I saw a thread with a subject about dispute resolution, and expected a conversation about dispute resolution - not a continuation of the dispute. The fight between conventional science and homeopathy is one that is ongoing out in the world - the place of Wikipedia is to document the dispute and the claims of both sides, not to participate in it. The answer is simple - it isn't that the dispute resolution process has failed, its that the process hasn't resulted in measures effective enough. If you have editors who insist on continuing a dispute on Wikipedia and simply cannot manage to work cooperatively then those editors should be banned. Period. A big stick that isn't necessary in all cases, but is necessary in some. There is a studied aversion to it in some quarters (homeopathy, nationalism) and an unadvised rush to it in others (CAMERA), but sometimes when some people just can't make it work they need to leave so others can try.
Nathan
On 4/29/08, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Christiano Moreschi wrote:
No, my point was that homeopathy is not science. The homeopathy editors
generally do try to portray it as such. This is misleading.
I realize that those who insist that homeopathy is not a science are intent on misleading readers too. Science if a very flexible term, and you should ensure that you are using "science" in the same way rather than assuming that others share the same narrow view as you.
Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l