WikiEN-l December 2003

wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org

65 participants
132 discussions

Sans Seriffe
by Poor, Edmund W 02 Dec '03

02 Dec '03

Drop whatever you're doing and read THIS! You'll bust a gut... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=San_Serriffe&oldid=1859677 I had nothing to do with this article, but I sure wish I had! Uncle Ed

1 0

Re: Mainstream of science
by Sheldon Rampton 02 Dec '03

02 Dec '03

Ed Poor wrote: >The question is: What is "mainstream science"? > >1. Money [SNIP] >2. Journal Articles Money and journal articles both correlate positively with mainstream science, but journal articles are a better indicator. If a particular idea isn't being published at all in the peer-reviewed journals (as is the case with so-called "creation science"), that's a clear indication that the idea falls outside mainstream science. Of course, someone has to _interpret_ those journal articles. Scientists speak a specialized language, so explaining what the articles mean may require some translation for lay people. Moreover, not all scientific papers are equal in significance. For example, a short-duration health study involving a small number of people is considered less significant than a long-term study with a large sample size. Scientific expertise is obviously helpful in assessing how much weight each piece of published research deserves within the larger body of research on a given topic. One common mechanism used by scientists for this purpose is a "consensus panel" or "consensus conference," which convenes when expert opinion has converged on a single answer to a previously controversial question. The panel's job is to officially state the consensus so it can be gotten out to the less-expert. The experts are selected from among the leading researchers in the field, chosen to reflect the range of viewpoints that exist in that field. They hold a series of meetings, discuss the relevant published scientific research on the topic at hand, and put together a report. Occasionally a panel will be convened when opinion has not completely converged on all aspects of a question. In this case the panel's job is to see what everyone can genuinely agree on and what sorts of hedge statements are acceptable for the rest. Once in a while there will be an agreement to disagree in certain areas, and if so, typically the majority view is published accompanied by an appendix detailing the dissenters' positions. In the United States, the National Research Council (the working arm of the National Academy of Sciences) is the body that generally convenes consensus panels for the purpose of provide expert reports to policymakers. Many of its reports are published e-books, which anyone can read online (or download in their entirety, sometimes for a fee). If you'd like to see a fairly typical example, here's one that they did in 2002 that looks at the impact of automobile fuel economy standards on motor vehicle safety: http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10172.html The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is basically an extremely large consensus panel (with some 2,000 participants). Their published reports (along with similar reports that have been published by smaller scientific panels) are the basis for saying that there is a "scientific consensus" on global warming. That's term "consensus" is absolutely, if it is understood to mean that consensus panels have convened and published their conclusions. However, Ed may be interested in looking closely at specifically _what_ the IPCC reached by way of a consensus. Here are a couple of examples that I posted here previously, taken from their latest report: >In the light of new evidence and taking into account the remaining >uncertainties, most of the observed warming over the last 50 years >is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas >concentrations. >Emissions of CO2 due to fossil fuel burning are virtually certain to >be the dominant influence on the trends in atmospheric CO2 >concentration during the 21st century. Although these are "consensus" statements, they do acknowledge uncertainty. The IPCC uses the term "likely" to mean that the probability is higher than 66%. The term "virtually certain" means 99% or higher. This means that the IPCC thinks there is a possibility (of 33% or less) that the observed warming over the last 50 years is due to some cause _other_ than greenhouse gas concentrations. In science, there are no "certainties," only probabilities. Even commonplace scientific "facts" such as Einstein's theory of relativity are regarded as theories. Even though the likelihood of its being false is vanishingly small, science can't entirely rule out that possibility. (Absolute truths only exist in religious dogma and other faith-based belief systems. They have no place in science.) If Ed wants to ensure that the uncertainties related to global climate research are adequately reflected in the global warming article, I think the best way to do this would be to accept the IPCC's standing as a consensus body, and write the article so that it reflects the degrees of uncertainty actually stated in the IPCC's own report. This would be more productive, more accurate, and more likely to lead to consensus under Wikipedia's NPOV rule than trying to juxtapose the IPCC against Fred Singer's op-ed pieces for the Washington Times. -- -------------------------------- | Sheldon Rampton | Editor, PR Watch (www.prwatch.org) | Author of books including: | Friends In Deed: The Story of US-Nicaragua Sister Cities | Toxic Sludge Is Good For You | Mad Cow USA | Trust Us, We're Experts | Weapons of Mass Deception --------------------------------

1 0

edit conflicts
by daniwo59＠aol.com 02 Dec '03

02 Dec '03

Almost 24 hours have passed since the Sarah Edmonds edit conflict/war, and I still am not sure what it was that I accidentally overwrote. Once I realized that something was overwritten, I did try to restore it, but I guess I missed something. Such is life. If I would have known, I would have put it back, but Wik did not want to even tell me what it was. On the other hand, more words have been written about that silly edit war than on the article itself. I find that kind of pathetic. It is now being debated on Wikipedia:Edit conflicts. Personally, I agree with Martin's suggested policy, though I will add that we should be working together, not debating one-upmanship or the rights of one contributor's edits to override those of another contributor. In the almost two years that i have been part of Wikipedia, there have always been edit wars--hell, I was even involved in a few--but they were always over content, not ego. I find it unfortunate that Wikipedia has come to this. Danny

2 1

Feature suggestion: partial user blocking
by Poor, Edmund W 02 Dec '03

02 Dec '03

As Wikien-l administrator, I am forwarding this feature suggestion to the community for comment. --Ed Poor _______________________________________________ Hello. Still trying to figure out, with others, how to handle vandalism on fr: Wikipedia, I have a feature suggestion: ability to prevent someone from editing only encyclopedia pages (namespace 0, i think?), but letting her/him edit talk pages and such. This way articles are protected, but still we can talk with the user through talk pages, or meta pages, something we can't do if we totally block the user. It would also make it easier for a user having an ip matching a blocked vandal's ip to ask for unblocking. What do you think? Nicolas 'Ryo' _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list

2 1

Re: contributions of User:Mr-Natural-Health
by Matthew Woodcraft 02 Dec '03

02 Dec '03

Viajero wrote: >A new user named Mr-Natural-Health has created a number of new articles >in recent days which are disturbingly non-neutral [...] >Though several are currently listed on Cleanup and have been edited a >bit, VfD might be a better place, since they are so slanted that >deleting and starting anew is probably the wisest strategy. I think deleting them is a bad idea. If we can't avoid an edit war, all this achieves is making the beginning of it viewable only by sysops. I don't think that's going to help. -M-

1 0

New policy on edit conficts
by Martin Harper 02 Dec '03

02 Dec '03

Dear Wikipedians, Edit conflicts often occur on Wikipedia. We advise users to do their best to merge the two texts together when this happens, but mistakes do happen. Thus, where someone accidentally reverts one of my minor changes due to such a mistake, while making many other improvements to the article, I have two options: 1) Reinstate my changes to the other person's text 2) Revert to my version, removing all the other person's improvements. In choosing between these two options, it is important to note that the first option has been standard practice on Wikipedia for some years. Further, the first option results in an improved encyclopedia article, whereas the second option results in a worse encyclopedia article. Further, the second option has been empirically observed to cause conflict. Further, the first option is in accordance with existing policies on Wikiquette, WikiLove, and with existing advice on avoiding reverts and staying cool when the editing gets hot. As a result, I have rewritten [[wikipedia:edit conflicts]] to specifically deal with this issue. By the powers vested in me by the Wikipedia power structure, I hereby declare those changes to be de facto official, subject of course to overruling by other sysops, mailing list opinion, talk page opinion, and Jimbo's veto. References: [[wikipedia talk:Edit war]], etc. Thank you for your time, -Martin "MyRedDice" Harper

1 0

I'm back
by Jimmy Wales 01 Dec '03

01 Dec '03

But of course I'm several hundred emails behind, in Wikipedia alone, not to mention all my other email. Here's a thought: if I were to engage in a policy of de-sysop'ing (what a word!) for more or less routine quarrels between sysops, then rather than learning to live together, we'd have a strong incentive to quarrel even more. Rather than seeking to find a way to harmonize our different points of views, we'd have an incentive to make the counterparty look as bad as possible. Compare: "Hey, SoAndSo, I wanted to leave a note for you about what you did on thus-and-such a page. I disagreed with what you did there, and here's why. Even though we disagree, I hope you can find a way to meet me halfway on this." Versus: "I nominate that SoAndSo be de-sysop'ed, and here's why: blah blah blah. And some other bad stuff about him. And a list of links to jerky things he's done." --Jimbo

1 0

Keep an eye on contributions of
by Anthere 01 Dec '03

01 Dec '03

> From: wiki pedista <wikipedista(a)yahoo.com> > Hello, > This is to recommend you to keep an eye on the > contributions of user Sayeya. He has written before > in > the Spanish wikipedia and before that in > Enciclopedia > Libre, and has been regarded in both as a, at least, > > problem user with serious POV issues. > > AstroNomer Something I have not been able to figure really Astronomo, is whether Sayeya was HeKeIsDa or not ? ant __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree

1 0

The Curmudgeonator
by Poor, Edmund W 01 Dec '03

01 Dec '03

Much as the Cunctator irks me, I'd much prefer to have him around than to have him hounded out. He supplies needed perspective and balance. He's not destructive, he's just a curmudgeon. And we need a curmudgeon like Cunc around here, if only to play devil's advocate. Believe it or not, I consider him one of my top ten influences at Wikipedia. I might not agree with everything he says, but I NEVER take what he says lightly. Uncle Ed

1 0

Clearly labeled material (was: False Colors)
by Poor, Edmund W 01 Dec '03

01 Dec '03

Fred wrote: > The issue is whether the opinions of > someone posing as a scientist but in > fact pushing a position derived from > devine revelation is to be treated as > a legitimate divergent view from a > scientific viewpoint. Clearly, if not > excluded which is my preference, such > material should be clearly labeled as > to its nature, including references to > the source of the revelation. I agree, if you're talking about the [[creation science]] viewpoint about evolution. 95% of all scientists (and 99.8% of biologists) favor the "no divine intervention" viewpoint on evolution. Thus, I think it's safe to say that mainstream science favors the Darwinist position. And that Creationists' attempt to fly the flag of religion in scientific waters need not be endorsed by Wikipedia as a "legitimate divergent view". I disagree, if you're painting SEPP or its founder S. Fred Singer as pushing a position based on divine revelation. Singer actually disagrees with the only religious viewpoint I've ever heard expressed about CFCs. For example, Rev. Moon said, "The development of scientific knowledge and civilization has . . . resulted in such global problems as the destruction of nature and the environment, global warming and the diminishing of the ozone layer." -- http://www.tparents.org/Moon-Talks/sunmyungmoon95/SM950822.htm Correct me if I'm wrong, but Moon's view seems to differ from Singer's. The reverend is blaming people for global warming and ozone depletion, if I'm not reading this quotation out of context. The retired scientist (Singer) is much less certain that human beings are to blame, and even questions whether the phenomena Rev. Moon expressed so much concern about, are even occurring! Ed Poor

2 1

Jump to page:

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

WikiEN-l December 2003