I believe there is a problem see
[[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Climate_change_dispute/ Proposed_decision#William_M._Connolley.27s_objections_to_NPOV]]
Did not pass, to my regret.
Fred
On Jul 8, 2005, at 9:29 AM, Poor, Edmund W wrote:
Just when you think you've got it figured out ... it changes!
I thought we had all agreed that the Neutral Point Of View policy requires Wikipedia to take no sides in any controversy. I harbored the belief that when it comes to [[protoscience]], i.e., discoveries of new scientific knowledge which have NOT QUITE been fully established, Wikipedia would avoid endorsing the new "knowledge" - at least pending final confirmation.
If astronomers at Harvard, and professors at MIT, are still disputing the truth of the new hypothesis, maybe it's too early to enshrine it as REALLY SO - and way too early to dismiss as [[pseudoscience]] all the skepticism which says that an alternate explanation is still viable.
Along comes Dr. William Connolley and his mates. They have simultaneously begun a WikiProject to delete articles which (in their view) promote pseudoscience, and, wait for it...
...actually nominated Connolley for adminship!
I marked up the nomination with strikeout text at four points and appended my signed corrections, and have been 3RR'ed into oblivion and threatened with my first-ever user block. What is this, the borking of Ed Poor?
We need to tread carefully on this.
Uncle Ed _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l