.. and they're going to spam our e-mail queue: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/09/wikipedia_youre_on_notice.html
It would be nice to get some evolutionary biologists to review our entries on the respective topics systematically. I suspect there's probably a lot of creationist POV creep already.
On 9/7/06, Erik Moeller eloquence@gmail.com wrote:
.. and they're going to spam our e-mail queue: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/09/wikipedia_youre_on_notice.html
It would be nice to get some evolutionary biologists to review our entries on the respective topics systematically. I suspect there's probably a lot of creationist POV creep already.
I don't. Our anti creationist mob know what they are doing.
On 07/09/06, Erik Moeller eloquence@gmail.com wrote:
.. and they're going to spam our e-mail queue: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/09/wikipedia_youre_on_notice.html
"Thanks for your email. Through intelligent design, we have evolved a response to these."
- d.
Erik Moeller wrote:
.. and they're going to spam our e-mail queue: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/09/wikipedia_youre_on_notice.html
It would be nice to get some evolutionary biologists to review our entries on the respective topics systematically. I suspect there's probably a lot of creationist POV creep already.
It would also be nice to get some creationists to review our entries on Creatonism and Intelligent Design systematically; I suspect there's a lot of evolutionist POV creep.
On 07/09/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
It would also be nice to get some creationists to review our entries on Creatonism and Intelligent Design systematically; I suspect there's a lot of evolutionist POV creep.
I think we can rest assured there will be *quite* a lot of close attention to all these articles for the coming whatever.
- d.
On 9/7/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Erik Moeller wrote:
.. and they're going to spam our e-mail queue: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/09/wikipedia_youre_on_notice.html
It would be nice to get some evolutionary biologists to review our entries on the respective topics systematically. I suspect there's probably a lot of creationist POV creep already.
It would also be nice to get some creationists to review our entries on Creatonism and Intelligent Design systematically; I suspect there's a lot of evolutionist POV creep.
There is constant "creationist review" of these articles; new people come along, raise complaints, and one of three things tends to happen: (a) they are pointed towards the copious supporting citations, (b) they point raise a point that gets discussed at length, often with the wording being adjusted or (additional) supporting citations are supplied (c) since they rant about evolutionist POV, but fail to supply concrete suggestions, there is no progress.
Bear in mind that the blog posting admits that, in violation of WP:AUTO DI employees have tried to alter the article to their liking.
One of the perennial complaints about the article is that it states that "all" of the major proponents of ID are connected with the DI (the complaint being that it should be changed to "most"). That sounds like an eminently reasonable request, until it is examined carefully. To begin with, the statement is referenced and supported by sworn court testimony by both sides. In addition, no one has been able to come up with a major supporter which isn't affiliated with the DI. While it might seem like common sense to replace "all" with "most" it would require replacing what sources say with one's own opinion. If a major proponent was found that was not affililated with the DI, the statement might have to be modified to reflect this, but even so, since "all" comes from an external source the article would still have to reflect what the source says, rather than our interpretation of what the source says.
Another perennial complaint involves the statement that ID supporters have produced no publications in peer-reviewed science journals. Again, this is a statement from sources - it isn't really our place as editors to argue about what constitutes "peer-reviewed science". There is a list of "peer-reviewed publications" which Dembski says he compiled in preparation for the Kitzmiller trial. This list has been posted to the ID page several times to "disprove" the assertion. However, the statement has not been changed for three reasons: (1) while Dembski's list is presented as being connected with the trial, Dembski withdrew from the trial, so it is just speculation to consider whether he would have stood behind that list under oath; (2) Behe, another major proponent of ID said that there are no ID publications in peer-reviewed science journals; and (3) it's easy enough to look at Dembski's list and see that most of the publications he lists don't do what he claims (e.g., he lists a publication by Behe).
A third change that is made regularly to the article is to redefine ID into something much more broad than the article currently addresses, usually unsupported by references ("I think...") or, most recently, using a letter to the editor to an Iowa newspaper by what appears to be just any old person.
Ian
--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia "We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Guettarda wrote:
On 9/7/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Erik Moeller wrote:
.. and they're going to spam our e-mail queue: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/09/wikipedia_youre_on_notice.html
It would be nice to get some evolutionary biologists to review our entries on the respective topics systematically. I suspect there's probably a lot of creationist POV creep already.
It would also be nice to get some creationists to review our entries on Creatonism and Intelligent Design systematically; I suspect there's a lot of evolutionist POV creep.
There is constant "creationist review" of these articles; new people come along, raise complaints, and one of three things tends to happen: (a) they are pointed towards the copious supporting citations, (b) they point raise a point that gets discussed at length, often with the wording being adjusted or (additional) supporting citations are supplied (c) since they rant about evolutionist POV, but fail to supply concrete suggestions, there is no progress.
<snip>
Oh right, so the whole thing's an astroturfing campaign.
On 9/7/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Guettarda wrote:
On 9/7/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Erik Moeller wrote:
.. and they're going to spam our e-mail queue: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/09/wikipedia_youre_on_notice.html
It would be nice to get some evolutionary biologists to review our entries on the respective topics systematically. I suspect there's probably a lot of creationist POV creep already.
It would also be nice to get some creationists to review our entries on Creatonism and Intelligent Design systematically; I suspect there's a lot of evolutionist POV creep.
There is constant "creationist review" of these articles; new people
come
along, raise complaints, and one of three things tends to happen: (a) they are pointed towards the copious supporting citations, (b) they point raise a point that gets discussed at length, often with
the
wording being adjusted or (additional) supporting citations are supplied (c) since they rant about evolutionist POV, but fail to supply concrete suggestions, there is no progress.
<snip>
Oh right, so the whole thing's an astroturfing campaign.
Sorry, I don't follow what you're saying
On 07/09/06, Guettarda guettarda@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/7/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Guettarda wrote:
On 9/7/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Erik Moeller wrote:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/09/wikipedia_youre_on_notice.html
It would be nice to get some evolutionary biologists to review our
It would also be nice to get some creationists to review our entries on
There is constant "creationist review" of these articles; new people
Oh right, so the whole thing's an astroturfing campaign.
Sorry, I don't follow what you're saying
I don't know that it's so much [[astroturfing]] as the typical activist call to arms: POV activist sees carefully referenced as-neutral-as-reasonably-achievable Wikipedia article, gets upset, posts to list or blog about opposite-POV bias. That this one is on the Discovery Institute's news blog is a little more corporate affiliated, but it's not covert or done by deception. (Any more than anything the DI does is.)
Usually what happens is: there's an issue, the activists are called to Wikipedia, and ... being activists, i.e. sincere people working to make the world better, they often like the idea of Wikipedia and try to work with it properly. So we get new editors and better articles. Win-win.
*Maybe* this will happen in this case :-)
- d.
I think they still don't have a point. So many people edit these articles that sooner or later they have been NPOVed, cited, wikified and brought to at least good article status. We have our standards, and they're making very opinionative comments as if they were facts.
On 9/8/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 07/09/06, Guettarda guettarda@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/7/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Guettarda wrote:
On 9/7/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Erik Moeller wrote:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/09/wikipedia_youre_on_notice.html
It would be nice to get some evolutionary biologists to review our
It would also be nice to get some creationists to review our entries on
There is constant "creationist review" of these articles; new people
Oh right, so the whole thing's an astroturfing campaign.
Sorry, I don't follow what you're saying
I don't know that it's so much [[astroturfing]] as the typical activist call to arms: POV activist sees carefully referenced as-neutral-as-reasonably-achievable Wikipedia article, gets upset, posts to list or blog about opposite-POV bias. That this one is on the Discovery Institute's news blog is a little more corporate affiliated, but it's not covert or done by deception. (Any more than anything the DI does is.)
Usually what happens is: there's an issue, the activists are called to Wikipedia, and ... being activists, i.e. sincere people working to make the world better, they often like the idea of Wikipedia and try to work with it properly. So we get new editors and better articles. Win-win.
*Maybe* this will happen in this case :-)
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
The intelligent design articles have never really been in a state where rational proponents of ID (they do exist) would agree that their views are represented neutrally, though I think they've been getting closer. I say this as a trained biochemist, a former supporter of intelligent design, and a historian of evolutionary biology in training. The main issue is the choice of which sources are considered significant/reliable enough to be included, since there is a wealth of potential sources for each side. Many of the anti-intelligent design sources I would consider of dubious objectivity, even though I agree with their objectives to prevent the political aspects of the ID Movement from gaining power in the educational system (as well as their conclusion that ID is no serious competition to evolutionary theory). In particular, Mark Perakh, Forrest & Gross, and Eugenie Scott (among others) are polemicists whose work responds to the political and ideological aspects of ID and does not attempt to engage seriously with the (limited but real) intellectual aspects.
The other problem is the intractable one of which aspects to emphasize and which not to. I've occasionally tried to insert material about the diversity of thought within the ID movement and among those who study it, but it generally gets removed as not significant (which I believe from personal experience not to be the case, but haven't seen any real evidence one way or the other).
Fortunately, I think there are a couple of scholarly treatments of ID in the works from historians and social scientists (science studies scholars, broadly speaking) who are not primarily approaching the issue as part of the anti-ID movement. (The proceedings of this year's Terry Lectures at Yale, which will take place today and tomorrow and eventually be published, are one example.) This will make obtaining less inherently controversial sources considerably easier.
-Ragesoss
On 9/7/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Erik Moeller wrote:
.. and they're going to spam our e-mail queue: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/09/wikipedia_youre_on_notice.html
It would be nice to get some evolutionary biologists to review our entries on the respective topics systematically. I suspect there's probably a lot of creationist POV creep already.
It would also be nice to get some creationists to review our entries on Creatonism and Intelligent Design systematically; I suspect there's a lot of evolutionist POV creep.
-- Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia "We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 07/09/06, Sage Ross ragesoss@gmail.com wrote:
The intelligent design articles have never really been in a state where rational proponents of ID (they do exist) would agree that their views are represented neutrally, though I think they've been getting closer. I say this as a trained biochemist, a former supporter of intelligent design, and a historian of evolutionary biology in training.
Heh. Has saying this on the talk pages helped?
Fortunately, I think there are a couple of scholarly treatments of ID in the works from historians and social scientists (science studies scholars, broadly speaking) who are not primarily approaching the issue as part of the anti-ID movement. (The proceedings of this year's Terry Lectures at Yale, which will take place today and tomorrow and eventually be published, are one example.) This will make obtaining less inherently controversial sources considerably easier.
Excellent! (Personally, I suspect ID is best treated as a matter for sociology. Probably not abnormal psychology, but anyway.)
- d.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
Erik Moeller wrote:
.. and they're going to spam our e-mail queue: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/09/wikipedia_youre_on_notice.html
It would be nice to get some evolutionary biologists to review our entries on the respective topics systematically. I suspect there's probably a lot of creationist POV creep already.
It would also be nice to get some creationists to review our entries on Creatonism and Intelligent Design systematically; I suspect there's a lot of evolutionist POV creep.
It would also be nice to get some Ptolemaist scholars to review our entries on gravitation and the solar system systematically; I suspect there's a lot of Galilean POV creep.
Seriously though, legitimate POV disputes are one thing ... but when one side has all of the science behind it and the other side has nothing behind it, giving equal weight is fallacious. Our articles on the shape of the Earth, global warming, what caused 9/11, and HIV causing AIDS are similarly reality-based.
- -- Ben McIlwain ("Cyde Weys")
~ Sub veste quisque nudus est ~
Ben McIlwain wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
Erik Moeller wrote:
.. and they're going to spam our e-mail queue: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/09/wikipedia_youre_on_notice.html
It would be nice to get some evolutionary biologists to review our entries on the respective topics systematically. I suspect there's probably a lot of creationist POV creep already.
It would also be nice to get some creationists to review our entries on Creatonism and Intelligent Design systematically; I suspect there's a lot of evolutionist POV creep.
It would also be nice to get some Ptolemaist scholars to review our entries on gravitation and the solar system systematically; I suspect there's a lot of Galilean POV creep.
Seriously though, legitimate POV disputes are one thing ... but when one side has all of the science behind it and the other side has nothing behind it, giving equal weight is fallacious. Our articles on the shape of the Earth, global warming, what caused 9/11, and HIV causing AIDS are similarly reality-based.
Ben McIlwain ("Cyde Weys")
I suspect his suggestion was review of what we say about them. A group so unpopular that they are characterized as they have been on this thread probably has some legitimate concerns about being misrepresented.
SKL
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
ScottL wrote:
Ben McIlwain wrote:
It would also be nice to get some Ptolemaist scholars to review our entries on gravitation and the solar system systematically; I suspect there's a lot of Galilean POV creep.
Seriously though, legitimate POV disputes are one thing ... but when one side has all of the science behind it and the other side has nothing behind it, giving equal weight is fallacious. Our articles on the shape of the Earth, global warming, what caused 9/11, and HIV causing AIDS are similarly reality-based.
I suspect his suggestion was review of what we say about them. A group so unpopular that they are characterized as they have been on this thread probably has some legitimate concerns about being misrepresented.
That's the problem with the whole "intelligent design" movement though: the entire point of their existence is misrepresentation. "Intelligent design" exists because "scientific creationism" was ruled unconstitutional in the late 1980's (as a public school subject, anyway). ID's mantra is basically, "We're not creationism, we're scientific" ... even though it's the same people, the same flawed arguments, and indeed, the same creationism. Obviously this simple truth must be in the article, but if you let the ID'ers go over the article and correct anything they feel is a "misrepresentation", you're basically enabling their agenda.
- -- Ben McIlwain ("Cyde Weys")
~ Sub veste quisque nudus est ~
On 9/6/06, Erik Moeller eloquence@gmail.com wrote:
.. and they're going to spam our e-mail queue: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/09/wikipedia_youre_on_notice.html
It would be nice to get some evolutionary biologists to review our entries on the respective topics systematically. I suspect there's probably a lot of creationist POV creep already.
Most Creationists are fortunately not very subtle. They aren't satisfied with POV creep, they have to insert the equivalent of "It's only a theory! And a GIANT LIE!" with just about every edit.
(There are exceptions, to be sure. But 90% of Creationist editing to Evolution articles are like this. Even the ones who stick around usually lapse into it at highly regular intervals.)
It'd be great if we could get intelligent, intellectually honest Creationists who are interested in creating neutral articles. I wouldn't hold my breath, though. I say this as someone who is pretty far from thinking that our articles should be nothing but the "scientific point of view". But I'm generally not very impressed by Creationists, and certainly not the ones who spend their time trying to further their cause on Wikipedia.
FF