Hi there. I haven't posted to the list before, but I've been editing under the callsign "CYD" for for quite a while now.
I'd like to point out a number of crackpot articles recently contributed by the user Reddi:
[[Plasma cosmology]] [[Dynamic theory of gravity]] [[Rotating magnetic field]]
These articles are written in a very obtuse and confusing way, which makes the specific claims impossible to pin down, let alone correct. Furthermore, the references are chosen in a misleading way to make the topics look like they are well-received. For example, the article on "plasma cosmology" contains links to various studies of plasmas, including the IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science. These studies have however no relevance to the purported topic, which is an "alternative cosmology to the Big Bang theory."
In addition, there have been several equally incoherent edits to articles such as [[Luminiferous aether]].
Any suggestions about what to do?
-- CYD
Chong Yidong wrote:
Any suggestions about what to do?
It really depends on the situation:
I'd like to point out a number of crackpot articles recently contributed by the user Reddi:
What exactly does 'contributed' mean here? If the articles are entirely new, then there's no reason to act at all, other than improving the articles. If the user has replaced the entire text of existing articles, I suppose that would be reason enough to revert, although of course it would be wiser to try to combine all the information contained in both versions.
These studies have however no relevance to the purported topic, which is an "alternative cosmology to the Big Bang theory."
Then simply remove the reference ;-)
In addition, there have been several equally incoherent edits to articles such as [[Luminiferous aether]].
Again, this depends on what kind of edits they were. If they only added a paragraph or several, then leave them or improve them. If they have actually deleted/replaced text that you think was much better before the edit, try reverting it. The worst that can happen is that they will re-revert it, in which case you should discuss it with them either on the article's talk page or on their User talk page. Or maybe you should do that in the first place.
In any case, I don't think it was a good idea to post this to a public mailing list (and/or newsgroup). If I were them and I'd read it, I'd be offended, being ridiculed and denunciated publicly.
Sorry for my bad English, I'm just tired and I'm going to bed now, Timwi
Chong Yidong wrote:
[[Plasma cosmology]] [[Dynamic theory of gravity]] [[Rotating magnetic field]]
I know little enough about physics that I can't say anything meaningful about these particulars, but I would say
(a) if those are valid concepts about which we need an article, we should patch these up or rewrite them so they aren't nonsenese
(b) if those are *known* and *popular* crackpot ideas, then we should have an article about them, identifying them *as* ideas that are completely rejected by the consensus of leading scientists or NPOV verbiage to that effect
(c) if those are *individualized* crackpot ideas, i.e. stuff made up by one anonymous crank, then after some time on 'votes for deletion' they should just be deleted, not for being false, but for failing the test of confirmability.
--Jimbo
"Chong Yidong" cyd@stupidchicken.com wrote in message news:yr4cel0w4tbz.fsf@myth7.Stanford.EDU...
Hi there. I haven't posted to the list before, but I've been editing under the callsign "CYD" for for quite a while now.
You should be an admin. Hang on, I'll nominate you.
I'd like to point out a number of crackpot articles recently contributed by the user Reddi:
<snip>
Any suggestions about what to do?
We have to keep an eye on him. Note that most of his contributions need copyediting anyway, since his English isn't too good. Reddi seems to be a pleasant, courteous guy, so he's never going to get banned.
After coming across [[reciprocal system of theory]] for the first time just recently, and after personally spending a great deal of time on [[neutrosophy]] and other articles, I have a feeling we're losing the war on pseudoscience, mainly due to an insufficient number of motivated skeptical contributors. I've been giving serious thought to advertising our cause on the major skeptical community forums.
I don't really see any other way to do this, other than plain old-fashioned manpower. If any of these theories are truly idiosyncratic, we'll be able to save a lot of time if we can get them deleted. Other than that, we've just got to do the research, present the flaws, and contextualise.
-- Tim Starling <tstarlingphysicsunimelbeduau>
I second the nomination of CYD for admin!
I also want to urge Tim to go forward with his plan to get some involvement from the skeptic community, we need some informed skeptics to provide some balance on this issue.
-- Michael Becker
-----Original Message----- From: wikien-l-admin@wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-admin@wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Tim Starling Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2003 3.08 To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Crackpot articles
"Chong Yidong" cyd@stupidchicken.com wrote in message news:yr4cel0w4tbz.fsf@myth7.Stanford.EDU...
Hi there. I haven't posted to the list before, but I've been editing under the callsign "CYD" for for quite a while now.
You should be an admin. Hang on, I'll nominate you.
I'd like to point out a number of crackpot articles recently contributed by the user Reddi:
<snip>
Any suggestions about what to do?
We have to keep an eye on him. Note that most of his contributions need copyediting anyway, since his English isn't too good. Reddi seems to be a pleasant, courteous guy, so he's never going to get banned.
After coming across [[reciprocal system of theory]] for the first time just recently, and after personally spending a great deal of time on [[neutrosophy]] and other articles, I have a feeling we're losing the war on pseudoscience, mainly due to an insufficient number of motivated skeptical contributors. I've been giving serious thought to advertising our cause on the major skeptical community forums.
I don't really see any other way to do this, other than plain old-fashioned manpower. If any of these theories are truly idiosyncratic, we'll be able to save a lot of time if we can get them deleted. Other than that, we've just got to do the research, present the flaws, and contextualise.
-- Tim Starling <tstarlingphysicsunimelbeduau>
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Michael Becker wrote:
I also want to urge Tim to go forward with his plan to get some involvement from the skeptic community, we need some informed skeptics to provide some balance on this issue.
I'd like to point out a number of crackpot articles recently contributed by the user Reddi:
<snip>
Any suggestions about what to do?
We have to keep an eye on him. Note that most of his contributions need copyediting anyway, since his English isn't too good. Reddi seems to be a pleasant, courteous guy, so he's never going to get banned.
The suggestion that anyone might be banned for supporting "pseudoscience" is frightenining. Copyediting someone's English is in a different league. It is always a great exercise in the practice of NPOV to take an article with which you strongly disagree, and copyedit the English without changing the substantive intent of the author.
After coming across [[reciprocal system of theory]] for the first time just recently, and after personally spending a great deal of time on [[neutrosophy]] and other articles, I have a feeling we're losing the war on pseudoscience, mainly due to an insufficient number of motivated skeptical contributors. I've been giving serious thought to advertising our cause on the major skeptical community forums.
Sometimes it seems that the greatest boost to pseudoscience is from ill-informed and self-appointed sceptics. Having more of them would only make the situation worse. They are often at such pains to disprove something that they extract a straw man from the proponent's material, and beat it to death. The proponent then sees the straw man taken out of context, and feels the need to defend his views. The sceptic's efforts end up as a parallel to feeding the trolls.
I don't really see any other way to do this, other than plain old-fashioned manpower. If any of these theories are truly idiosyncratic, we'll be able to save a lot of time if we can get them deleted. Other than that, we've just got to do the research, present the flaws, and contextualise.
Wrong!! The burden of proof for a scientific (or pseudoscientific) hypothesis lies with its proponent. Similarly, in a judicial environment the person making a complaint has the burden of proof, failing which he loses his case.and the defendant is under no obligation to say a word. The sceptic who chooses to make a direct attack assumes a burden of proof that did not exist prior to the initiation of his attack.
With most of these articles a simple respectful statement that the practice or topic is often regarded as idiosyncratic or unproven, etc. (intentionally avoiding the polemical word "pseudoscientific") is all that is required. Any further detail adds fuel to the fire. The place for many of these theories is as quaint and often amusing footnotes to the history of science. If a "scientist" feels that he is wasting a lot of time disproving these theories, he has no-one to blame but himself.
Eclecticology
Lainaus Tim Starling ts4294967296@hotmail.com:
After coming across [[reciprocal system of theory]] for the first time just recently, and after personally spending a great deal of time on [[neutrosophy]] and other articles, I have a feeling we're losing the war on pseudoscience, mainly due to an insufficient number of motivated skeptical contributors. I've been giving serious thought to advertising our cause on the major skeptical community forums.
I don't really see any other way to do this, other than plain old-fashioned manpower. If any of these theories are truly idiosyncratic, we'll be able to save a lot of time if we can get them deleted. Other than that, we've just got to do the research, present the flaws, and contextualise.
-- Tim Starling <tstarlingphysicsunimelbeduau>
I wouldn't be too disheartened. Remember that on wikipedia nonsense has to eternally keep glancing over it's shoulders. Eventually someone will notice it, and the heuristic of the system vastly favors sense over nonsense. Nonsense we will always have with us, but that is what being open means. The only nonsense that is secure is nonsense that is the current scientific paradigm. And such nonsense always exists as well. It is the task of scientists, not us encyclopedists to deal with that.
-- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick
P.S. This is my first post on the mailing-list. May it reach you all safely.