In a message dated 4/2/2006 7:20:01 P.M. Central Daylight Time, Thommandel@aol.com writes:

In a message dated 4/2/2006 1:32:51 P.M. Central Daylight Time, guettarda@gmail.com writes:

The essence of NPOV is to be able to "write for your enemies". It's a great (and somewhat humbling) experience to write fairly about something you disagree with or someone you dislike.

Sounds good, but what if the writing is not fair? How does the NPOV handle that? What if the writing is contradictory data, and the admin says on entry (A) that it belongs on entry (B) and on entry (B) he says it belongs on (A)? Is that what you call Neutral

Where is the WikiEthics aritcle?

I posed a question to this community concerning cross editing. I am a new editor focused on the plasma cosmology article. There are three other editors who also edit the Big bang article. It is clear from what these three say that they support the big bang theory. The big bang theory is the most widely accepted theory of cosmology. Plasma cosmology is what they have called a non standard cosmology. It is an alternative theory to the big bang. The primary contention of plasma cosmology is that the redshift is not a Doppler effect. The primary contention of the big bang theory is that redshift is a measure of Doppler effects, and thus a movement toward expansion if inferred. Plasma cosmology contends that the redshift is caused by some process such as the CREIL effect. In short the big bang theory entire foundation rests on the assumption that the observed redshift is a measure of velocity. Without this velocity component there would be no reason for expansion, no basis for a beginning, no need for Inflation, and no big bang.

Now, the three editors mentioned above are big bang advocates. They are over here "to help us" they say. But their idea of help is to ignore what plasma cosmology actually says, instead they edit to say it their way. And only what they say is what goes up. Anything else gets reverted. (I'm not sure where the contest started) They allowed an incorrect definition to stand for months. They wrote in claims like "discredited by most cosmologists." And when they were confronted with the new facts, they decided to ridicule and insult those who would argue with them "disrupting the entire wiki process. and threaten to RFC or Ban.

I went to your list, and asked about the ethics of editing a competing article. The first answer I got was "a good wikipedian can edit as he damn well pleases." There were the yes'es. For the most part general agreement that editors can do as they please. On newbi wrote that if the edit is disparaging, it is unethical. If it is positive it is ethical.

Well, scientists are not above ethics. Indeed, some values are placed higher in science, and a greater ethical conduct is required. For example, manipulating the evidence is especially ethically constrained.

To the degree that it is a different story at Wikipedia is the degree Wikipedia distances itself from real science. Wikipedia then would become Wikifiction

Tommy Mandel