The proposal might have been based on a desire to exclude significant pseudoscience criticism of scientific theories, rather than to keep them proportional. I agree that they are sometimes over-expansively treated, but I also see where they are not treated adequately. I consequently have suggested modifying the text to say
"this noticeboard is designed to deal...with fringe theories being pushed onto existing articles, or with attempts to remove such discussions when justified." "and cases where those primarily working on a page try to exclude appropriate mention of such theories. "
So far these modifications remain. Properly seen, the board might well serve to attract the attention of those who are of both views, and therefore diminish the effect of the small cliques that can form at particular articles. DGG
On 7/8/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 08/07/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Oooh, and then can we begin discussing how Hempel's Raven paradox eluicidates precisely why confirmatory instances do so much less than disconfirmatory instances, and from there move on to a discussion of Bayesian vs. frequentists interpretations of observation and theory? (Possibly bringing a bit of computer science's denotational semantics by way of digital philosophy?)
No.
No, you need to be a bunch of Wikipedians down the pub boring any non-encyclopedists unfortunate enough to be stuck at your table.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l