Just when you think you've got it figured out ... it changes!
I thought we had all agreed that the Neutral Point Of View policy requires Wikipedia to take no sides in any controversy. I harbored the belief that when it comes to [[protoscience]], i.e., discoveries of new scientific knowledge which have NOT QUITE been fully established, Wikipedia would avoid endorsing the new "knowledge" - at least pending final confirmation.
If astronomers at Harvard, and professors at MIT, are still disputing the truth of the new hypothesis, maybe it's too early to enshrine it as REALLY SO - and way too early to dismiss as [[pseudoscience]] all the skepticism which says that an alternate explanation is still viable.
Along comes Dr. William Connolley and his mates. They have simultaneously begun a WikiProject to delete articles which (in their view) promote pseudoscience, and, wait for it...
...actually nominated Connolley for adminship!
I marked up the nomination with strikeout text at four points and appended my signed corrections, and have been 3RR'ed into oblivion and threatened with my first-ever user block. What is this, the borking of Ed Poor?
We need to tread carefully on this.
Uncle Ed
I believe there is a problem see
[[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Climate_change_dispute/ Proposed_decision#William_M._Connolley.27s_objections_to_NPOV]]
Did not pass, to my regret.
Fred
On Jul 8, 2005, at 9:29 AM, Poor, Edmund W wrote:
Just when you think you've got it figured out ... it changes!
I thought we had all agreed that the Neutral Point Of View policy requires Wikipedia to take no sides in any controversy. I harbored the belief that when it comes to [[protoscience]], i.e., discoveries of new scientific knowledge which have NOT QUITE been fully established, Wikipedia would avoid endorsing the new "knowledge" - at least pending final confirmation.
If astronomers at Harvard, and professors at MIT, are still disputing the truth of the new hypothesis, maybe it's too early to enshrine it as REALLY SO - and way too early to dismiss as [[pseudoscience]] all the skepticism which says that an alternate explanation is still viable.
Along comes Dr. William Connolley and his mates. They have simultaneously begun a WikiProject to delete articles which (in their view) promote pseudoscience, and, wait for it...
...actually nominated Connolley for adminship!
I marked up the nomination with strikeout text at four points and appended my signed corrections, and have been 3RR'ed into oblivion and threatened with my first-ever user block. What is this, the borking of Ed Poor?
We need to tread carefully on this.
Uncle Ed _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Poor, Edmund W wrote:
Along comes Dr. William Connolley and his mates. They have simultaneously begun a WikiProject to delete articles which (in their view) promote pseudoscience, and, wait for it...
...actually nominated Connolley for adminship!
I marked up the nomination with strikeout text at four points and appended my signed corrections, and have been 3RR'ed into oblivion and threatened with my first-ever user block. What is this, the borking of Ed Poor?
Ed, do you honestly believe that it is acceptable, even for a fraction of a second, for someone to edit a Request For Adminship, and strike out text like "works well with other editors" and "would make an excellent admin" from the nominator's introduction??
If you oppose the nomination, you enter your vote in the Oppose section.
If you want to comment on the nomination, you make a comment in the Comments section.
I would have reverted your strikeouts in a heartbeat myself, and so would 99% of editors, I'll wager. Even if you DID write the policy on "changing other's comments". Actually, ESPECIALLY if you wrote that policy - I would put it to you that you should therefore be more likely to abide by it than most.
For the mystified:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/W...
Cheers! David...