In a message dated 4/29/2008 11:25:34 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, moreschiwikiman@hotmail.co.uk writes:
My own view is this: Wikipedia's dispute resolution process works fine when it's case of two or more good-faith contributors engaging in a genuine debate over something where debate is meaningful. The process is hopelessly inadequate to deal with editors who act tendentiously or not in good faith, or in circumstances where there is no meaningful debate to be had (homeopathy).>>
------------------- This is a no-starter because of your phrasing. Those who have followed the debate as "journalists" and encyclopedists, instead of adherents understand that the point of the homeopathists isn't to conquer all the science articles. But the point of the non-homeopathists is to destroy all the homeopathy articles. Hardly the same position.
We are not a science project. We are a project to document all human "knowledge", to say homeopathy is not knowledge is tendentious.
Will Johnson
**************Need a new ride? Check out the largest site for U.S. used car listings at AOL Autos. (http://autos.aol.com/used?NCID=aolcmp00300000002851)
No, my point was that homeopathy is not science. The homeopathy editors generally do try to portray it as such. This is misleading.
CM
Odi profanum vulgus et arceo.
From: WJhonson@aol.com Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 14:31:28 -0400 To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution broken?
In a message dated 4/29/2008 11:25:34 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, moreschiwikiman@hotmail.co.uk writes:
My own view is this: Wikipedia's dispute resolution process works fine when it's case of two or more good-faith contributors engaging in a genuine debate over something where debate is meaningful. The process is hopelessly inadequate to deal with editors who act tendentiously or not in good faith, or in circumstances where there is no meaningful debate to be had (homeopathy).>>
This is a no-starter because of your phrasing. Those who have followed the debate as "journalists" and encyclopedists, instead of adherents understand that the point of the homeopathists isn't to conquer all the science articles. But the point of the non-homeopathists is to destroy all the homeopathy articles. Hardly the same position.
We are not a science project. We are a project to document all human "knowledge", to say homeopathy is not knowledge is tendentious.
Will Johnson
**************Need a new ride? Check out the largest site for U.S. used car listings at AOL Autos. (http://autos.aol.com/used?NCID=aolcmp00300000002851) _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_________________________________________________________________ 100’s of prizes to be won at BigSnapSearch.com http://www.bigsnapsearch.com
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
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
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 4/29/2008 11:25:34 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, moreschiwikiman@hotmail.co.uk writes:
My own view is this: Wikipedia's dispute resolution process works fine when it's case of two or more good-faith contributors engaging in a genuine debate over something where debate is meaningful. The process is hopelessly inadequate to deal with editors who act tendentiously or not in good faith, or in circumstances where there is no meaningful debate to be had (homeopathy).>>
This is a no-starter because of your phrasing. Those who have followed the debate as "journalists" and encyclopedists, instead of adherents understand that the point of the homeopathists isn't to conquer all the science articles. But the point of the non-homeopathists is to destroy all the homeopathy articles. Hardly the same position.
We are not a science project. We are a project to document all human "knowledge", to say homeopathy is not knowledge is tendentious.
I essentially agree, but it is less about non-homeopathists than about anti-homeopathists. Some of us who may have nothing to do with the practice are nevertheless respectfull of those who do. NPOV is maintained by *fairly* representing the views of homeopathists, and briefly recognizing the premises under which a large number of people reject the practice. It does not require repetitive rejection of detail. That just makes for tedious reading. It is not for us to judge the validity of homeopathy, but to provide verifiability for both sides of the conflict.
Ec
Ec
On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 9:43 AM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
I essentially agree, but it is less about non-homeopathists than about anti-homeopathists. Some of us who may have nothing to do with the practice are nevertheless respectfull of those who do. NPOV is maintained by *fairly* representing the views of homeopathists, and briefly recognizing the premises under which a large number of people reject the practice. It does not require repetitive rejection of detail. That just makes for tedious reading. It is not for us to judge the validity of homeopathy, but to provide verifiability for both sides of the conflict.
Excellently put, Ray. To put the last point another way, our aim is to give a general outline of the current debate on a subject (if the phrase "teach the conflict" hadn't been appropriated for other purposes these days, it would be a good description).