Therefore, I think it's in everyone's best interest to lay this issue aside for months--or even years--until history makes this usage impossible to avoid.
To a third
fellow editor: I myself find it difficult to let outrageous statements pass, but it seems to be in the best interests of everyone and everything at present. They aren't listening, they don't want to listen, they are entrenched. Trying to convince them only makes them dig in deeper. They're in siege mode, and rightfully so, under an onslaught of evidence they don't want to consider. They are intelligent and, aside from blind spots, informed, so eventually they should wake up and smell the coffee. The article isn't changing right now whether we are silent or adamant, so we may as well try to foster some good feelings that could lead to cooperation later.
Imo, editors such as those to whom I refer in my third comment impede progress, or "keep the article hostage," to use their own terminology. Those who keep arguing against something and who refuse to document their own assertions or investigate the documentation of other editors' assertions should not be allowed to take up time and space on WP pages, again, imo.
Wrt to
WP:CIVIL, many times I have seen rudeness such as you addressed regarding "
bollocks" allowed to stand, the guilty editor continuing to insult with impunity, and then see that same editor cry "Personal attack!" or shut someone down with
WP:CIVIL when the offense was much less or even, so far as I can tell, entirely imaginary. A police force, properly deployed, should be able to curb that kind of behavior.
Thanks for your time, thanks for creating and maintaining Wikipedia, and best wishes, --
Yopienso (
talk) 01:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- A couple days ago, I suggested that matter be put before ArbCom. In retrospect, I realize the request was largely motivated by my understanding of the stranglehold a few agenda-driven editors have managed to assume in all matters relating to global warming on wikipedia. As far as the Climategate title issue is concerned, at face value, the process is indeed playing out as it should. But beneath the surface, a cancer of manipulation has consumed its integrity the same way it does in all global warming-related matters. The problem is twofold:
- 1) Objective editors just don't have the patience to police material for objectivity the same way activists do for an agenda.
- 2) Many well-intentioned editors avoid the subject entirely for fear of being hung in a
witchhunt.
- Thomas Jefferson summarized the problem best: 'All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.' Too bad he didn't offer any solutions.
--
K10wnsta (
talk) 05:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- @ K10wnsta, your "understanding of the stranglehold a few agenda-driven editors have managed to assume in all matters relating to global warming on wikipedia" looks rather like a conspiracy theory based on a presumption of bad faith, and possibly on a misunderstanding of the due weight to be given to clear majority views on aspects of global warming. There is indeed "a cancer of manipulation" of mass media information on the subject, driven in part by political ideology, commercial interests and by bloggers with a high opinion of their own rejection of majority expert views on the subject. The political and social aspects of this are not easy to cover objectively, if only because of a shortage of objective sources and a surfeit of polemical sources. Naturally, many editors come to the topic with perceptions based on the mass media and on their sympathies. Wikipedia can give good coverage to such social conflicts, provided editors act in good faith and show willingness to go along with core policies, which become of particular importance when dealing with fringe views and popular pseudoscience. .
dave souza,
talk 15:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- The only problem with your argument is that there has been something of a hijacking of the NPOV policy and a considerable misuse of its UNDUE section, which is now used to exclude significant-minority views, not only tiny-minority ones.
SlimVirgin
talk|
contribs 16:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- My goodness, a hijacking! The evaluation of significant minority, tiny minority and fringe views on any given topic is of course a matter for evidence from reliable sources and editor discussion on the relevant talk pages. Suitable proposals for specific articles will of course be welcome. .
dave souza,
talk 17:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- But as you know, a problem has developed whereby some editors are interpreting "reliable source" to mean experts they agree with, and the definition of "expert" is becoming more restrictive. One example was the attempt (the successful attempt when I last checked) to prevent
The Hockey Stick Illusion by
A.W. Montford—a meticulously researched book on the global warming
hockey stick controversy—not to be allowed as a source, even in the article devoted to that controversy. Cla68 describes his efforts to use the book as a source
here. The argument by editors opposed to its use is that the writer is not a scientist and/or that the work was not peer-reviewed, and therefore it is not an RS. In this way, significant-minority views are being kept out of articles, and this is just one of many examples, and not only in the climate-change field, though it has happened there most aggressively.
That is why I use the word "hijacked" of the NPOV policy. I use it advisedly, and I see what has been happening as a major threat to Wikipedia's neutrality.
SlimVirgin
talk|
contribs 18:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- A splendid example, if rather detailed for Jimbo's page. As has been stated on relevant article talk pages and at
WP:RSN, the book is a reliable source for the fringe opinions of the blogger who wrote it to promote the opinions of another blogger and retired mining engineer who has published prominent papers attacking the work of scientists. Given that it's claimed to present a history of science, it should be noted that the author is neither a historian nor a scientist, and it is not a scholarly source. Both bloggers have been active proponents of views which have little traction within science, and as such it's a primary source for these views. To the extent that these opinions are strongly supported politically by a significant minority, primarily in the U.S., then these views are properly shown in relevant articles where they're significant, but it remains a questionable source for these views. So far Cla68 only seems to have proposed it as a source for uncontroversial statements readily supported by more reliable sources. . .
dave souza,
talk 18:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- Your post illustrates the problem exactly. Montford has a background in science publishing. He immersed himself in the Hockey stick controversy, and produced a book of investigative journalism—a detective story—detailing how the temperature reconstruction took place, and the efforts of two men,
Steve MacIntyre and
Ross McKitrick, to find the data that reconstruction was based on. For that research, he is dismissed on Wikipedia—by editors who disagree with him—as "a blogger" and a primary source, when he is clearly a secondary source, and the fact that he maintains a blog is not relevant to whether his book is well-researched. This is the only book (that I know of) dedicated to exploring the efforts to uncover the Hockey stick data, yet it's not allowed as a source in the Wikipedia article devoted precisely to that controversy. This is how the NPOV policy, specifically the UNDUE section, is being misused to keep out significant-minority views.
SlimVirgin
talk|
contribs 18:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- As does your post. What evidence do you have to support your contention that it's a reliable source, albeit by a non-expert? At the time one of the five brief "reviews" praising the book was by intelligent design proponent
George Gilder who'd similarly praised
Signature in the Cell, so by your argument we should be using that book in microbiology articles as a source to show that there's "designed information" in cells. All sources should be carefully evaluated, using third party sources, and not given a free pass because there's a manufactured "controversy". Our policies were agreed for good reason, even if you feel they're unfair to minority views of unproven significance. . .
dave souza,
talk 19:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- The NPOV policy has not been agreed upon; the words you rely on have been pushed into the policy very aggressively by a small number of like-minded editors, then stretched even further on individual talk pages to exclude sources those editors don't like. People who disagree are attacked and threatened, to the point where most give up.
- Dave, the point is this: we're here as Wikipedians. Not as people with views about this or that. What that should mean is that we go the extra mile in each article to find reliable sources to represent all the majority and significant-minority views, including the ones we disagree with. That is the spirit of the NPOV policy, and the spirit will always matter more than the letter.
- Instead, we see a small but vociferous group always doing the opposite, and not only in climate-change articles. Misinterpreting NPOV, misinterpreting UNDUE, misinterpreting FRINGE—and rewriting those pages to suit the agenda, then edit-warring when anyone tries to fix them—all for the purpose of excluding certain kinds of material, material that questions mainstream POV. But the same editors are happy to use blogs as sources to denigrate living persons they don't like. So this is not a question of high standards of sourcing. This is a question of—and I use the word again—the hijacking of Wikipedia to suppress certain views, and the hijacking of its most important policy to facilitate that suppression.
SlimVirgin
talk|
contribs 20:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- It's hard for me to square these claims of hijacking and suppression with the reality on the ground. I can virtually guarantee that for any topic area of your choice, Wikipedia will give minoritarian views far more coverage than you'll find in any comparable reference work. And not just marginally more coverage; our coverage of alternative, fringe, non-mainstream, and heterodox viewpoints exceeds that of any other serious reference work by orders of magnitude. We can certainly improve our coverage, which tends to veer between excessively sympathetic and excessively debunking. But let's start by grounding ourselves in reality: despite the ostensible "hijacking" of policy to "suppress" minoritarian views, we have an encyclopedia where they are exponentially over-represented in comparison to our peers.
MastCell
Talk 21:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- We don't really have peers, MastCell. Other projects don't have our space, our profile, our neutrality policy, our high number of contributors, so there isn't really anything we can be compared to. And anyway we're trailblazers, not followers, and the NPOV policy is what another editor has called our secret sauce. Yet it has been badly undermined over the last couple of years, both in terms of the way it's written and the way it's applied and explained to newbies. Speaking as a reader, there are whole sets of articles on WP I know I can't trust because they're the kinds of articles where significant-minority POVs are likely to have been removed. The advantage I have over other readers is that I know which accounts engage in that kind of thing, so I can look at the article history, look for their edits, and read the version before they reverted. But it's a shame that anyone has to do that.
SlimVirgin
talk|
contribs 01:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- Of course we have peers. We aren't the first people to try to construct a general-purpose encyclopedia, and we'd be foolish not to examine the approaches that others have taken. I appreciate that our model is novel and substantially different from those that have come before, but I think we can still learn something from their efforts. You may feel that we're incomparable, unique Web 2.0 trailblazers - and maybe we are - but I can tell you that every day Wikipedia is compared to established reference works. In fact, most of the scholarly literature that has been generated about Wikipedia consists of such comparisons. I'm not saying that we should aspire to look exactly like Britannica, but let's not pretend that no one has ever approached the question of how to accurately summarize a controversy for a general audience before. We can learn something useful if we're open to learning, although that requires a certain humility.
MastCell
Talk 03:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- I very much have to agree with you here, MastCell. It's a truely great thing to aspire to be better than those who have come before, but rarely can this be done without studying their triumphs and examining their failings. It's like trying to build a new and better laser without ever looking to see how current lasers are built, or even asking why they are constructed in such a way. Rarely does discounting the successes and failures of others yield any improvement.
Zaereth (
talk) 17:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- @Dave souza, you states "the book is a reliable source for the fringe opinions of the blogger who wrote it to promote the opinions of another blogger and retired mining engineer who has published prominent papers attacking the work of scientists. […]
talk 18:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC)". For how long shall you repeat your private view that this book represent a
WP:FRINGE view? I don't think a fine science journalist and editor (For eleven years in The Economist) as
Matt Ridley whould have stated "a detailed and brilliant piece of science writing."
[13] and "and deserves to win prizes"
[14] as pointed out in the
reception section in our article, if he thinks this is a book supporting a fringe position.
Nsaa (
talk) 19:52, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- SlimVirgin is exactly right, as are Yopienso and K10wnsta. After trying to address POV and other issues on various CC/GW articles, as well BLP issues there, it is not worth it. There is a completely different set of rules enforced by what appears to be mob rule - anyone that does not tow the line established by the CC/GW activists can expect to receive comments like these: 1)
"your recent POV pushing of birther-turned-climategater Ken Cuccinelli reveals that you are pushing a very, very fringe POV, so you should be more careful with your edits in the future if you want to continue editing these articles." in response to a suggestion for an addition to an article; 2)
"Frankly I would prefer you not to, given your previous editing in this topic area." in response to an offer to help with an article (self-retracted by user after comment by admin); and 3)
"Bollocks. He said nothing of the sort. Don't invent things," in response to an editor proposing a name change compromise. Today, three editors were making what I saw as possitve contributions to an article. The article creator, through a series of edits, deleted almost all of them. One editor reverted and suggested discussion on the talk page. The creator edited the changes out again. I made my first and only edit, to revert that and request discussion per
WP:BRD and that was ignored. The creator edits the changes out again. I make no more edits, but get warned for edit-warring. It's not worth it to edit in the area, and I'm not going to risk getting blocked for one edit.
- Editors are belittled, told that they don't a good enough understanding of science, hit with
WP:FRINGE and
WP:UNDUE if they try and post a minority view, and are consistently
combative. And if you ask them to explain their position, they just ignore the question. My first negative experience in this area came after I posted something on Connolley that was well-sourced through multiple reliable sources - granted the article I wrote was for crap, but I was blocked and sent to an SPI immediately. That's how they manage to control the issue, no one else wants to edit there. It is the third rail of Wikipedia - touch it and die.
- It's just not worth it. Regards,
GregJackP
Boomer! 19:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
{edit conflict} Dave, Jimbo commented on the
CRUec talk page that
"Climategate" and "scandal" are part and parcel of this controversy. Some of us have compiled lists proving just that. The editors who have the "strangle-hold," however, refuse to accept them and typically refuse to even look at them. Just today I provided a list of articles that use the word "scandal," and the first response was from an editor who falsely claimed, "Most, if not all of those sources are either outdated or slanted opinion pieces." My complaint is precisely this refusal to admit evidence, and in itself is evidence of NPOV. At this point in its development, WP seems to need a police force to uphold its lofty ideals. --
Yopienso (
talk) 19:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yopienso, imposing diktats in content disputes rather goes against the way of Wikipedia, and robust discussions can be expected. The manufactured scandal of the CRU emails is itself emerging as a scandalous misrepresentation of both the emails and the science, though it's by no means black and white. Editors naturally reflect the views and information around them, and getting an agreed position on the NPOV way to give due weight to various strongly opposed views in a live and developing debate is never going to be easy. The best way forward is editors of good will finding good quality sources and avoiding original research. . .
dave souza,
talk 19:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- You missed the point. There is very little robust discussion on this specific point, but refusal to join a discussion. I'm an editor of good will, (See my contributions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Yopienso) I've found
good quality sources (Did you look at them?), and have not submitted original research. (You know that in the past as I've been learning I have always willingly retracted it.) But the stone wall is there. The "diktats" I want "imposed" would quell disruption. An editor who refuses to consider information s/he has requested is disruptive. --
Yopienso (
talk) 20:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, agree that evidence should be considered, which I think is happening now. As suggested by an Arb, have been avoiding getting much involved in this topic area, not entirely successfully, so didn't check all your links. . .
dave souza,
talk 20:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- While I agree that a police force is a contradiction of the Wikipedia way, the comments on this page show that something does need to be done. Its not just climategate that is experiencing this problem (of over-enforcement of some rules, under enforcement of others). I tried to make some revisions to
International recognition of Kosovo a couple of weeks ago. I was carefully paring down the article, splitting it up into new articles. But because I made one careless edit summary to the main article, I had two hours worth of work reverted as vandalism by an administrator. My edit summary was careless because I was only taking a break. You only had to look at the diffs to know that I wasn't vandalizing anything. Instead he said that the article (the fifth longest on Wikipedia) did not need to be broken down. I was also criticized by another editor for not following the procedure for splitting articles. I'd only just begun! --
*Kat* (
talk) 19:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- Hi, sorry to hear about this hassle, one bright point is that work isn't lost as you can always use the edit history to retrieve your previous edits. Will advise on your talk page, thanks for sticking in at editing! . .
dave souza,
talk 20:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- This approach is refreshing. It's the approach that's needed. But it's not the approach that's been in evidence on the actual pages, unfortunately. ++
Lar:
t/
c 03:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Bad faith, Mr. Souza, can only be presumed in the absence of proof to the contrary. Rest assured, I make no presumptions. Following 100+ hours of observation, analysis, and occassional interaction with the cadre of editors so closely guarding that hot button issue, I can say with absolute certainty that my opinion of them has moved beyond bad faith to sit squarely in the realm of no faith at all. If the matter ever went before arbitration, there would be little challenge in demonstrating a clear and prolonged pattern of bias, intimidation, and
groupthink being employed to manipulate the content of those articles.
Furthermore, it is not our task to assign motives to the media's coverage of a topic (unless those motives are the subject of the topic itself), nor is it to synthesize theories as to a 'political ideology' driving it. --
K10wnsta (
talk) 21:09, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- You may not be aware, but the matter is before arbitration as we speak, with a proposed decision expected "any day now"...
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change. The perspective of those editors who have not been involved for a long time, such as yourself, is especially valuable, although the case no longer is accepting new evidence except in limited circumstances. Comments can be made on the proposed decision talk page, either now, or after the decision is posted. ++
Lar:
t/
c 03:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- Well, damn. I guess that snuck under my radar. Well, it didn't really have to sneak - I try and avoid global warming discussions because they really shake my faith in the processes used to resolve things here.
- Too bad. I'm sure I could have contributed some useful points to the arbitration. I'll refrain from reading it in its current state as any ommissions of fact or overlooked examples I might have been able to provide would simply foster regret at this point. My unwitting absence from the case does, however, chalk up a win for activists who so thoroughly poison a discussion's atmosphere as to repel those who might stand against them.
- I'll invest my full faith in whoever's taken up the shield there to do all they can to protect the integrity of wikipedia.
--
K10wnsta (
talk) 19:03, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Agreement
I gotta agree with the spirit of Yopienso's observations even though I have not had that specific problem. The problem I've noticed is that, in our (Wikipedians in general) zeal to enforce some rules, we are forgetting others. FAITH and BITE in particular that are being increasingly disregarded. I think this is partly because it has become so easy to tag articles (and the corresponding talk pages) and rollback revisions that we just do it automatically. We don't stop and think about whether or not the revision was really vandalism (as opposed to just incorrect) or if the editor was intentionally creating a irrelevant article. Tagging articles and rolling back revisions isn't intended to be a personal criticism, but for the person who has been tagged and rolled back, its gotta sting. Does that make sense?
For example, a newbie editor started an article on a local club. But he didn't follow protocol. First he created a redirect, then he created the page, with just the title, then he started writing the article. Well, faster than you could say Wikipedia, the page with just the title had a SPEEDY tag on it. And while I agree that the article, as it stood, was deserving of a SPEEDY delete, the newbie editor, deserved the benefit of GOOD FAITH. But he wasn't going to get it because he was too busy writing his article to realize that it was already up for deletion.--
*Kat* (
talk) 06:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, we do need to not be too quick to shoot first, but an IP or unconfirmed user that has the intention of creating a wikipedia article, should be able to discuss on the talkpage where he would get all the help he required. Or he will find the
Wikipedia:Help desk or start a discussion on his talkpage, and a wikipedia editor will assist him as he requests. I think there are plenty of avenues that new users can, and do, go down to get readily available assistance.
Off2riorob (
talk) 12:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree with the Yopienso's view as well, but this is also occurring in the world outside of Wikipedia. WP struggles most and most visibly with controversial articles, making them the least valuable of the entries. Climategate wont be Climategate until it ceases to be controversial... i.e. the controversy about it in the non WP world is somehow settled.
Thelmadatter (
talk) 18:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- Wow. So it's not just my imagination or overreacting. I agree with Yopienso's view and SlimVirgin's and GregJackP's and the rest. I, along with two other editors, made a few edits to
Attorney General of Virginia's climate science investigation over the course of several hours and arrived at a rough consensus on sources and the wording of some edits -- only to awake the next morning to find that the article creator (ChrisO) had reverted all the changes and referred to me as a "disruptive editor." Before making edits, I was careful to discuss them on the talk page, but they were all reverted without discussion. One of the other editors expressed displeasure at the total disregard of what had been collaborative improvements to the article. I was then warned for edit warring. I gave up because it's not worth it to try to battle the activists who are so invested in the article that they will engage in revert wars and malicious invective while protecting their POV in articles. This has happened in three or four GW/CC articles that I have tried to edit lately. There is virtually no room for neutral edits, reliable sources are systematically disallowed unless they conform to the "scientific consensus," the activists maintain such oppressive ownership over the articles, they are willing to violate all the rules, including the probation restrictions, in order to keep the articles biased in favor of their POV. This area is the cesspool of wiki and reads like Greenpeace propaganda frankly. There is a very concerted (if not coordinated) effort to keep information out of this encyclopedia.
Minor
4th 06:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- @ Minor4th, your revert removed a balance showing a majority viewpoint as well as minority views, which Chris had been discussing on the talk page, and showed only the minority claim that the various investigations indirectly related to the subject were a "whitewash".
[15] Chris reverted your change, calling the reversion disruptive,
[16]
[17] but as far as I've seen didn't call you a "disruptive editor." You may feel that the article should reflect the views of
Fox News, the
Daily Mail and the
Cato Institute skeptic
Pat Michaels, but please accept that it should also balance this with mainstream views to meet NPOV, and should focus on the article topic. . .
dave souza,
talk 07:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- Dave's commentary above is correct. I think this incident actually illustrates a significant part of the problem - that some editors aren't aware of, or don't acquaint themselves with, or simply disagree with some of the basic principles of NPOV. The dispute I recently had with Minor4th - who has only been an editor for a few months - is a perfect illustration of this problem. Minor4th added unattributed allegations (that had in fact been investigated and repudiated) as proven fact, and it omitted one viewpoint entirely. Minor4th complained that my action in rewording the disputed passage to attribute the allegations and adding the other viewpoint was "POV". In fact, as anyone familiar with NPOV would know,
WP:NPOV#Attributing and specifying biased statements requires attribution and balance. For the record, the discussion and contrasting versions are at
Talk:Attorney General of Virginia's climate science investigation#Versions.
- This kind of dispute would be easily avoided if only editors took the time to learn what NPOV requires and not to dismiss out of hand the advice that others give them about it. There is a constant problem in this topic area of new editors jumping in and getting into trouble because they don't understand basic content policies. I suspect there's not much we can do about that, though... --
ChrisO (
talk) 11:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- It would also be appropriate if you didn't try to explain such technical legal factors as copyright to an attorney. Or did you forget about the incivility you showed in that discussion, and the snarky comment above about how long Minor4th has been here? The perfect illustration of the problem was that, instead of trying to be helpful and direct him to policy, you pointed out that a) he didn't know what he was talking about (which was copyright law) and b) he should leave it to others to interpret what was, in effect, a legal issue, in addition to being a policy issue. As I pointed out at the time, maybe if one is not a lawyer, they should not comment on those issues at all - you know, leave it to the experts like many of us have been told in the CC/GW arena.
GregJackP
Boomer! 13:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, this is another good illustration of the problem of inexperience that I mentioned (and perhaps of the
Dunning-Kruger effect in operation as well). I wouldn't presume to lecture an attorney on copyright law, since I'm not qualified to do so. However, I am qualified to tell him what
Wikipedia's copyright policy requires, specifically in relation to the
non-free content criteria. Things that are completely legal under copyright law are not permitted under Wikipedia's copyright policies. Thus, when an image is deleted for failing to meet the NFCC, it's pointless to say "but I know copyright law!" or "I'm a lawyer" as an argument for why an image should not be deleted. I don't blame Minor4th for this - it took me a long time (far more than the four months he's had) to fully understand the NFCC. It's also pointless to get angry and defensive when someone explains to you why you have to do things a certain way, or not do it at all. That is something that editors can do something about - unfortunately I've seen many editors flame out because they're not willing to learn how to work within Wikipedia's policies. Hopefully Minor4th won't go down this road. --
ChrisO (
talk) 18:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- We also have experienced editors who don't understand Wikipedia's basic content policies.
A Quest For Knowledge (
talk) 12:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- Indeed we do.
Tarc (
talk) 12:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- The problem, Chris, is that the NPOV policy is so badly written—and in particular the much-misused
UNDUE section—that it allows editors to make it say whatever they want it to say. Attempts to remove some of the wordiness (such as
here), so there's less of a forest for POV pushers to hide behind, are resisted with threats and reverts. Attempts to explain on talk pages that it's being wrongly applied are ignored by swarms of editors who use it to exclude significant-minority POVs, rather than seeing it as something that's there to protect those POVs. The letter of the policy is being used as a weapon against the spirit of the policy.
- The result of this—apart from our having a lot of rotten articles—is that we're going to fail to attract a new generation of Wikipedians, because without strong institutional support for neutrality, the project is a significantly less attractive place to work.
SlimVirgin
talk|
contribs 15:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- Exactly so.
Minor
4th 15:22, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- Exactly so indeed. Why exactly would anyone of good faith who didn't have some ax to grind or another want to edit in the CC area? That's the road to a world of frustration. Unfortunately the CC area isn't the only one where a powerful faction holds sway against all comers but it's one of the worst. The ends do not justify the means. Good articles do not justify atrocious behavior. ++
Lar:
t/
c 03:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
in regards to climate change
- I don't think that any of the CC activists care what NPOV, BLP or reliable sources really are, so long as it fits their agenda. Or can you even begin to explain how these are not reliable:
The New Yorker,
National Post,
The Daily Telegraph (Australia),
The Times,
Nature,
Canada Free Press, and
Fox News to name but a few. If it doesn't say what the activists want it to say, it's not a reliable source. Or fringe. Or undue. The above sources had what the CC activists claimed was negative BLP info on Connolley - can't use those, they are not reliable. It is different for sceptics however. For example, in CC/GW,
Patrick Michaels is a prominent climate change sceptic (along with numerous others) - but the CC group uses anything they can to keep his views out of Wikipedia, even as a minority view. Dave is part of that group, as is Chris. Unless you agree with them, they don't want to hear it, and the group in general will not hesitate to run people off, ignore civility, and take admin action against them. That is why it is not worth it to edit that part of Wikipedia, and it is why many will not use Wiki for serious research.
GregJackP
Boomer! 13:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- No encyclopedia is used for serious research. Encyclopedias, as a grou:p, are too broad for serious research. What sets Wikipedia apart from other Encyclopedias is that here sources are cited. That's enough to point a "serious researcher" in the right direction.--
*Kat* (
talk) 13:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- This discussion is going nowhere here, please wait there is a major
arbcom case addressing all of these issues right now.
Polargeo (
talk) 13:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- I'd just like to pipe in here real quick to agree that this issue is too hot to handle for most admins. It's such as shitstorm of accusations, blocks, edit wars, etc that we practically need a second ArbCom just to oversee GW related articles. I know I'm not the only admin who passes by any report/unblock request/ANI thread or whatever else that has the taint of this never ending toxic dispute on it. (On a side note, if Wikipedia is Jimbo's Frankenstein monster, does that mean at some point it will turn on him and kill him? For safety's sake, nobody wave any flaming objects at Wikipedia...)
Beeblebrox (
talk) 17:25, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- Re Greg: Fox News, in particular, has a history of failing to do summary background checks on political issues, which climate change is, unfortunately (I mean, seriously, "Mark Sanford (D)"!). Also, I'd be wary about using the Canada Free Press as a source because... well, it's called "the Free Press". In addition, newspapers, especially British ones, have terrible reputations regarding science reporting. However, I don't see how Nature wouldn't be a reliable source...
Sceptre (
talk) 19:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
And beyond climate change
(ec) The issue goes well beyond CC, although that's a good case in point, and in any case Arbcom decides behavior, not content policies. I think the frustration expressed here, on Jimbo's page, by many editors, conveys an implicit wish on their part. Years ago, when Wikipedia was in its diapers, Jimbo made some critical points about neutrality and verifiability, which have become the foundation of our current sourcing policies. I think now that Wikipedia is an almost grownup, it's time to right the ship again, or apply another needed course correction. As I see it, the problem is that many editors feel that it is their holy duty to educate the masses based on the mainstream views, and that any dissenting opinions are blasphemous heresy. It is important to understand that Wikipedia is not a teacher, but a librarian: we present the sources in our library to our customers, in a neutral fashion, without picking favorites and suppressing the views we don't like, except a tiny minority lunatic fringe. When we start suppressing all dissent, we lose the most important advantage of our product: openness. It's time for someone, perhaps Jimbo, to take this to heart and get us back on course, into adulthood.
Crum375 (
talk) 17:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you, Crum 375; well said: "Wikipedia is not a teacher, but a librarian." --
Yopienso (
talk) 17:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- But that was always Jimbo's point: we include majority- and significant-minority POVS, and exclude tiny-minority ones, except perhaps in articles devoted to them. That is the spirit of NPOV right there. It is not being applied, because certain editors are interpreting "reliable sources" to mean sources who reflect the majority POV. So significant-minority voices end up being incorrectly labelled "fringe," simply because they disagree, and we end up with a tautology—"majority view" = "what most reliable sources say," but "reliable source" = "someone not bucking too much against the majority view." We need to get back to basics, and away from the idea that the minute a source dissents from the mainstream view, he becomes ipso facto unreliable and fringe.
SlimVirgin
talk|
contribs 17:45, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- I think you're overstating it. This is not about someone "dissenting from the mainstream view". The real question, it seems to me, is the disagreement among editors about exactly what counts as minority and fringe. Take creationism, for instance. In the United States and many other countries, a plurality - probably a majority - of the general public believes in creationism. However, only a tiny minority of scientists do so. Is creationism therefore a majority POV (going by public opinion) or a tiny-minority POV (going by scientific opinion)? Do we write articles on evolution to reflect pro-creationist public opinion or anti-creationist scientific opinion? Does this mean that creationist works are reliable sources for articles on evolution? There's an additional danger here, namely that of engaging in false equivalence. If 97% of scientists endorse a particular scientific theory or fact, should the views of the dissenting 3% receive the same amount of attention? If you have a consensus of scientists on the one hand and a large number of dissenting non-scientists on the other hand, should the views of the non-scientists be given equal weight? Ultimately I think this boils down to two key issues - (1) how you judge the proportion of dissenters and proponents and (2) whether the proponents are better qualified than the dissenters to give an expert opinion. --
ChrisO (
talk) 18:18, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- Whereas I think SlimVirgin has it exactly right. This dispute, at the heart, is not about content. Nor is it "skeptics vs. science", as a certain faction wishes it to be painted so they can marginalize their opposition. It's about policy and the correct application of it. It's about what Wikipedia is all about. I'm not surprised that you disagree ChrisO, since you've been involved in actively suppressing minority views in a wide range of CC/GW related articles for some time now, as have others in a certain faction. CC/GW, the topic area, is not just about the science, and thus, if we are talking about the parts of it that aren't pure science (which is the majority of the content in the area), we should not be excluding all sources other than scientific ones. Or skewing RS to favor the majority scientific view while excluding or denigrating popular opinion. Note: Holding this view does not make me a "skeptic" (in my view AGW is real, and highly worrisome), a "biased" admin, nor does it make me an "involved" admin ... despite any attempts to paint me so by those who would find it more convenient to have me removed from the playing field. It merely makes me a wikipedian. Which I suggest some in a certain faction are not. At least, not any longer, not in this area. ++
Lar:
t/
c 18:55, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- (ec) In my own view, the best way to gauge the relative preponderance of views and gain diversity is to use high quality secondary sources who review and compare them. The best such sources are the ones more distant from the action, with no direct ax to grind, and the ones which are most reputable. Very often those are the mainstream newspapers, such as the New York Times. This is true for all topics, scientific or otherwise. For scientific articles, obviously the major publications like
Nature would be a good source, but not necessarily for controversial issues, where the integrity of scientists is at stake, for example. The point is that we must remain open, and remember we are here to present the sources, not to teach the Truth.
Crum375 (
talk) 19:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- Chris, no one has ever argued that we judge what's majority or significant-minority by what the global public thinks. We go by what reliable sources think. The problem is that the definition of that is becoming ever-more restrictive—in violation of the
sourcing policy, which is not restrictive—in order to produce articles with POVs that the article's editors agree with. So there is a pushing of "scientific point of view," or "scholarly point of view," then it gets more restrictive still, to become only "peer-viewed scholarly point of view." When that doesn't produce the desired result, it becomes more specialist still, with an insistence that the sources be academic specialists in the tiny area under consideration. That leads to the absurdity, to give just one example, of a professor of philosophy who specializes in the philosophy of religion, not being allowed as a source for the theory that Jesus may not have existed. No, the sources have to be biblical scholars. And guess what they believe.
- That's exactly the attitude we've seen in the CC articles, where an article's reliable sources are defined in terms of which POV they'll deliver.
- You are right that it is difficult to judge the proportion of dissenters. I would go further and say that it is impossible. This is what is wrong with UNDUE. We have to use common sense and present readers with all reliably published POVs so that they can judge for themselves what's worth paying attention to. Our articles must be libraries in which our readers educate themselves, not where they're told what to think. One of the most horrible aspects of the CC articles has been watching a few editors who work in universities acting to suppress material that other writers have produced in good faith after a lot of careful research. That is not what academia is about, and it's not what Wikipedia is about either.
SlimVirgin
talk|
contribs 19:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- Hope this isn't an attempt to "level the playing field", so that tiny minority views in science (shown by a peer reviewed publication to be around 3%) are given "equal validity" with the clear scientific consensus?
- I strongly favour representation of significant minority, tiny minority and fringe sources in accordance with the policies as they stand, showing significant viewpoints where due weight makes that appropriate, and showing the majority views of minority views in articles dealing with the minority views. That's fairly clear in terms of the science in such topics, less easy to verify when dealing with social views which don't involve rejection of the science.
- As for "popular opinion", that rather suggests articles determined by opinion polls instead of expert opinion as required by current policies. Newspapers aren't academic sources, and they themselves have commented on the failings of their coverage of recent global warming controversies, so better sources are preferred.
- Agree fully with SV that academic doesn't necessarily mean scientists – recognised historians can be more appropriate for coverage of science. Of course in coverage of Christianity the sources have to be biblical scholars, we don't "guess what they believe", we carefully paraphrase what they say, giving due weight to varying views among these scholars. However, in coverage of Creationism where proponents reject science, we look to scientifically literate sources for the science and make sure that the pseudoscience is shown in relation to the relevant scientific consensus. Horses for courses. . .
dave souza,
talk 19:22, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- Correction to self, SV was saying we should include a prof of philosophy as well as biblical scholars regarding the "existence" of Jesus, quite right. Historians will also be appropriate. Reaffirms horses for courses. . .
dave souza,
talk 19:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- (
edit conflict) @SlimVirgin: But no honest librarian in his or her right mind simply hands over books indiscriminately in response to a query. If someone wants to learn about HIV/AIDS, a librarian wouldn't hand over the CDC lay summary along with a copy of
Inventing the AIDS Virus and say: "Here, educate yourself - good luck." I think most librarians would point their customer toward reputable, scientific sources that present the widely accepted understanding of HIV/AIDS ("mainstream" sources, if you like). If you're into negative framing, you could claim that the librarian has "told the customer what to think" or "suppressed alternative viewpoints" on HIV/AIDS. Or, you could conclude that the librarian has done their job.
MastCell
Talk 19:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- Stepping back a bit, I think there is a danger here of getting too caught up in the deficiencies of Wikipedia's processes while ignoring the outcomes. MastCell has pointed out in the past that Wikipedia's science articles are actually pretty well regarded by external sources. There are undoubtedly process problems, which should not be overlooked. But the most important issue from the project's perspective is the quality of what is produced. I'm reminded of Bismarck's saying that "Laws are like sausages — it is best not to see them being made." The same probably goes for Wikipedia articles. --
ChrisO (
talk) 19:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- This is precisely the problem -- the end justifies the means to you and a few others. In that pursuit, you're all too willing to abandon the pillars of Wikipedia. That's unacceptable. I think you've missed the boat on what is the most important issue from the project's perspective. Besides, the science articles are pretty well regarded by those who agree with your POV but not otherwise. There is a great deal of external criticism in fact. You're not listening, Chris.
Minor
4th 01:19, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- If by "those who share your POV" you mean "experts in the topic area" then what's the problem? There was a recent study on the reliability of cancer information on Wikipedia (Rajagopalan et al (2010). "Accuracy of cancer information on the Internet: A comparison of a Wiki with a professionally maintained database." Journal of Clinical Oncology 28:7s, 2010) which gave a high rating to Wikipedia's articles on cancer. I don't doubt that proponents of fringe theories on cancer would disagree with that - but why would we want to meet the expectations of non-experts opposed to the overwhelming majority of expert opinion? Your complaint, I'm afraid, is entirely typical of fringe advocates who want their views to be given equal or greater prominence to that of the mainstream consensus. --
ChrisO (
talk) 01:47, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- Chris, your posts illustrate the problem. Experts who agree with the POV are, of course, going to say they like the articles. Specialists who advocate alternative treatments may not have a high opinion of Wikipedia's coverage, given that they're routinely dismissed as frauds and fringe advocates, if mentioned at all. You take the view that readers are too stupid to make up their own minds if presented with the information and the sources. But that is the premise that Wikipedia was founded on—that people are not too stupid to make up their own minds, and we don't want our information to be filtered down to us by a self-appointed set of high priests who decide what we're allowed to read.
SlimVirgin
talk|
contribs 02:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- Chris I think you should adjust your definition of "fringe theory".
Flat Earth is a fringe theory.
Holocaust denial is a fringe theory. The idea that Elvis is still alive somewhere is a fringe. Skepticism of the existence and/or the cause of global warming, is NOT fringe. Its not mainstream, but it definitely has a following of rational minded people. Which is something that true fringe theories do not have.--
*Kat* (
talk) 02:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- Scepticism of evolution has a very large following - perhaps more so than support for evolution. According to recent opinion polls, 25% of Americans think Barack Obama wasn't born in the US and isn't eligible to be president. Yet creationism and birtherism are both commonly described as fringe theories. Why? Because the overwhelming majority of expert opinion (in those cases, among biologists and Obama biographers) rejects those viewpoints, just as the overwhelming majority of relevant expert opinion (in the order of 97%, according to surveys) rejects climate change denial. There are two fatal flaws in the approach you're advocating - it assumes that facts are subject to a popular vote, and it assumes that the views of non-experts as being at least as valuable as those of experts. Neither is the case. All viewpoints are not of equal value. The view of someone who believes a plane is held up by fairies is not as valuable as the view of a physicist who knows about aerodynamics. Arguing otherwise is just postmodernistic cant. You ought to read the
Sokal affair article some time. --
ChrisO (
talk) 02:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- And you ought to read
WP:FRINGE which says, "Fringe theory in a nutshell: To be notable enough to appear in Wikipedia, an idea should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory."--
*Kat* (
talk)
- Thank you, I'm well aware of
WP:FRINGE. The notability of a fringe theory is a separate issue from how that fringe theory should be approached in an article about the mainstream theory to which it is opposed. For instance, we have a series of detailed articles about
creationism (because it's notable), but we don't "balance" the article on
evolution with "
baraminology" and other creationist ideas (because they have negligible support within the relevant expert community). --
ChrisO (
talk) 02:39, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- Apples and Oranges and besides, that was not my point. You called climate change "denial" a fringe theory on par with the belief that Obama was not born in the United States. I pointed out that according to WP Policy it (climate change denial) most definitely is not fringe. --
*Kat* (
talk) 02:53, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- Chris, you know that when we discuss majority- and significant-minority views, we mean the views of reliable sources, so please don't keep introducing red herrings about the public to make your point. Kat is right. When we've reached the point where The New Times is being rejected as a reliable source, and people are comparing not agreeing with global-warming scientists with thinking the earth is flat, then we know we've reached a reductio ad absurdum. Please take that point. Disagreeing with mainstream sources is allowed. Disagreeing with scientists and academics is allowed. Indeed, within academia, intelligent disagreement is encouraged. It doesn't make people fringe, and the whole point of having a neutrality policy is to ensure that alternative voices are not crowded out.
SlimVirgin
talk|
contribs 02:32, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- Do you think it is "crowding out" for us not to feature creationist ideas in articles about evolution? --
ChrisO (
talk) 02:39, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- I've never been involved with those articles, so I don't know what the arguments are. If reliable sources can be found, I would certainly want to see a section, summary-style, advancing arguments against it, and explaining that the teaching of it has been viewed as controversial in schools in certain countries. But if you define "reliable sources" in a way that means only evolutionary scientists may be used in articles about evolution, then NPOV is lost immediately, because people who cluster around a speciality tend to agree with one another about the broad structure of the issue. So all cancer doctors who recommend chemotherapy clearly think it's a good thing. All academics who specialize in animal rights think it's a good thing. Restricting articles to those specialists means you abandon neutrality at the outset.
- What possible harm can it do to include a summary-style section on intelligent design in the evolution article, and vice versa?
SlimVirgin
talk|
contribs 02:53, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- There already is a brief mention of ID in
Evolution#Social and cultural responses, just as there is a brief mention of alternative views on global warming at
Global warming#Views on global warming. Those alternative views are then discussed in detail in subsidiary articles. That's as it should be. Those views exist, but because they have negligible relevance to current scientific consensuses they only get a passing mention. But when it comes to, say
common descent as a key principle of evolution, we don't "balance" it with the view of creationists that all species were created ex nihilo and are eternally static, separate and unchanging (i.e.
baraminology) - we don't even mention the creationist viewpoint. Again, that's as it should be. You simply don't mix science and pseudoscience. Textbooks don't do it, other encyclopedias don't do it and if Wikipedia has any pretensions to being a serious academic project we shouldn't do it. --
ChrisO (
talk) 03:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- Wikipedia doesn't have any pretensions to being a serious academic project that I'm aware of. That was Nupedia and Citizendium. I came here because it was something else, something new and refreshing, something with a neutrality policy and without the high priests. I don't appreciate that some people are trying to reintroduce the high priests, and I especially don't like it when the people doing it are themselves not academics. It has struck me powerfully that most of the Wikipedians who rely on the arguments from authority are themselves not working in universities. It feels as though we're trying to set up a parody of academia, when we should be concentrating on our own new thing, which is something quite different. It is, as Crum said, a library, not a classroom, and our job as librarians is only to draw a line in the sand to keep the truly ridiculous stuff out. But we should be doing that with regret, not joyously censoring whenever we see something we disagree with.
SlimVirgin
talk|
contribs 03:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Chris, the way I see it, it's fine to focus on mainstream science in scientific articles, with perhaps a minor mention of significant minority dissenters. Where I see the problem is not there, but in the articles about the various controversies or dissent. In such articles, where the subject is the controversy itself, the mainstream view is not the key — the focus should be on the critics or dissenters and their views, and the mainstream response, presented as neutrally as possible. This also applies to non-CC issues: for example, I was involved recently in a GAR for the
Christ myth theory article, which seems to be dominated by religious advocates who regard anyone who doubts the historicity of Jesus as a crank, and therefore unreliable. This is not the article about
Jesus, where it's fine to mention what Christians believe about him, but about the question of his historic existence. In such cases, dissenting views must be heard, and not belittled or mocked, or labeled as "fringe". The bottom line is simple: we must let reliably sourced dissenting views be heard, and a view which conflicts with our own is no reason to decide a source is not reliable.
Crum375 (
talk) 03:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- The
Christ myth theory is a good case in point. The arguments being used there are exactly the arguments the "scientific point of view" editors use elsewhere, namely that we may only use specialists as reliable sources. The specialists, almost all biblical scholars, not only agree that Jesus existed as a real person, but that anyone arguing otherwise is a lunatic, comparable to a Holocaust denier. This despite the fact that there are no contemporaneous sources, no extant writings from Jesus, nothing from anyone who knew him, and precious little in the 1st century even after his death. It therefore makes perfect sense to wonder whether he's the product of a myth, similar to other gods. But no, that's fringe, according to Wikipedia's definition, and so we can only mention it in an article devoted to it, and even there it was openly ridiculed until recently.
- This is the problem with a small number of like-minded editors having developed the UNDUE section of the NPOV policy to give themselves control over science articles. It has given others control over other articles in ways that were not foreseen.
SlimVirgin
talk|
contribs 03:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- SlimVirgin's comment encapsulates the whole issue: the specialists say one thing, but we should include alternate opinions because she thinks otherwise for reasons X, Y and Z. Her argument isn't that there are reliable sources that argue X, Y and Z, but simply that she disagrees. So we need to decide what Wikipedia is all about. Is it a place where we report views attributable to reliable sources, in proportion to their prominence? Or is it a place where editors
propound their own views, regardless of what scholars and others have found?
Short Brigade Harvester Boris (
talk) 03:47, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- That isn't even close to a summary of my arguments. Please read what I actually wrote.
SlimVirgin
talk|
contribs 04:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- I have read it, many times, and see no other way to interpret it. "The specialists, almost all biblical scholars, not only agree that Jesus existed as a real person, but that anyone arguing otherwise is a lunatic, comparable to a Holocaust denier. This despite the fact that there are no contemporaneous sources, no extant writings from Jesus, nothing from anyone who knew him, and precious little in the 1st century even after his death." Perhaps what you wrote is not quite what you meant -- all of us do that sometimes. Perhaps you actually meant something like "Most specialists agree that Jesus existed as a real person, but other scholars point out that there are no contemporaneous sources, no extant writings from Jesus, nothing from anyone who knew him, and precious little in the 1st century even after his death." But that's just conjecture on my part, so any clarification you can offer would be welcome.
Short Brigade Harvester Boris (
talk) 04:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- Par for the course with this faction. Why argue with what people say when you can respin it into something easier to argue against, and get away with it? ++
Lar:
t/
c 04:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- SH, I'm not sure what you're saying. I'm presenting a reductio ad absurdum of the current application of UNDUE and FRINGE. Biblical scholars agree, with rare exceptions, not only that Jesus existed, but that it is equivalent to Holocaust denial or flat-earthism to say otherwise. That is, it is a fringe idea within the meaning of WP policy, because all specialists in the field say he existed. But that is because the range of sources we may use has been narrowed to exclude non-specialists (e.g. a professor of German who has written extensively that Jesus may not have existed, or a professor of philosophy who writes that the German professor's arguments are solid). But these academics are not specialists in the field, so their views are dismissed per the current version of UNDUE, and may only be used in an article devoted to the non-existence theory—and even in that article their views are not well-presented.
- We therefore have a situation where Wikipedia articles do not take seriously the idea that a figure from 2,000 years ago may not have existed—a figure about whom there is no contemporaneous evidence, from whom there are no extant writings, and who was not written about by anyone who knew him (and these facts are not in dispute: even the biblical scholars agree). We are not allowed to take his non-existence seriously because we have defined "reliable source" in a way that permits only biblical scholars who are ideologically disposed to dismissing all arguments against his existence.
- Now, he may indeed have existed; the biblical scholars may be right. But it certainly makes sense to question whether such a figure existed, just as it makes sense to question whether a tiny group of climatologists using computer models can really tell us what is going to happen to the world if we don't allow emissions-trading. Neither of these things is fringe, per common sense. Both are fringe, per Wikipedia's current definition.
SlimVirgin
talk|
contribs 04:42, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for your clarification. If I might paraphrase, you're saying something like "all biblical scholars believe Jesus existed, but a number of anthropologists have published critiques regarding the lack of contemporary documentary evidence" or similar arguments. That's what I didn't see in your first comment.
- The majority-minority conflicts are easiest to handle when there is a majority view and a coherent minority view. Bringing it back to climate, what we have is a majority view and around 5 to 10 (or more) small- to tiny-minority opposing views, many of which are mutually contradictory. Thus if we gave all views their full exposition without considering their degree of acceptance in the academic community the majority view would be swamped. It's a tough problem.
Short Brigade Harvester Boris (
talk) 05:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- You guys are arguing science again. Well played, SBHB, but wrong argument. Why do skeptic BLPs get stuffed and AGW alarmist BLPs get puffed? Et cetera. ++
Lar:
t/
c 05:20, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- SB, I didn't really say that either. Third time lucky, perhaps. Biblical scholars say to deny that Jesus existed is like saying the earth is flat. The same biblical scholars acknowledge there is no contemporaneous evidence (no evidence from within Jesus's lifetime) that he existed. They deduce his existence from other documents, in the way the existence of the
quark might be deduced, or in the way future predictions about weather might be deduced from computer models.
- But because of the way UNDUE is written and interpreted, we are not allowed to use other sources (sources who are not biblical scholars) to say "hang on, this sounds a bit odd," just as we are not allowed to use
A.W. Montford, who has studied some of the climate-change evidence and has written a book saying, "hang on, this sounds a bit odd." Pointing out that things sound a bit odd is not allowed unless it comes from one of the High Priests of Specialist Knowledge. But even there, if one of the High Priests dissents, he is knocked off his High Priest pedestal (e.g.
Fred Singer, who is suddenly not really a physicist).
SlimVirgin
talk|
contribs 05:31, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
But because of the way UNDUE is written and interpreted, we are not allowed to use other sources (sources who are not Historians) to say "hang on, this sounds a bit odd," just as we are not allowed to use
Arthur Butz, who has studied some of the holocaust evidence and has written a book saying, "hang on, this sounds a bit odd." Pointing out that things sound a bit odd is not allowed unless it comes from one of the High Priests of Specialist Knowledge. But even there, if one of the High Priests dissents, he is knocked off his High Priest pedestal (e.g.
Harry Elmer Barnes, who is suddenly not really a historian).
Hipocrite (
talk) 05:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- That's exactly right. Anyone who disagrees is compared to a Holocaust denier. The Wikipedians who see themselves as the Guardians of the High Priests take a surprisingly rigid, black-and-white view of the world. You're either mainstream or you're a nut. The concept of intelligent, nuanced dissent is lost on them.
SlimVirgin
talk|
contribs 05:52, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, it's all clear now - when you agree with the fringe, the fringe should be treated on equal footing with the vast majority of informed opinion - when it's not, we need to treat it as the fringe. In otherwords, you support
WP:MPOV. Got it.
Hipocrite (
talk) 05:54, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- You guys are arguing science again. Well played,
SBHB Hipocrite, but wrong argument. Guess what? Calling the CRU email topic "Climategate" rather than "white puffy clouds" isn't a fringe view... it's the mainstream view. In fact it's not even about the science. Spin control won't work forever, and the more you all resist admitting what you're all up to, the more obvious it becomes. Give it up, and get out of the way, and let good non factional wikipedians work in the area without your constant harassment. ++
Lar:
t/
c 05:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- Hipocrite, are you seriously arguing that the following are equivalent?
- (a) A figure from 2,000 years ago—for whom no documentary evidence of any kind exists that was written within his lifetime—may not have existed.
- (b) Computer models that tell us what will happen in future, if we don't reduce the amount of carbon dioxide we produce, might be wrong.
- (c) The story that a European government arranged the deaths of millions of people because of their ethnicity, sexual orientation, or political beliefs 65 years ago might be false.
-
SlimVirgin
talk|
contribs 06:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- Are you asking for my opinion, or for my evaluation of the sources? Who are we to discount esteemed Professor of Electrical Engineering Arthur Butz? The same people who discount esteemed accountant Andrew Monford. You appear to think that your personal opinion of who is right is relevant - I don't. I follow the reliable sources.
Hipocrite (
talk) 06:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Random break
- The way I see it, I am no librarian. I am a writer and a researcher. I get interested in a subject and then I go find all of the sources I can on that subject. I compare these sources to one another for consistancies and inconsistancies and present the information in my own words, summarizing it in an organized way. I do this so the reader will be able to walk away feeling they have not only gained a some useful knowledge of the subject, but also a decent introduction to the sources. It's not necessary to rewrite the entire source or clutter an article with so much trivia that no one can find what they're looking for, but it is necessary to get the information correct, because it's my own reputation that is on the line.
Zaereth (
talk) 19:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- Well said, many thanks. .
dave souza,
talk 19:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- Actually,
no original research is allowed at Wikipedia, and no editor's reputation is on the line in the same sense a published author's is--WP's reputation is. We "irrevocably agree to release [y]our contributions under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL." (That last bit is at the bottom of all "edit" pages.) We are librarians in the sense that we compile archives of information for the public, so perhaps more accurately, we're archivists. All our writing is merely summarizing someone else's. This is fundamental to WP.
- 'Nuther subject, @Minor4th, primarily--I appreciate you as a person and as an editor and would like to help you ease into the WP framework. It was confusing for me at first, too. Please reread and take to heart what Dave Souza and ChrisO have told you on this page. One misunderstanding you and GregJackP had was that WP rules are identical to the US Civil Code. Doubtlessly you've encountered editors who were not welcoming and did bite or at least snap at the newbie (you), and so failed to uphold the
4th Pillar. But understanding all the rules, or at least the most basic ones, requires 1. reading them, 2. watching them in action, 3. practicing them, 4. patience, and 5. an abundance of Assuming Good Faith. I had no inkling of understanding until I took an issue to mediation. There I learned there is a distinct liberal academic bias, but it was very helpful for me to learn that. If I were an editor at Conservapedia (which I never would be) I would have to function within their framework. And so, even though I'm not a liberal academician, I must function within this framework....or desist. Here was my final comment on the arbitration: Nothing personal here to any of you kind participants. Your time has not been utterly wasted since I've learned how Wiki operates. Dave wrote to me, “As for the issue of using primary sources, our aim here has to be to use secondary sources for any interpretation or selection to avoid introducing our own interpretation. This is the opposite of good scholarly practice for historians, but makes sense where editing is open to everyone and we can't check expert credentials.” You’ll be happy to know I actually follow and agree with that logic. And I’m being matter-of-fact here, not facetious or bitter: I’ve learned the rules of the game, which is useful to me and helpful to all in my future participation in the audacious undertaking called Wikipedia. (All I would change today would be to strike "of the game.")
- Back to the original subject of this section, which was the unpoliced behavior of some editors--please see today's refusals to accept verifiable facts from reliable sources at the
CRUec talk page. Would that Crum375's post here of 19:00, 30 July 2010 could be enforced there!--
Yopienso (
talk) 03:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing Minor4th in need of any remedial education on how to be an effective Wikipedia editor. Or any help "easing into the WP framework". Their edits are fine. Until they run into the buzz saw that is a certain faction... no one has infinite patience, after all. That's where the problem lies. This faction consistently drives away other editors, editors who know and understand the wikipedia way and wonder why it doesn't work in this area. Minor4th's edits are not the problem here. ++
Lar:
t/
c 03:38, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yopienso -- thanks but did you notice that I have more edits than you? Also, it's weird that you talk out of both sides of your mouth. You praise the people who are doing exactly what you are complaining of. Hard to make sense of your posts.
Minor
4th 04:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- At the CRUec page you seemed like a confused newbie, specially regarding the copyright of an image. If you know more than I, please accept my good will and disregard my advice.
- May I never be found attaching myself to any "camp" or picking up "weapons"! When Dave and ChrisO say or do something I see as helpful, I will stand with them. When I see them being obstructive, I may not always say so, but I will certainly not praise them. My participation here has all to do with WP principles and nothing with personalities or issues. Please feel free at any time to ask me to clarify my thoughts, either on an article talk page or on my own. Cheers! --
Yopienso (
talk) 04:51, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
ChrisO, dave souza, et al., are missing the point, or making the wrong point. As per usual. They keep trying to make this a "skeptics vs. scientists" debate. It's not. Most of this topic area isn't purely about science. For example, why exactly is it they resist calling the CRU article "Climategate"???? Lots of material has been put forward to show that's how everyone else refers to it. But calling it that instead of "the controversy about the stealing of email, and oh by the way CRU and all the scientists are perfect" does not fit that faction's POV. For another example, why do skeptic bios get stuff stuffed in them to make the LP subject look bad and non skeptic bios get stuff stuffed in them to make the LP subject look good? This faction needs to be returned to the Wikipedia way. It's way overdue. We can hope that ArbCom, without changing policy, and without making content decisions, will nevertheless rein them in, because their behavior is problematic. No ifs ands or buts about it. I'm emphatically not a skeptic. I think skeptics are confused, badly. But I cannot stomach this factions tactics. ++
Lar:
t/
c 03:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- I've wondered about the resistance to calling the article Climategate, and why that's been allowed to stand, when it's what everyone else calls it. It has reached the stage where I have to write "(Climategate)" in brackets after I write out "the theft of emails from etc etc," so that readers know what I'm talking about.
SlimVirgin
talk|
contribs 03:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
-
Climategate is an accepted redirect. See? --
*Kat* (
talk) 03:52, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, but do you really want to create Great Northern Loon 2?
Soxwon (
talk) 04:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, that didn't quite make sense, could you elaborate? ++
Lar:
t/
c 04:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- In North America it is known as the Common Loon, in the UK the Great Northern Kite. Only wikipedia really refers to it as the Great Northern Loon, everywhere else, the common usage is one of those two. The climategate naming seems to be similar compromise with similarly horrible results...
Soxwon (
talk) 04:47, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- Also in this category:
Fixed-wing aircraft.
Soxwon (
talk) 04:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- Even that was a huge battle. And our naming policy is that articles should be named using the most prevalent name. But this faction introduces all sorts of reasons why that doesn't apply in this particular case. ++
Lar:
t/
c 04:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
-
Climatic Research Unit email controversy is about 100kbs...can't 2/3rds of it be trimmed...what a mess...all of this. I dealt with fringe views regarding the conspiracy theories about 9/11 for several years....this is getting worse than that mess WAS...I say WAS because all those that kept pushing the conspiracy theories regarding 9/11 either got banned, or greatly restricted and now 9/11 related articles are generally calm...the conspiracy theories regarding issues surrounding that issue have been relegated to subarticles since they are fringe and generally lacking in support by a vast majority of investigators and engineers. "Climategate" is POV...it likens the "misdeeds" of climate researchers to the High Crimes and Misdemeanors of those involved in the
Watergate scandal...and it is a media based (especially FOXNews, which I watch daily) term deliberately employed to provide a
chilling effect to support a POV. However, recent comments by AGW advocates have likened AGW skepticism to Holocaust denial...a pretty big condemnation deliberately designed to be a chilling effect....about the same as calling someone an idiot. Few sciences are perfect and Wikipedia's goal has always been to report the information, maintaining NPOV and inforcing the
due and undue weight clause of NPOV.--
MONGO 17:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- The media has added -gate onto many a political scandal. Its almost an accepted suffix in its own right.--
*Kat* (
talk) 17:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- This is kind of off the subject, but the recently deceased veteran journalist
Daniel Schorr (who as you may know was actually on Nixon's "enemies list") expressed that he felt it was a bad thing when the media tagged every scandal with the -gate suffix, because many if not all of the scandals it was attached to lacked the very serious repercussions to history that the
Watergate scandal had.
Beeblebrox (
talk) 17:43, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
MONGO: I work on the 9/11 conspiracy theories articles, too, so you know I'm no fringe theorist, but what's going on at the
Climategate article is beyond the pale. The article title is one example where we are clearly in violation of
WP:NPOV. The whole world calls it Climategate except Wikipedia. That's completely against what
WP:NPOV is about. I compiled a very long list of
reliable sources which call it Climategate yet editors are still refusing to change the name.
[18]
A Quest For Knowledge (
talk) 18:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- I hadn't seen that discussion regarding the Climategate titling issues...however, I have to stand where I am though that doesn't mean I like the current title either. To me, though not nearly as inappropriate as calling AGW skeptics "Holocaust Deniers" or "idiots", titling the article as "Climategate" places the scandal in parity with the Watergate Scandal....which is a gross exaggeration.--
MONGO 18:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- There's an interesting background to the -gate suffix. Basically it was the invention of the conservative columnist and former Richard Nixon speechwriter
William Safire, who routinely coined -gate names to tar Nixon's successors (primarily the Democrats, of course) with the same brush. The purpose of the suffix is specifically to imply wrongdoing and a coverup along the lines of Watergate. It's extremely loaded language, used as a way of
framing an issue in a particular way from the outset. --
ChrisO (
talk) 19:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- Regardless of that, it's the term that's now widely used for it, except on Wikipedia, so we're engaging in a form of original research by insisting on calling it something else.
SlimVirgin
talk|
contribs 20:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Continuation of the ArbCom debate on Jimbo's talk page
I see that the Climate change ArbCom case deliberations have moved here, without the editors being informed about that. As I argued at the ArbCom case, the dispute on Wikipedia is caused by indoctrination by conservative media. Lar does seem to have a point about BLPs. However, we have to note here that the biased media reporting leads to people with sceptical opinions that are totally wrong and insignificant to become notable precisely because the conservative media will pick up this "noise" and amplify it.
Now, one can debate how Wikipedia should deal with this issue. But we can see that the way the climate change subjects have been covered, implies that there are mechanisms at work at Wikipedia that will lead to the bias in the conservative media being filtered out from Wikipedia. These mechanisms cannot be fully attributed to the Wiki-policies. That's why the editors who would like to see articles give more weight to the conservative POV are complaining; the rules seem to suggest that they should have their way to some extent, but they are not. They then argue that the other editors are to blame; if only they would stop editing the climate change articles, things would "improve".
But I think the state of the climate change articles reflects quite accurately the opinion of the editors who are not editing the articles. The number of people who have the climate change articles on their wachlist is far greater than the number of regular editors. The bulk of the people watching the articles are satisfied with the way the climate change articles are written. Only if there is a perturbation away from the ideal state of an article and it is not corrected by one of the regulars for a while, then some of these non-regulars will step in. The regulars are self-selected members of the group of all editors. Over time an equilibrium state has been reached in which whatever the regulars are doing, has the support of the wider community.
Count Iblis (
talk) 16:43, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- As one of the editors who has watchlisted some of these articles and followed their progress, and who is not editing them, I totally disagree with you. SlimVirgin and Lar are right. "Truth" is taking precedent over NPOV. The latter means the representation of significant viewpoints, whether "specialists" or not. The point of NPOV is to give the reader access to the range of viewpoints, so they can make up their own mind how to assess the matter. It is a violation of NPOV to edit with "the bias in the conservative media being filtered out from Wikipedia". NPOV demands that the "bias" is represented accurately. It is a violation of NPOV to even call it bias. The editor's job is not to evaluate it, but to represent it. If "biased media reporting leads to people with sceptical opinions that are totally wrong and insignificant to become notable", then by your own words they are notable and their "totally wrong" opinions need to be represented to present a full picture of the debate.
Ty 17:20, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- Ty, this is then your opinion of how Wikipedia should be editited and there is nothing wrong with that in principle. I have a different opinion, but my point here simply is that whatever position one takes, one can see that Wikipedia is actually editited in a way that leads to a result that the sceptics are not satisfied with and that violates their interpretation of the Wiki-rules. I think that it is important to understand how this happens.
- My opinion on that point is that when there is an objective truth out there that is visible to a clear majority of the Wiki-editors (say with a 2-1 majority or larger), the article on that subject will end presenting it from that "objective truth" POV. I think that this effect is largely independent of the rules we have here and the particular people who happen to edit the article on a regular basis. As long as the rules are liberal enough and you have a large enoug pool of potential editors, you'll get a similar result.
- The sceptical editors are trying to fight this inherent pressure that leads to this result. It maybe that the Wiki-rules do give them some good arguments to defend their position. But I think that the pressure is too strong to resist. The appearance of a contradiction between the actual result and what the Wiki-rules seem to be saying leads to the tensions on the pages.
- It is a bit like a big volcano that erupts violently. Had the Earth's crust been less thick at that point, the lava would have flowed out more gently. But the driving force behind the vocanic eruption cannot be overcome. That's why I argued on the ArbCom pages that it is better to remove the perception of the violation of the rules by adopting an appropriate version of
WP:SPOV.
Count Iblis (
talk) 15:28, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think the "
silence equals assent" argument works here, Count. Most Wikipedians hesitate to get involved because it's so toxic. I actually voted for William for ArbCom based on his admin actions, because I was impressed by how even-handed and sensible he was at the 3RR noticeboard, which he almost single-handedly maintained for a long time. I knew there had been CC problems, but I had no idea of the extent of them. It was only recently when I took a position the CC editors didn't like, and I immediately got turned on, that I started to look at it seriously. I'm guessing my experience is typical of a lot of Wikipedians: head in the sand, ignorance is bliss.
SlimVirgin
talk|
contribs 17:27, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- My experience on these pages is not different from most other Wikipedia pages that are edited by many editors. If someone argues a point that is not going to be adopted by consensus then you can get some level of hostility if that person were to argue that point for to long. As I wrote to Ty, I believe that in case of CC there may well be good reasons to argue against the way the articles are edited based on what the Wiki-rules say. At least, the way some sceptics argue about NPOV is not that unreasonable, even if I don't happen to agree with them. But that perceived violation of NPOV that is then the source of the tension which should be cured by adopting
WP:SPOV.
Count Iblis (
talk) 15:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- Some of the most important principles generally adopted by Wikipedia in dealing with "fringe" or not mainstream issues is in regard to due and undue weight...Jimbo did an outstanding job summarizing this when he wrote (essentially)...posted at NPOV
here...
- If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
- If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name
prominent adherents;
- If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article....
- Are the AGW skeptics mainstream...NO...therefore, we should NOT give them equal time. Are they a significant minority...possibly...are they a vastly limited minority...possibly. Therefore, the issue is how much "weight" if any do we give AGW skepticism?--
MONGO 17:39, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
So if this were the time of Christopher Columbus and all mainstream sources said the world is flat, we would not be able to write about scientific evidence and theories concerning a world that is round? Don't forget, some great scientists weren't well respected during their times, but now their theorems are in scientific texts.
Preciseaccuracy (
talk) 01:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- Not unless we wanted to get pulled up in front of the Inquisition. :-D --
*Kat* (
talk) 01:19, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- As someone who hesitated for a long time before editing any climate related articles, I'll agree that "silence equals consent" doesn't work here, and that there's a toxic atmosphere reflecting the political debate, fuelled by misreporting in mass media and blog campaigning. Tyrenius says "opinions need to be represented to present a full picture of the debate", the question is "which debate?" There's a strong
scientific consensus on basic issues, with a few outliers, and debate about developments in the science. There's also a political debate which includes denial and misunderstandings of the science, promoting fringe views.
Jim Inhofe and
Ken Cuccinelli are significant players in the political debate, and we should report that in a way that doesn't give their views on the science undue weight. The current policies provide a way to achieve that, tedious as the arguments can become. Changing the policies to favour minority views or mass msdia coverage would misrepresent what's shown in the most reliable sources. .
dave souza,
talk 17:42, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- But Mongo, you'll notice that in the quote you cite from Jimbo, he says nothing about equal time. It's this business of trying to work out what percentage of a page a certain POV needs to be given that is poisoning Wikipedia. It's impossible to work out whether global-warming skepticism should be given 49 percent or three percent. What would it even mean in real terms to give a source a certain percentage?
- The sensible thing to do is try to produce a page that both sides can accept as fair, even if grudgingly, but for that to work it presupposes that you're dealing with editors who are acting in good faith. It's the good faith that I'm sorry to say seems entirely absent from the CC editors. When you disagree with the CC editors, you face a solid brick wall of absolute, rigid, black-and-white POV that admits to no error, no weakness, no nuance. Negotiation to achieve neutrality is a non-starter. This is why people are saying this is not a content issue, but a behavioral one.
SlimVirgin
talk|
contribs 17:54, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- We must reference the experts and some of those experts that are AGW skeptics of varying degrees are listed in the
List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming as you probably know...it is small list compared to the literally countless number of scientists who believe in varying degrees that AGW is fact. For the record, I stand more in line with the AGW skeptics than I do with the advocates...but I'm not a scientist nor am I a Holocaust Denier or uneducated on the issues. I fully agree that figuring out what measure if any of kbs should be dedicated to AGW skepticism is the problem. I also understand the entrenched issues and "ownership" that one might encounter should they try and increase weight of the non mainstream material...--
MONGO 18:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- Mongo, the problem lies with the UNDUE section of NPOV, both the way it's written and the way it's applied. People who regularly battle against nonsense, such as yourself in the 9/11 articles or editors on Holocaust denial pages, are used to support this section, for fear of reams of nonsense suddenly appearing, along the lines of "But if you weaken UNDUE, it'll mean Holocaust deniers will have to be added to the Holocaust article!" But it's scare tactics. The main use of UNDUE is increasingly to allow editors to exclude significant-minority POVs and have articles reflect entirely whatever the mainstream POV is of self-appointed specialists in the field—to the exclusion of alternative voices, including reasonable ones, even from within the field itself. The NPOV policy is literally being used as a weapon against neutrality.
SlimVirgin
talk|
contribs 19:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
MONGO: The problem I'm encountering is that editors won't allow (or try to remove) the AGW skeptic POV in articles about or directly related to AGW skepticism. It's absolutely insane. I've never seen such a thing before.
A Quest For Knowledge (
talk) 21:10, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- An appropriate strategy in such a circumstance is to follow the same approach that we have employed with great success in the lead of
Creationism (or in other areas where the exists an scientific consensus on one hand, and a position of personal belief or faith on the other). We can, and should, strive to accurately present individuals' beliefs in their biographies, just as we should write articles specifically about those beliefs if they are held by a large number of people. What we also must do is strive to clearly and accurately indicate which points are matters of faith, versus points which are matters of science. Our article on Creationism acknowledges clearly and openly that it is at odds with accepted science, despite it being believed and supported by millions of people all over the world.
Daniel Okrent coined what is sometimes called Okrent's Law, which I think aptly summarizes the problem: "The pursuit of balance can create imbalance because sometimes something is true."
TenOfAllTrades(
talk) 21:20, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- Exactly. Imagine that there is an article about 9/11 conspiracy theories, and editors decide that someone who wrote a notable and oft-cited book about the conspiracy is "unreliable" and prohibit use of his book as a source for that article. This is what's happening in different areas around the project, apparently because some editors are so insecure with the mainstream views that they vigorously disallow any opposition to be heard, and ridicule any dissenting voice, even in articles dedicated to the dissent. I think that, esp. in articles dedicated to the dissent, all voices should be heard, and all relevant sources should be used, as long as the various sides in the dispute are correctly labeled and neutrally presented.
Crum375 (
talk) 21:27, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- Crum375: But editors aren't following
WP:NPOV and
WP:UNDUE even as they are currently written! If our
9/11 conspiracy theories article was written the way editors are trying to write
Climategate, it would only contain the refutations of 9/11 conspiracy theories and no explanation of what those theories actually are.
A Quest For Knowledge (
talk) 21:42, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- BTW, that's not to say that the AGW skeptic POV is anywhere near as outlandish as the 9/11 Truther POV. In fact, the allegations of Freedom of Information Act violations turned out to be valid and some parts of the Climategate scandal have to do unprofessional behavior, such one scientist practically celebrating the death of a critic.
[19] Not to mention that some of the critics are legitimate scientists such as Judith Curry
[20] and well-known environmentalists such as George Manbiot.
[21]
A Quest For Knowledge (
talk) 22:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
A Quest For Knowledge (
talk) 21:47, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- The due and undue weight clause of NPOV has generally stood the test of time and did work well in minimizing obvious rubbish from 9/11 related articles...in effect, the 9/11 conspiracy theory information was not supported aside from a few easily discredited "scientists", so was generally deemed, as reflected in the mainstream press and in engineering literature, as not worthy of more than the briefest of mention...and in most cases, again as reflected in mainstream news and literature, no mention at all. Today, most 9/11 related articles adhere to this "reflection"...though there are articles dedicated solely to the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and they too have filtered out the most preposterous of claims. I'm not convinced yet that there is a significant minority or an even larger number of scientists that have published evidence that contradicts evidence published by mainstream scientists regarding AGW. I know that contradictory evidence exists but the larger picture I have seen is that mostly what is being published is more along the lines of alterations to existing evidence, not a refutation of that evidence. We have many voices that are from prominent people that claim that they think the AGW evidence is bunk, but this is generally NOT found in published form along the lines of scientific journals and other peer reviewed papers which are properly vetted. In most cases, the data sets of information regarding findings about AGW is available to the scientific community as a whole. The refutations of these data sets does not appear significantly in scientific papers...so what I am gathering to a degree is that some here are possibly alluding that the suppression of the "significant minority" viewpoints in the mainstream science journals is also being done here on Wikipedia...keeping in mind of course, that viewpoints do not a science make...IF verifiable contradictory evidence regarding AGW is being deliberately suppressed by mainstream science and that is spilling over here, then we have a bigger problem than I anticipated.--
MONGO 03:25, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- Mongo, I disagree that UNDUE has stood the test of time. There have been multiple objections to it, but attempts to change it are met with reverts and even threats. It contradicts NOR and V, and is too often being interpreted to mean that only specialist sources are allowed as reliable sources, with everyone else rubbished as fringe. This has resulted in an increasingly specialization on Wikipedia, where ordinary voices—no matter how reasonable—are drowned out: a kind of creeping Nupedia or Citizendium. By restricting our definition of reliable source to peer-reviewed specialists in many cases, we determine in advance that the content will never reflect alternative voices, who by definition are peer-reviewed out of existence. We are bowing to the old authorities.
- The whole point of Wikipedia, and indeed of Web 2.0, is to bypass the High Priests and gatekeepers. We are supposed to offer a page for each topic that shines a light into corners that ordinary people may not have easy access to, where they get an overview of arguments from all directions, so long as the views are not lunatic, tiny-minority. We have no right to set up ourselves up as censors on behalf of the old guard. If we want censorship and suppression of information, there was enough of that before WP existed, so we may as well not bother.
SlimVirgin
talk|
contribs 04:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- In trying to respond adequately to your concerns, I'm somewhat at a loss. Perhaps my 9/11 comparative analogy doesn't work under these circumstances. Not the left or right wing press nor engineering literature provided conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11 more than a passing mention, mostly the conspiracy theories were laughed off as preposterous. I recognize that there are reliable sources that contradict some of the research regarding climate change, the hockey stick graph...etc. and that these sources aren't available in mainstream science journals as a whole...what would be the motivating rationale for this...if the science is not correct, or at the least is greatly exaggerated, why wouldn't there be more evidence presented regarding this issue in the scientific literature? If the scientific community involved in this matter is trying to perpetrate a "hoax" as one U.S. Senator has openly stated, why isn't this showing up in peer reviewed areas? Science is at times inflexible...if the data shows one thing, then only that one thing is accepted until overwhelming contradictory evidence is presented that refutes or clearly demonstrates the flaws and or inaccuracies or the old data. So far, we don't have overwhelming contradictory evidence refuting it, only some evidence of malfeasence, some evidence of misrepresentation and some evidence of incorrectness...but it is not beyond the deviation found in most scientific disputes...and it isn't enough to supercede the existing evidence, merely enough to adjust it and or update it. I think some people want a simple answer to a complex issue...as far as climate science goes, it has a lot of variability....it has to due to the various unknowns that are independent of human activity...but they can still offer a prospective of what will likely happen if we don't do X. In an effort to be greater than the sources as far as accuracy and to provide a fair shake so to speak to the dissention that is being ignored or snubbed by the mainstream literature then that will be hard under the NPOV policy...we would have to violate the policy or change it so we wouldn't be violating it.--
MONGO 05:57, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- We have a sourcing policy,
Wikipedia:Verifiability, that makes clear non-academic sources are always permitted. People who interpret NPOV to say otherwise are violating the sourcing policy. Look, we have a situation here where people are comparing sources who say "the American government was involved in destroying the World Trade Center" with sources who say: "Climatologists using computer models might have made a mistake." Both sources are equally fringe, it seems. Both must be excluded from Wikipedia. Clearly, that's absurd, so the place to start to fix this is to ask: which part of which policy has lent itself to this absurdity?
SlimVirgin
talk|
contribs 06:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- The conspiracy theories regarding 9/11 aren't totally suppressed...they are represented according to weight...they get little to no mention since they aren't supported by the mainstream press or by the engineering literature except as what they are, conspiracy theories. However, the issue surrounding inaccuracies in climate modeling has been mentioned and reported in both the media and in mainstream scientific journals...so are you telling me that Wikipedia editors are suppressing this information?--
MONGO 06:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yes! :) And it's not only happening there. There is a tendency now in all science-related articles to insist on specialist sources, and to dismiss non-academic sources per UNDUE. The attitude is also spreading to non-science articles.
SlimVirgin
talk|
contribs 06:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
FOI Act
- A large part of the problem that is being experienced in this topic area is the willingness of editors to push half-truths and untruths, of which this is a perfect illustration. Allegations of FOI Act violations were not "found to be valid" - as one of the inquiries put it, there was "absolutely no evidence of any impropriety whatsoever". This is not even arguable, since there was no finding by any inquiry that the FOI Act had been broken (all of this is documented at
Climatic Research Unit email controversy#Reports). AQFK knows this perfectly well, since he has been involved with the article for some time, but evidently chooses not to be believe it. Much of the difficulty we are having here is that some editors persistently place their inaccurate personal opinions above the documented facts. That is not a productive approach. --
ChrisO (
talk) 22:20, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- ChrisO: Untrue. The Information Commissioner's Office, the agency responsible for administering the Freedom of Information Act, said that FOIA requests by David Holland "were not dealt with as they should have been under the legislation" which makes it "an offence for public authorities to act so as to prevent intentionally the disclosure of requested information". But the ICO could not prosecute because that statute of limitations has expired. If you don't believe me, I believe that the ICO's
full statement can be found here.
[22]
A Quest For Knowledge (
talk) 23:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- Naughty, AQFK, that's not a full or official statement, it was an informal response by the deputy ICO to a journalist. The
full statement makes it clear that no investigation has been carried out under Section 77 of the FOIA, which is whare the statute of limitations has expired, but the ICO has issued a decision under the less onerous regulation 19 of the EIR. Please check these things out more carefully, for info I've added further clarification to the article.
[23] .
dave souza,
talk 23:31, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, and Chris, your statement is also a bit inaccurate, nuances required as above. The point remains that many wild allegations of Freedom of Information Act violations turned out to be false, as the various inquiries noted the culture of reluctance to give out data, computer programs and private emails to non-scientists has to change, and such changes were already being implemented. . .
dave souza,
talk 23:38, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- Dave souza: I said "statement", not "report", but I've struck out "full" to avoid any misunderstandings. Thanks for the link to the full report. I note that the full report contradicts what ChrisO said and confirms what I said above: The ICO ruled that the CRU breached the Freedom of Information Act but the six month statute of limitations has expired.
A Quest For Knowledge (
talk) 00:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- Still wrong, in that the 6 month issue only applies to Section 77 which allows a fine of the organisation or individual – not investigated. The decision relates to the lesser issue of Section 50 issuing a notice requiring an organisation to improve its procedures. Please study the FOIA with care, it's not as simple as you seem to think. . .
dave souza,
talk 06:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Here's what the sources say
Primary source
Case Ref: FER0238017
Date: 07/07/2010
Public Authority: University of East Anglia
Summary: The complainant made a number of requests for information related to the involvement of some of the public authority’s staff in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The Commissioner has found that the public authority breached regulation 14(2) of the EIR by failing to provide a response to a request within 20 working days and breached regulation 5(2) by failing to provide a response to other requests.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: EIR 5(2) - Complaint Upheld , EIR 14(2) - Complaint Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FER0238017
http://www.ico.gov.uk/tools_and_resources/decision_notices/2010_07.aspx
Secondary sources
University in hacked climate change emails row broke FOI rules
• Too late to take action, says deputy commissioner
The University of East Anglia flouted Freedom of Information regulations in its handling of requests for data from climate sceptics, according to the government body that administers the act.
In a statement, the deputy information commissioner Graham Smith said emails between scientists at the university's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) that were hacked and placed on the internet in November revealed that FOI requests were "not dealt with as they should have been under the legislation".
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/27/uea-hacked-climate-emails-foi
The university at the centre of the climate change row over stolen e-mails broke the law by refusing to hand over its raw data for public scrutiny.
The University of East Anglia breached the Freedom of Information Act by refusing to comply with requests for data concerning claims by its scientists that man-made emissions were causing global warming.
The Information Commissioner’s Office decided that UEA failed in its duties under the Act but said that it could not prosecute those involved because the complaint was made too late, The Times has learnt.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7004936.ece
Tertiary source
Climate researchers at the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom broke the law by withholding data from public scrutiny, say various reports today.
http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/01/climate-researc.html
I've bolded the essential phrases that show the FOI Act was broken. --
Yopienso (
talk) 01:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, Yopienso, unfortunately your various secondary sources all relate to the informal press statement the deputy ICO issued without a basis in investigation, leading to him being chided by the HOC Select Committee for an unsupported statement which was exaggerated by the press. The decision at the top was issued in July, the other links are earlier and give false information. .
dave souza,
talk 06:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- Actually you've just managed to illustrate the deficiencies of press reporting. If you read your primary source, it's a formal finding of breaches of the
Environmental Information Regulations. Your secondary source, which as Dave says is much older, relates to an informal press statement that breaches of the FOI Act may have occurred. There was no subsequent formal determination of a breach of the FOI Act, only of the EIR. The EIR is not the FOI Act. No breach of the FOI Act was ever determined by the ICO, as it couldn't investigate this issue due to statutory limitations. In short, it's wrong to say that the ICO determined that the FOI Act had been breached since no determination was ever made. This illustrates why we have to be careful when using media sources and not simply act as stenographers - the media often makes mistakes, as I'm sure Jimbo could tell you! --
ChrisO (
talk) 09:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Is this still being argued?
Could everyone not just wait until the ArbCom issues its findings on whether the articles relating to CC/AGW have been edited in policy and practice complaint ways or not, and whether some editors (and admins, perhaps) have misunderstood or misrepresented policy in their desire to see certain viewpoints presented or removed from articles? Once ArbCom make their decision(s), then editors - those that are permitted to continue contributing - can argue whether the results were correct or not over differing pages. As it is, this issue is really starting to poison parts of WP outside of the specific article space - and none of the involved parties appear close to considering changing their stances. Why not just wait for the results to come in?
LessHeard vanU (
talk) 20:12, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- I find this debate quite constructive, LH, because it's not just about CC. The CC conflict only served to highlight the general problem, because what happened there has been happening less aggressively elsewhere too. The exclusion of significant-minority POVs is something that's been gathering pace for a couple of years or more, and we now even have a situation where the NPOV policy (which seems to encourage editors to insert their own views about how representative a view is) arguably violates the NOR policy (which doesn't allow editors to do that). But attempts to make clear in the NPOV policy that it must be consistent with the other polices are reverted. So this is a debate that does have to take place outside the hothouse of the CC conflict.
SlimVirgin
talk|
contribs 21:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- That aspect is quite interesting and important to the WP editing model, and may well be a suitable subject for a general RfC within the NPOV policy talkpage, but presently it is being largely argued over by parties involved in the CC/AGW articles/ArbCom case and using those issues as an example - and the issue has been presented as an area of concern within that ArbCom. While ArbCom famously does not make precedent, comments made regarding WP:DUE and WP:NPOV and its uses within this dispute will likely inform future discussion; therefore, especially arguing the specifics and examples is not productive and appears simply to be exporting the CC/AGW dispute to another venue (and one which even ArbCom is unlikely to try and restrict). Of course, this is pretty much a personal reaction to the matter - I recently suddenly found myself desperately tired of looking at the mess, and just wanting some sort of closure.
LessHeard vanU (
talk) 21:19, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, my main interest here is not the CC conflict; like you, I'm tired of it. But I think it inadvertently performed a service, in that it provided an extreme example of how the policies are being misapplied. I hope the next step will be to examine whether the wording of the policies lends itself to this kind of misuse. That's a debate that's entirely independent of the ArbCom case. Perhaps here on this page editors of good faith with different perspectives can try to find common ground.
SlimVirgin
talk|
contribs 21:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- Regrettably, SV, policy is being misused to suppress majority views in articles about marginally notable topics. The question has been put to the arbiters, we should see their considered views before going into more detail about your rather vague allegations. . .
dave souza,
talk 07:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- The ArbCom case is about PEOPLE. This discussion is first and foremost about POLICY. Climate Change is merely the backdrop or, perhaps, the vehicle of this discussion. Since ArbCom cases do not set precedents which can be used in other cases, this discussion and that case are not mutually exclusive.--
*Kat* (
talk) 00:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'd like to thank Jimbo for allowing the discussion to take place on his page. This is a good neutral place to hold it.
SlimVirgin
talk|
contribs 02:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- Seconded. ++
Lar:
t/
c 13:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- Move to close? --
*Kat* (
talk) 14:20, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- Agree fully with both motions. Abwarten und Tee trinken! . . . .
dave souza,
talk 18:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
|