On Mon, 18 Jul 2005, Poor, Edmund W wrote:
We must take into account the possibilty of POLITICAL bias on the part of journal editors...
The system of publishing results in referreed journals is by and large an excellent one, but we would do the entire world a dis-service if we were to ENDORSE the process as incapable of error or bias.
The principle cause of publishing bad/wrong papers is not political bias but simple mistakes, bad reviewing, etc etc.
OTOH, I *do* agree that wiki should not endorse scientific publishing as free of error or bias - but that has never been in question. This is a strawman.
"If I say this, the policymakers will choose that." Who can resist such a temptation?
Most scientists, who know full well that politicians pick and chose what they want to hear.
I think we should stick to our original commitment. Just say that "certain scientists" say X about Y. And don't try to endorse any particular view on current scientific controversies as "representing a consensus" which Wikipedia then is committing to endorsing.
All, this so far is pretty irrelevant to the real controversy, which (for the climate change wars) has two components:
1) how do we balance "mainstream" and skeptic views
2) how do we describe things (like the degree of scientific consensus) that are intrinsically not in jounals.
Note that for all of this I'm talking about the *scientific* viewpoint, which (by and large) the climate wars have been about. We've started an article called "politics of GW" and that, of course, will not have the same balance.
The questions are related, because it comes down to complying with the NPOV policy, which is that the mainstream view gets stated first and most prominently, and dissenting views get stated roughly according to their weight and importance. Of course, that means you need to know what weight they should have. This is difficult.
For both of these, its no good waving any individual paper and saying "scientist X says Y". Nor is it aceptable to stuff an article full of a whole pile of one sided quotes and references, and defend them by saying "but they are all from published papers". What you need is an idea of what the weight of the published literature says. This is very close to impossible for anyone not in the field, or who doesn't keep up *with the actual journals*. Its no good trying to get such balance from the popular press or the web.
At the moment, the bulk of literature on climate change simply takes GW as a given and is trying to work out the details. The number of skeptics challenging this (in the sci press) is teensy tiny, and their scientific importance is even less. If anything, the wiki GW articles overweights the skeptics contribution. This is usually the cue for the more off-base skeptics to cry "conspiracy"... but that misses the point. Firstly, of course, I don't think there is any such conspiracy. Secondly, in the unlikely event of all the worlds scientists conspiring to say X is true, then thats what wiki is supposed to report. Not the "truth" known by revelation to only a few.
Finally... how do we describe things like the scientific consensus on GW? I think that Ed is objecting to "there is a scientific consensus that GW is occurring", or somesuch. The trouble is, that "there is dispute about whether there is a consensus or not" is also pushing a POV (that there is a dispute) and is basically wrong. Look at "Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change" which backs up the first view from quoted sources, just as Ed wanted.
-W.
William M Connolley | wmc@bas.ac.uk | http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/wmc/ Climate Modeller, British Antarctic Survey | (01223) 221479 If I haven't seen further, it's because giants were standing on my shoulders