Viajero wrote:
I am the last person who want to see Wikipedia turned into a repository for flaky, New Age esotericisms, but at the same time the scientism which has manifested itself in the past few days in response to Mr Natural Health's questionable contributions is also profoundly disturbing and likewise a very insidious form of non-neutrality.
Take for example this comment by user Snoyes on the [[Alternative medicine]] talk page:
Setting aside the question of scientism's merits, isn't the talk page _supposed_ to be a place where POV statements are allowed?
Actually, what are the terms of allowed discourse on talk pages? I've had a user recently on the Disinfopedia who hasn't done any damage to actual articles, but he has made a number of nasty remarks on talk pages, accusing other users of "paranoid ravings" and referring to me personally as a fascist. I've been operating on the assumption that even intemperate remarks like this should be acceptable if they are limited to comments on talk pages. At what point do Wikipedians draw the line on this sort of thing?
Sheldon Rampton wrote:
Setting aside the question of scientism's merits, isn't the talk page _supposed_ to be a place where POV statements are allowed?
Allowed, yes. Encouraged, no.
The talk page is supposed to be about the article, about how to improve the article. As such, the debate or discussion can be more wide-ranging there than in the actual article. But even on the talk pages, things work best when people try not to _argue_, but rather to _co-operate_ in finding a wording that works well for everyone.
If someone thinks "Well, no one will let me put my advocacy on the encyclopedia article, so I'll just post my polemical essay on the talk page" they are thinking wrong about the purpose of the talk pages.
Actually, what are the terms of allowed discourse on talk pages? I've had a user recently on the Disinfopedia who hasn't done any damage to actual articles, but he has made a number of nasty remarks on talk pages, accusing other users of "paranoid ravings" and referring to me personally as a fascist. I've been operating on the assumption that even intemperate remarks like this should be acceptable if they are limited to comments on talk pages. At what point do Wikipedians draw the line on this sort of thing?
I think we find it completely unacceptable, but at the same time we're very slow to do anything about it most of the time.
This is one reason I personally rarely edit, by the way. Not because I don't want people to call me a fascist, I really don't care about that. But because I would feel compelled to accept bad behavior directed towards me that I would not accept when directed towards others.
--Jimbo
I, for one, feel that ALMOST anything goes on the Talk page. I did blank a racist rant once, and then someone came along behind me and deleted the Talk page (the rant was the only thing on the page.) But other than that, I think Talk pages should be left alone.
If we're talking about a User's talk page, on the other hand, it's up to them how they want to deal with them.
RickK
Sheldon Rampton sheldon.rampton@verizon.net wrote: Viajero wrote:
I am the last person who want to see Wikipedia turned into a repository for flaky, New Age esotericisms, but at the same time the scientism which has manifested itself in the past few days in response to Mr Natural Health's questionable contributions is also profoundly disturbing and likewise a very insidious form of non-neutrality.
Take for example this comment by user Snoyes on the [[Alternative medicine]] talk page:
Setting aside the question of scientism's merits, isn't the talk page _supposed_ to be a place where POV statements are allowed?
Actually, what are the terms of allowed discourse on talk pages? I've had a user recently on the Disinfopedia who hasn't done any damage to actual articles, but he has made a number of nasty remarks on talk pages, accusing other users of "paranoid ravings" and referring to me personally as a fascist. I've been operating on the assumption that even intemperate remarks like this should be acceptable if they are limited to comments on talk pages. At what point do Wikipedians draw the line on this sort of thing?