Louis Kyu Won Ryu wrote:
Ed Poor wrote-
I can't stop three dozen other contributors from injecting bias into the scientific articles relating to the environment. Not by myself -- not by slowly and patiently undoing each mistake and explaining it. I'm outnumbered and outgunned.
You have hit upon the number one reason why good, evenhanded contributors leave the Wiki, and why many of those who stay become frustrated and limit their edits to mechanical changes and work on a few pet subject areas. It is also the reason why most credentialled people have left the project.
That's a sweeping generalization. I would hardly call the reverends of scientism evenhanded. Limiting oneself to a few pet subject areas is usually a reasonable even without the frustration; it usually means that the contributor is not wandering into things that he does not know anything about.
It is no doubt true that the reason cited has led to the departure of many credentialled people, but I do not accept "most" without questioning the source of the statistic on which that statement is based. Also, I do not attach as much weight as you do on being credentialled. On the positive side it shows that one has a long standing acquaintance, but on the negative side it suggests that the person has accepted the biases of the profession as though they were truths.
''Inclusivity bias'' is my term for the pattern of putting the [[burden of proof]] on editors making content changes in broad areas. The trouble is that the Wikipedia culture is deletion-adverse and reversion-adverse. Wikipedia culture is to include things until they are proven unmeritous. If you cut paragraphs, revert bad edits to an article, or try to have an article deleted--unless you have proof, you get NO support from the community.
I consider inclusivity to be one of the key attractions of Wikipedia. Why should an editor have any less a burden of proof than the person whom he is editing? The statement at the end of the paragraph is quite valid, unproven POVs shouldn't get the support of the community. An initial contribution very often expresses a particular POV; that's OK at that stage because the opponents to that view have yet to come to bat in the bottom of the first inning. Perhaps you are right that Wikipedia culture is deletion- and reversion-averse, but that's a good thing too. It suggests that there is a high degree of respect for each other. Including material that has not yet been proven to have no merit is perfectly acceptable, as is mentioning the fact that there is significant contrary opinion; censoring it out because it does not accord with the world view of scientism should not be acceptable.
Far too many of scientism's preachers too readily seek to censor what they oppose. When they start using pejorative terms like "pseudo-science", it tends to be without foundation in fact, or it depends on a clearly inappropriate applicationn of the topic which they turn into a straw-man to discredit an entire area of study, or it is based on the topic's failure to meet extraordinarily high standards that they would never put upon the gods of their beliefs. Scientism, like any other religion, is based on fear and insecurity. In a world where the old gods have lost credibility these new believers cannot aford to have their new gods questioned. To quote Martin Luther: "Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but - more frequently than not - struggles against the divine Word, treating with contemptall that emanates from God."
In all probability, many of these criticized studies are indeed invalid. I don't know which ones, and I suspect that many more will contain only a mere grain of truth, but I would not arrogate to myself the authority to decide where the truth lies; for true scientists to do so would be anti-scientific hypocrisy.
Inclusivity respects all opinions. It requires enduring patience. In our context it also requires accepting that no article will ever be in final form. Articles in uncontroversial subjects will remain stable for long periods of time, but could still be changed at any time. If you succeed in editing an article to the point where it meets your standards after having beaten off all who seek to make reference to alternative opinion, and have removed all references to these alternatives then perhaps six months later when somebody reintroduces the point the same argument will start again from square one. Then there will be no point in refering to the old arguments, because they have been removed, and why should our newcomer not have the same opportunity to participate in the debate as those who previously participated. Don't insult the newcomer by telling him that the point was settled six months ago.
The internet is affecting human communications more profoundly than anything since Guttenberg. Revolutions in the means of communications can have very broad effects. The inclusivity that modern communications can now allow was impossible in the past. The people of science and other dwellers of the ivory tower will need new techniques for communicating with the populace without consescension. Those who previously had no access to the tree of knowledge are clamoring to climb it.
And you need that community support, because you are up against people with strong feelings, who want to paint subjects a certain way. You mention environmentalism, but that's just one of the many areas where this is a problem. The Isreal/Palestine issues, articles on different religions, articles on cults, politics, and world trade all have the same problem.
I think that this is written by someone who fails to recognize that his position is guided by strong feelings just as much as those whom he opposes..
I think the culture has to change. I don't know how to do it. I've tried, and it is *excruciatingly* hard to walk into an article that has bias, that clearly has a problem with facts and with neutrality, and accomplish anything good. The usual outcome is outpouring of anger, edit wars, and hard feelings all around, and the well-meaning editor just ends up making enemies. What *should* happen, is that the community should rise up and *support* people who are trying to help out in these situations.
Maybe the community does not see your efforts as help. You could start by respecting those who have a contrary POV to yours.
What kind of support? Well, people should be rushing to your side to reinstate your edits when some POV writer keeps reverting you. Other people should be coming to the discussion, and not just adding and refactoring ad nauseum, but actually trying to push the process towards a decision. What we need more of are editors who are willing to approach a controversial topic that they don't feel strongly about, and staying there with tenacity, requiring sources for questionable edits, flat-out reverting inappropriate garbage, and doing their own cross-checking.
Tenacity about something that you don't feel strongly about may be self-contradictory.
Ec