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(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l