[WikiEN-l] MONGO and the ArbCom

[George Herbert]

On 12/13/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
> George Herbert wrote:
> >On 12/12/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> >>On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 11:29:18 +1030, "Alphax wrote:
> >>>NPOV says otherwise.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>Not so.  We can document it, in terms which make it abundantly clear
> >>that *this is simply not true* even though some people are determined
> >>to believe it.  NPOV would not, of course, allow the mad theory to
> >>creep into the main article.
> >>
> >>
> >Guy, I hope it's obvious that I respect you quite a lot, but as much
> >as I agree with you that the ideas the conspiracists put forth are
> >intellectual garbage, I really very badly think that this attitude
> >ultimately encourages them and (much worse) public perceptions of
> >them.
> >
> >We can't make the lunacy go away; if we really want to minimize the
> >encouragement we give them, let the light of neutral open review of
> >their ideas expose them as garbage.  People are much less likely to
> >believe conspiracy theories when the whole situation is laid
> >dispassionately out for them to see what kooks the kooks are.
> >Anything else ends up encouraging them.
> >
> When you start by calling the conspiricists kooks, and their theories
> garbage you have indeed succeeded in encouraging them.


Please note that the terms I used here on this list are NOT appropriate for
in-wiki discussions or inclusion in pages.  I know that and differentiate
how I approach the conversations.  Those are biased and loaded terms, and
shut down any ability to rationally discuss the situation.



 If an
> alternative non-mainstream theory has enough of a following to make it
> notable it needs to be dealt with fairly.  That can involve diverting it
> from major articles by treating it there in links to relevent
> alternative theories.  The introduction there can briefly describe what
> the theory says, and make a simple statement that the idea is
> controversial.  We can then have a section where the theorists have a
> relatively free hand to develop their ideas without non-believers trying
> to tell them what they believe.  A further section would give the
> critics an equally free reign.  The article would not really reach
> conclusions, but it would be subject to referencing.


Agreed.


When dealing with such subjects it is important to allow for the
> possibility, however remote, that there may be an element of sense in
> the theory.  We have no idea where that sense may lie or that it may
> ever be discovered at all.  The burden of proof remains with the
> proponents, but a failure to carry that burden should not be read as a
> proof that the theory is wrong.  It's perhaps in that leap of faith
> where those opponents who cannot bear loose ends go off the track.
>

Agreed.


-- 
-george william herbert
george.herbert at gmail.com