Establishing the truth of a proposition, however obvious, as this is, is not the purpose of Wikipedia, nor the purpose of categories. Categories are an aid to the reader to in finding information.
I don't understand the dichotomy you seem to be trying to uphold. Wikipedia provides information but not truth? What is truth?
Here's the start of our article on the Eiffel Tower:
"The Eiffel Tower ... is a metallic tower built on the Champ de Mars in Paris ... and is nowadays the most famous landmark and symbol of Paris."
This is information. And truth.
When we say "Homeopathy is a pseudoscience." we are also providing information by writing down a true statement. If I may paraphrase a couple of sentences from a certain sci-fi franchise:
"The first duty of every Wikipedian is to the truth, scientific truth, historical truth and personal truth. It is the guiding principle of Wikipedia."
When reasonable people interpret available data in different ways we try to describe each position fairly.
Then there are some unreasonable positions. Those are usually dealt with in separate articles and otherwise ignored. Here's an excerpt from the start of the [[Apollo program]] article:
"Project Apollo ... was devoted to the goal of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to Earth within the decade of the 1960s. This goal was achieved with the Apollo 11 mission in 1969."
There are many people who disagree with this but since their position is unreasonable it is not dealt with in the main article but relegated to a separate article. Now, *that* article will try to fairly present the views of those who believe that the Apollo program was a hoax. However, by choosing to privilege the reasonable view in the main article Wikipedia has *already* chosen a position, whatever category the hoax article is put into.
Or let's take [[Earth]]. Here's an excerpt from the lead:
"The planet formed around 4.57 billion (4.57×109) years ago and shortly thereafter acquired its single natural satellite, the Moon."
There are many people who disagree with this. We try to describe their positions fairly in separate articles, e.g. [[Creationism]]. The article on creationism may try to be scrupulously fair to the creationists but the bottom line is that Wikipedia has *already* acknowledged the scientific facts as superior to the creationist theories (at least the "Young Earth" variety) by including them in main articles like [[Earth]].
Including [[Creationism]] in [[Category:Pseudoscience]] is just icing on a cake that has already been baked.
Regards, Haukur
Haukur Þorgeirsson wrote:
There are many people who disagree with this. We try to describe their positions fairly in separate articles, e.g. [[Creationism]]. The article on creationism may try to be scrupulously fair to the creationists but the bottom line is that Wikipedia has *already* acknowledged the scientific facts as superior to the creationist theories (at least the "Young Earth" variety) by including them in main articles like [[Earth]].
Including [[Creationism]] in [[Category:Pseudoscience]] is just icing on a cake that has already been baked.
It's particularly foul-smelling icing, though. NPOV certainly is compatible with not giving minority or conspiracy-theory opinions undue weight by inserting them everywhere or making them seem as if they're mainstream, but at the same time outright name-calling is a little inappropriate. Saying, as Wikipedia, that Creationism is pseudoscience is across the line of good taste I think. Not mentioning the young-earth theory in the intro to [[Earth]] may imply that we judge it as not being a serious scientific position, but outright saying "Creationism is a load of horse-shit" is a little more inappropriate.
-Mark
Delirium (delirium@hackish.org) [050701 07:55]:
Saying, as Wikipedia, that Creationism is pseudoscience is across the line of good taste I think.
Saying Intellient Design is pseudoscience wouldn't be, though, as imitating science is its precise purpose. So how would you categorise creationism? Mythology, like [[Xenu]]?
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
Delirium (delirium@hackish.org) [050701 07:55]:
Saying, as Wikipedia, that Creationism is pseudoscience is across the line of good taste I think.
Saying Intellient Design is pseudoscience wouldn't be, though, as imitating science is its precise purpose. So how would you categorise creationism? Mythology, like [[Xenu]]?
We have an overview article [[Origin beliefs]], which seems to be a reasonably neutral yet succinct and descriptive term for the class of beliefs about the origin of the universe that lay outside the scientific community. How about [[Category:Origin beliefs]]?
-Mark
Ah, but "beliefs" is a touchy word. If you put "Origin beliefs" on the article about the Big Bang, I'm betting some people would get irritated -- "Science isn't about mere belief."
Of course, in a sense they're right -- if you take "belief" to just mean something held on unsubstantiated faith, then scientific facts are generally held to be a bit more than that. But of course the Creationists don't consider their beliefs to be of that nature either -- they're more than happy to give you what they considered to be reasonable substantiation! In the end it comes down to disagreements about methodology, interpretation, etc.
So what words to use? "Origin considerations"? Now we're getting into the absurd and the meaningless. The need to have some meaning indicates we will have to perhaps sometimes have some statements which are less neutral than others.
But I agree with the notion that Wikipedia will always reflect a certain POV. It is impossible to do anything truly "objectively" -- what would it mean to be an observerless observer? But I think the issues here are a bit more complicated than this. The Apollo moon landing article is mostly about what is most widely considered by *relevant authorities* to be true -- it doesn't matter if 60% of the world population doesn't believe it happened that way if 99% of scientists do, in my opinion, as this sort of knowledge is firmly within the domain of scientists to provide the best answers on. So they get the "unmarked" POV.
Of course, enough people believe that the landing was a hoax to make that a notable interpretation. There have been books, magazine articles, television programs, etc. about the question -- it is a relevant POV which must be addressed. And so at the end of the article it says, "See this other article for the hoax theory." (Not all alternative interpretations are notable enough to discuss at length, of course. Some require only a small paragraph and a link to provide enough relevant coverage, in my opinion).
I think writing "Homeopathy is a pseudoscience" is too strongly worded -- the question of whether certain aspects of homeopathy (not the diluting part, but the other "like helps like" part) is unclear. I've heard certain parts of homeopathy discussed by biologists and physicians in a positive light during a class at a major American state university. It is best to say, "Many aspects of homeopathy are considered to be pseudoscientific by the mainstream medical community" or something along those lines. Attribute the POV, "mark" it a bit, but honestly it is not a deep "mark".
FF
On 6/30/05, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
We have an overview article [[Origin beliefs]], which seems to be a reasonably neutral yet succinct and descriptive term for the class of beliefs about the origin of the universe that lay outside the scientific community. How about [[Category:Origin beliefs]]?
-Mark
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I think wikipedia will always end up taking the scientific view as long as the scientific view is the prevailing view in americn society
This of course is not to say that american society may not eventually change to a point of view where creationism is the main theory of life and the theory of natural selection is more of a minority opinion.
-Jtkiefer
Jtkiefer wrote:
I think wikipedia will always end up taking the scientific view as long as the scientific view is the prevailing view in americn society
What does American society have to do with this?
The scientific view is *not* the prevailing view in American society. Most Americans are Christians and believe in some form of Creationism or other.
Europe is quite a bit ahead ;-)
Timwi
On 7/2/05, Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote:
The scientific view is *not* the prevailing view in American society. Most Americans are Christians and believe in some form of Creationism or other.
Most? I would say that the creationists are a significant minority; I don't believe that they're a majority, at least not yet.
Kelly
Most? I would say that the creationists are a significant minority; I don't believe that they're a majority, at least not yet.
About 40% believe it, but the opinion of the general population isn't relevent when it comes to scientific matters--it's the opinion of the relevent parts of the scientific community that matter.
I should also note I love timwi's qualifier of "most" which isn't based on actual statistics and is just a blatant attempt at America bashing deeply hurts my feelings (see Wikipedia:No personal attacks).
---------------------------------------------- Nathan J. Yoder http://www.gummibears.nu/ http://www.gummibears.nu/files/njyoder_pgp.key ----------------------------------------------
On Jul 2, 2005, at 10:43 AM, Nathan J. Yoder wrote:
Most? I would say that the creationists are a significant minority; I don't believe that they're a majority, at least not yet.
About 40% believe it, but the opinion of the general population isn't relevent when it comes to scientific matters--it's the opinion of the relevent parts of the scientific community that matter.
I should also note I love timwi's qualifier of "most" which isn't based on actual statistics and is just a blatant attempt at America bashing deeply hurts my feelings (see Wikipedia:No personal attacks).
Don't worry - your attempt at bitchy rules lawyering makes me want to go read your contributions recently for the barest hint of a personal attack so I can ban you. (see Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point).
-Snowspinner
Don't worry - your attempt at bitchy rules lawyering makes me want to go read your contributions recently for the barest hint of a personal attack so I can ban you. (see Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point).
Wow, how incredibly childish. At least now we have it on record it that you're trying to find an excuse for banning me. I hope you're kidding here, since you would be violating WP:POINT which you stated there by attempting to do that, as well as breaking various other wonderfully ambiguous policies. I hope that was some odd joke referencing yourself as violating it, because I've done nothing that falls under WP:POINT.
I keep seeing defenses of bad behavior with admins under the guise that they occassionaly make mistakes, but that is a far cry from deliberately and very intentionally going out of their way just to retaliate against someone and disrupt Wikipedia.
I should also note that I am crying buckets of tears over calling my behavior bitchy, please read Wikipedia:No personal attacks.
Ah, I see. Perhaps you would like to look at the Mediawiki code and fix this problem then, because, honestly, you're the one who cares.
This is also childish and misses the point. It seems like you don't think admins should admit when they make false accusations and instead should blame the person who a bug caused a problem for for said bug existing.
That's not even high school level, that's like elementary school childish behavior.
---------------------------------------------- Nathan J. Yoder http://www.gummibears.nu/ http://www.gummibears.nu/files/njyoder_pgp.key ----------------------------------------------
Lesson of the day, calling an admin's (but probably not a regular user's) behavior disingenuous is a 'personal attack.'
Here's the direct quote which snowspinner deliberately looked for and blocked me for out of spite: "In any case, I just love how the admins here are trying their absolute best to disengenuously change the process in order to ensure their continued status."
That was from a discussion on the RfA talk page about whether or not blank oppose votes (And other oppose votes decided to be invalid for whatever reason) shouldn't be counted in votes for new admins.
Talk about a act of bad faith and an attempt to disrupt wikipedia to make a point!
I propose a question: what's the politically correct version of suggesting that someone's intentions are not honest? "I think that maybe, it seems to me (and correct me if I'm wrong), that this idea may be promoted, by some admins, as a less-than-honest method of trying to keep themselves in power. Again, I apologize if I'm wrong and will make a goat sacrifice if I have hurt anyone's feelings in saying this."
Maybe I should start keeping a list of all the "personal attacks" that admins use, but then that list itself might be seen as a "personal attack" using this warped bizzaro-logic.
Oh I should add that I didn't actually know this second block was in place until I tried editing my own user page and it was auto-reset, so yeah, it's kind of hard to argue it's not a bug.
---------------------------------------------- Nathan J. Yoder http://www.gummibears.nu/ http://www.gummibears.nu/files/njyoder_pgp.key ----------------------------------------------
Oh I should add that I didn't actually know this second block was in place until I tried editing my own user page and it was auto-reset, so yeah, it's kind of hard to argue it's not a bug.
Then go and do the correct thing, and make a request on bugzilla. Stop giving us earache.
Sam
On 7/3/05, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
Oh I should add that I didn't actually know this second block was in place until I tried editing my own user page and it was auto-reset, so yeah, it's kind of hard to argue it's not a bug.
Then go and do the correct thing, and make a request on bugzilla. Stop giving us earache.
This has been reported many times before, and discussed here on this very list. Judging by recent responses, it is NOT seen as a bug, by some people. In fact it has been stated that it is operating exactly as intended.
If it is operating as intended, then where in Wikipedia policy is this stated? I think you could search and search and never find it. In fact you would find exactly the opposite - that blocks are for specific periods of time.
Nathan J. Yoder wrote:
Most? I would say that the creationists are a significant minority; I don't believe that they're a majority, at least not yet.
About 40% believe it
# 45% believe that God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so # 37% believe that human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided the process.
That's 82%, which I call "most".
When asked by name whether they believe in or lean more towards the "theory of creationism" or the "theory of evolution", 57% indicated creationism, 33% indicated evolution, and 10% responded "not sure."
Again, 57% I call "most".
I should also note I love timwi's qualifier of "most" which isn't based on actual statistics
It is. See above.
and is just a blatant attempt at America bashing
No less blatant than your attempts at administrator bashing ;-).
Timwi
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: RIPEMD160
Timwi wrote:
Nathan J. Yoder wrote:
Most? I would say that the creationists are a significant minority; I don't believe that they're a majority, at least not yet.
About 40% believe it
# 45% believe that God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so # 37% believe that human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided the process.That's 82%, which I call "most".
Whoa whoa wait a minute before you start getting heavy-handed. The creationism which is possibly being called "not-mainstream-science" is /literal/ creationism - the "God made the world and everything in it in 7 days and the world is < 10,000 years old" type of creationism, the 45% figure. The 37% can be grouped into "mainstream scientific theory", which I assume would account for at least 15% of the other 18% - giving a total of 52%, which (unless I can't count) is *more* than 45% by, oh, 7% or so. The literal creationists are a minority, albeit a significant minority, but a minority nonetheless.
When asked by name whether they believe in or lean more towards the "theory of creationism" or the "theory of evolution", 57% indicated creationism, 33% indicated evolution, and 10% responded "not sure."Again, 57% I call "most".
Ah, but which form of creationism? Literal or otherwise?
I should also note I love timwi's qualifier of "most" which isn't based on actual statistics
It is. See above.
I find the interpretation of these statistics disturbing.
and is just a blatant attempt at America bashing
No less blatant than your attempts at administrator bashing ;-).
This is the ENGLISH Wikipedia, not the Yankee Wikipedia.
Your survey proves nothing about fact. Depending on how it was conducted, it may or may not indicate something about the opinions of the survey group, at the time the survey was carried out.
- -- Alphax OpenPGP key: 0xF874C613 - http://tinyurl.com/cc9up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, 'All right, then, have it your way.' - C. S. Lewis
Alphax wrote:
Whoa whoa wait a minute before you start getting heavy-handed. [etc.]
Sorry if I was being unclear. The first thing I said was that most Americans are Christians. The 82% figure supports this.
The second thing I said was that most Americans believe in some form of Creationism or other. That's the 57% in the other survey.
All figures were taken from [[Evolution poll]] and not out of my sleeve.
I find it interesting that people here seem to regard my assertion as an insult and immediately rush to America's defense.
Timwi
# 45% believe that God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so # 37% believe that human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided the process.That's 82%, which I call "most".
#2 is not the same as a belief in creation science. Plenty of people believe that God helped guide evolution in the same sense that God helps guide everything else, but that's not the same as creation science. I agree with alphax, the way that you're interpreting these statistics is a bit off.
When asked by name whether they believe in or lean more towards the "theory of creationism" or the "theory of evolution", 57% indicated creationism, 33% indicated evolution, and 10% responded "not sure."Again, 57% I call "most".
57% is just a simple majority, it would be misleading to refer to it as most. You're also pulling more meaning out of that statistic than there is. That question is asking which one they lean more towards, which is different from accepting a belief wholesale. It's clear from the statistic you cited before that the majority aren't accepting creation science wholesale.
Nathan, may I suggest you reply to the list only, and not to people privately? It can be seen as intrusive.
People have been doing that to me, so I've just been hitting 'reply all' since it's easier as well. I'll just do it directly to the list then.
---------------------------------------------- Nathan J. Yoder http://www.gummibears.nu/ http://www.gummibears.nu/files/njyoder_pgp.key ----------------------------------------------
On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 14:12:57 +0100 Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote:
# 45% believe that God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so # 37% believe that human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided the process.
That's 82%, which I call "most".
I think that's 82% of the US specifically though, no? For other Western countries the figure will be considerably lower.
When asked by name whether they believe in or lean more towards the "theory of creationism" or the "theory of evolution", 57% indicated creationism, 33% indicated evolution, and 10% responded "not sure."
Again, 57% I call "most".
Is that 57% of the 82%?
Well, there we go: We now have to rewrite everything in from a "creationism" POV --because external, independently unverified polls, with unknown demographic factors and unknown questions, have expressed an overruling of both science consensus and WP-local consensus.
Why is WP consensus not US general consensus? As people become more educated and involved in NPOV-based projects, the move toward rationality. NPOV requires at least a rational basis for article craftsmanship, which implies rationality in other areas.
IIRC, the typical MBTI for WPdians is quite different from the average majority. WP by default is represented by bookish, eristic types. PR crusades by any particular irrational POV, regardless of its representaion, is bound to fail, simply because belief=irrationality, hence not NPOV.
--- James Gibbon wikipedia@jamesgibbon.com wrote:
On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 14:12:57 +0100 Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote:
# 45% believe that God created human beings
pretty much in their
present form at one time within the last 10,000years or so
# 37% believe that human beings have developed
over millions of
years from less advanced forms of life, but Godguided the
process.That's 82%, which I call "most".
I think that's 82% of the US specifically though, no? For other Western countries the figure will be considerably lower.
When asked by name whether they believe in or
lean more towards
the "theory of creationism" or the "theory of
evolution", 57%
indicated creationism, 33% indicated evolution,
and 10%
responded "not sure."
Again, 57% I call "most".
Is that 57% of the 82%?
-- Dig It : a forum for Euro Beatles fans - http://beatles.dyndns.org/ _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Yahoo! Mail for Mobile Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail
James Gibbon wrote:
Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote:
That's 82%, which I call "most".
I think that's 82% of the US specifically though, no?
It would help to read the thread that led up to the message you are reply to before replying to it. It was specifically about Americans.
For other Western countries the figure will be considerably lower.
Fortunately, yes.
Timwi
The arrogantly anti-theist bent of recent posts to this thread are quite unfortunate. I particularly take issue with the following:
external, independently unverified polls, with unknown demographic factors and unknown questions, have expressed an overruling of both science consensus and WP-local consensus.
Why is WP consensus not US general consensus? As people become more educated and involved in NPOV-based projects, the move toward rationality. NPOV requires at least a rational basis for article craftsmanship, which implies rationality in other areas.
IIRC, the typical MBTI for WPdians is quite different from the average majority. WP by default is represented by bookish, eristic types. PR crusades by any particular irrational POV, regardless of its representaion, is bound to fail, simply because belief=irrationality, hence not NPOV.
That is exactly the sort of fact-dismissing POV pushing I have always combatted by use of books of reference, and basic logic. There is a reason why state-education fosters atheism, and it has nothing to do with facts or logic. In the US, according to a survey published in Nature in 1997, four out of 10 scientists believe in God. Just over 45% said they did not believe, and 14.5% described themselves as doubters or agnostics. This ratio of believers to non-believers had not changed in 80 years. The majority of academics however... I shudder to think.
Jack (Sam Spade)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: RIPEMD160
Jack Lynch wrote:
The arrogantly anti-theist bent of recent posts to this thread are quite unfortunate. I particularly take issue with the following:
external, independently unverified polls, with unknown demographic factors and unknown questions, have expressed an overruling of both science consensus and WP-local consensus.
Why is WP consensus not US general consensus? As people become more educated and involved in NPOV-based projects, the move toward rationality. NPOV requires at least a rational basis for article craftsmanship, which implies rationality in other areas.
This is the ENGLISH LANGUAGE Wikipedia, not Dubya's Yankeeville Wikipedia.
And don't you DARE call it Jesusland, you don't have a monopoly on God.
IIRC, the typical MBTI for WPdians is quite different from the average majority. WP by default is represented by bookish, eristic types. PR crusades by any particular irrational POV, regardless of its representaion, is bound to fail, simply because belief=irrationality, hence not NPOV.
Belief is not alway irrational. A large number of biologists believe in evolution. A large number of geologists believe that the earth is x billion years old. A large percentage of the Western world believes that the earth orbits the sun. Are those beliefs irrational, simply because someone believes them? Is something instantly irrational *just because someone believes it*?
That is exactly the sort of fact-dismissing POV pushing I have always combatted by use of books of reference, and basic logic. There is a reason why state-education fosters atheism, and it has nothing to do with facts or logic. In the US, according to a survey published in Nature in 1997, four out of 10 scientists believe in God. Just over 45% said they did not believe, and 14.5% described themselves as doubters or agnostics. This ratio of believers to non-believers had not changed in 80 years. The majority of academics however... I shudder to think.
You seem to be scared about something here. Might I ask what?
- -- Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \
Belief is not alway irrational. A large number of biologists believe in evolution. A large number of geologists believe that the earth is x billion years old. A large percentage of the Western world believes that the earth orbits the sun. Are those beliefs irrational, simply because someone believes them? Is something instantly irrational *just because someone believes it*?
Evolution can be backed up with evidence. That the earth is X billion years old can be backed up by evidence. That the earth orbits the sun can be backed up by evidence. Creationism can't be backed up by evidence, it is un-verifiable and un-falsifiable. Belief itself is not irrational. Belief that cannot be backed up can be.
-- gkhan
Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:
Belief is not alway irrational. A large number of biologists believe in evolution. A large number of geologists believe that the earth is x billion years old. A large percentage of the Western world believes that the earth orbits the sun. Are those beliefs irrational, simply because someone believes them? Is something instantly irrational *just because someone believes it*?
Evolution can be backed up with evidence. That the earth is X billion years old can be backed up by evidence. That the earth orbits the sun can be backed up by evidence. Creationism can't be backed up by evidence, it is un-verifiable and un-falsifiable. Belief itself is not irrational. Belief that cannot be backed up can be.
Belief is _always_ irrational. When making their leaps of faith scientists and creationists just happen to be leaping from different cliffs.
Ec
Agreed, or to some extent atleast. Note that it's really hard to prove alot of these theories also. (Especially the ones about things in space we aren't near..). If they were easy to prove they wouldn't still be theories. :)
On 7/30/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:
Belief is not alway irrational. A large number of biologists believe in evolution. A large number of geologists believe that the earth is x billion years old. A large percentage of the Western world believes that the earth orbits the sun. Are those beliefs irrational, simply because someone believes them? Is something instantly irrational *just because someone believes it*?
Evolution can be backed up with evidence. That the earth is X billion years old can be backed up by evidence. That the earth orbits the sun can be backed up by evidence. Creationism can't be backed up by evidence, it is un-verifiable and un-falsifiable. Belief itself is not irrational. Belief that cannot be backed up can be.
Belief is _always_ irrational. When making their leaps of faith scientists and creationists just happen to be leaping from different cliffs.
Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
See the article on [[Evolution poll]] for some depressing statistics.
It doesn't matter if the majority of the American people think that the world is flat or not -- this is not a question which is in their domain of knowledge.
We wouldn't expect the U.S. population as a whole to know how to calculate the effect of Jupiter on the Earth's orbit, would we? We would, however, expect astronomers to be able to do it. There are different domains of knowledge which are relevant to different questions.
The whole religion/science thing is about these boundaries. Is the origin of the universe a topic to be answered by science or the bible? Not an easy question. However it is clear to me, anyway, that the default, "unmarked" view to be represented in the article [[Big Bang]] is that of the people who are recognized to be the experts in it -- astrophysicists. That much seems easy.
But what about articles like [[Creationism]]? Now it becomes more contentious -- statements of "fact" become very questionable. Now statements like "The earth is thought to have been created X years ago" start requiring heavy attribution (i.e. to Bishop Ussher) where they didn't before.
I think the best approach is to attribute anything which would possibly be a "contested fact" -- any bit of information which someone might question the origins of. There is not much debate on the height of the Empire State Building -- there is no need to attribute such a fact. There is, however, some debate over the age of the universe, and so such statements should be attributed. And so forth.
But of course this doesn't really answer the question of which way Wikipedia should "lean" on such questions. I'm not sure there's a way to solve this from first principles -- it would be best if someone with authority (cough cough, Jimbo) would put out a decree saying, "Wikipedia should strive for NPOV as much as possible, but if there are questions as to which direction to lean in terms of very subtle unmarked POV, it should lean towards the POV of the relevant scientific community." At least, that's what I'd like the result to be, both for my own personal reasons, and because I think it would make Wikipedia a more reliable resource, but that's obviously up for objection.
FF
On 7/2/05, Kelly Martin kelly.lynn.martin@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/2/05, Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote:
The scientific view is *not* the prevailing view in American society. Most Americans are Christians and believe in some form of Creationism or other.
Most? I would say that the creationists are a significant minority; I don't believe that they're a majority, at least not yet.
Kelly _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Jun 30, 2005, at 3:47 PM, Haukur Þorgeirsson wrote:
Establishing the truth of a proposition, however obvious, as this is, is not the purpose of Wikipedia, nor the purpose of categories. Categories are an aid to the reader to in finding information.
I don't understand the dichotomy you seem to be trying to uphold. Wikipedia provides information but not truth? What is truth?
"What is truth?" Indeed, and we have an article on it, but that article could not be said to offer a definitive and exhaustive answer.
Here's the start of our article on the Eiffel Tower:
"The Eiffel Tower ... is a metallic tower built on the Champ de Mars in Paris ... and is nowadays the most famous landmark and symbol of Paris."
This is information. And truth.
Yes, the sun rises in the east.
When we say "Homeopathy is a pseudoscience." we are also providing information by writing down a true statement. If I may paraphrase a couple of sentences from a certain sci-fi franchise:
Homeopathy is also alternative medicine and is, by report, the school of medicine used by the Royal family of the United Kingdom.
"The first duty of every Wikipedian is to the truth, scientific truth, historical truth and personal truth. It is the guiding principle of Wikipedia."
This quotation may exist somewhere, but a Google search results in this return: 'Your search - Wikipedia "historical truth and personal truth" - did not match any documents'
Who says that and in what context?
When reasonable people interpret available data in different ways we try to describe each position fairly.
Right, but we ought not declare one viewpoint or another "the truth." At least not within Wikipedia.
Then there are some unreasonable positions. Those are usually dealt with in separate articles and otherwise ignored. Here's an excerpt from the start of the [[Apollo program]] article:
"Project Apollo ... was devoted to the goal of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to Earth within the decade of the 1960s. This goal was achieved with the Apollo 11 mission in 1969."
There are many people who disagree with this but since their position is unreasonable it is not dealt with in the main article but relegated to a separate article. Now, *that* article will try to fairly present the views of those who believe that the Apollo program was a hoax. However, by choosing to privilege the reasonable view in the main article Wikipedia has *already* chosen a position, whatever category the hoax article is put into.
Same with 9/11. There is no way we could feature the view that it was all cooked up by plotters in the Bush administration or that the building did not collapse but was demolished by planted explosives.
Or let's take [[Earth]]. Here's an excerpt from the lead:
"The planet formed around 4.57 billion (4.57×109) years ago and shortly thereafter acquired its single natural satellite, the Moon."
There are many people who disagree with this. We try to describe their positions fairly in separate articles, e.g. [[Creationism]]. The article on creationism may try to be scrupulously fair to the creationists but the bottom line is that Wikipedia has *already* acknowledged the scientific facts as superior to the creationist theories (at least the "Young Earth" variety) by including them in main articles like [[Earth]].
Including [[Creationism]] in [[Category:Pseudoscience]] is just icing on a cake that has already been baked.
Good cake.
Fred
Regards, Haukur
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 7/1/05, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
When we say "Homeopathy is a pseudoscience." we are also providing information by writing down a true statement. If I may paraphrase a couple of sentences from a certain sci-fi franchise: "The first duty of every Wikipedian is to the truth, scientific truth, historical truth and personal truth. It is the guiding principle of Wikipedia."
This quotation may exist somewhere, but a Google search results in this return: 'Your search - Wikipedia "historical truth and personal truth" - did not match any documents'
Who says that and in what context?
It's easily found in Google, and the OP indicated it was a paraphrase: "The first duty of a Wikipedian is to the truth--be it scientific truth, historical truth, PERSONAL truth. It is the guiding principle on which Wikipedia was founded!"
Phil Sandifer (sandifer@sbcglobal.net) [050701 10:12]:
On Jun 30, 2005, at 6:09 PM, Fred Bauder wrote:
Right, but we ought not declare one viewpoint or another "the truth." At least not within Wikipedia.
True enough, but it should be noted that the NPOV policy is also not a demand that we be ACTIVELY WRONG.
Indeed. Despite the cries of people who think that it must be an NPOV violation *because* they don't like an accurate categorisation.
Pseudoscience is an actual concept: something that presents itself as scientific but isn't. To the offended: "Too bad."
- d.
On 6/30/05, Haukur Þorgeirsson haukurth@hi.is wrote:
When we say "Homeopathy is a pseudoscience." we are also providing information by writing down a true statement. If I may paraphrase a couple of sentences from a certain sci-fi franchise:
"The first duty of every Wikipedian is to the truth, scientific truth, historical truth and personal truth. It is the guiding principle of Wikipedia."
You've mentioned four separate truths there.
I'm of the opinion that Wikipedia tries to serve all of them, not just the scientific truth.
In what order we serve them is the primary puzzle, and that differs on a case by case basis.
For example, I think mention of Creationism is perfectly appropriate for the article on [[Earth]]. Should it be the first mention? No.
Mention of the scientific explanation of the origin of the earth should similarly get mention in the [[Creationism]] article.
It's not our job to decide what view is the right one, even though we've all probably already made our own decisions. It is our job to catalog and present the views, preferably thoroughly referenced and cited, ordered by vague consensus judgements of levels of acceptance and importance, and then let the readers make the final decision of what they believe.
We are catalogers of existing third party views of the truth, nothing more. We shouldn't be here to judge the truth or falsehood of anything; only the level of acceptance of various views of the truth.
Michael Turley wrote:
On 6/30/05, Haukur Þorgeirsson haukurth@hi.is wrote:
When we say "Homeopathy is a pseudoscience." we are also providing information by writing down a true statement. If I may paraphrase a couple of sentences from a certain sci-fi franchise:
"The first duty of every Wikipedian is to the truth, scientific truth, historical truth and personal truth. It is the guiding principle of Wikipedia."
You've mentioned four separate truths there.
Four? I only see three in that list.
I'm of the opinion that Wikipedia tries to serve all of them, not just the scientific truth.
In what order we serve them is the primary puzzle, and that differs on a case by case basis.
If a person feels that he has been healed by Homeopathy, that is a personal truth.
Hahnemann's work in homeopathy, the adoption of the Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia byt the US government, and the preogress of legal cases about homeopathy are all part of the historical truth.
I considered scientific truth in my previous posting.
Ec
Haukur Þorgeirsson wrote:
Establishing the truth of a proposition, however obvious, as this is, is not the purpose of Wikipedia, nor the purpose of categories. Categories are an aid to the reader to in finding information.
I don't understand the dichotomy you seem to be trying to uphold. Wikipedia provides information but not truth? What is truth?
Here's the start of our article on the Eiffel Tower:
"The Eiffel Tower ... is a metallic tower built on the Champ de Mars in Paris ... and is nowadays the most famous landmark and symbol of Paris."
This is information. And truth.
When we say "Homeopathy is a pseudoscience." we are also providing information by writing down a true statement. If I may paraphrase a couple of sentences from a certain sci-fi franchise:
One of the first things to be learned in critical (or scientific) thinking is to distinguish between statements of fact and statements of opinion. To be most effective that approach must be applied with absolute rigour. Let's deal only with the Eiffel Tower statement, since it doesn't have the level of controversy that one might associate with homeopathy. That the Eiffel Tower is a metallic tower is a statement of fact; that can be directly observed, but even that assumes that there is no controversy about the nature of metal. That it is on the Champ de Mars in Paris is a statement of fact. The naming of places is arbitrary.
That it is the most famous landmark in Paris is a statement of opinion. Fame is a question of opinion. There is no way that you can go the Eiffel Tower and perform any physical test that will establish its fame. It is not a falsifiable hypothesis.
It is information, and it may be true, but it is not a statement of fact.
Ec
On 7/1/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
One of the first things to be learned in critical (or scientific) thinking is to distinguish between statements of fact and statements of opinion. To be most effective that approach must be applied with absolute rigour. Let's deal only with the Eiffel Tower statement, since it doesn't have the level of controversy that one might associate with homeopathy. That the Eiffel Tower is a metallic tower is a statement of fact; that can be directly observed, but even that assumes that there is no controversy about the nature of metal. That it is on the Champ de Mars in Paris is a statement of fact. The naming of places is arbitrary.
That it is the most famous landmark in Paris is a statement of opinion. Fame is a question of opinion. There is no way that you can go the Eiffel Tower and perform any physical test that will establish its fame. It is not a falsifiable hypothesis.
It is information, and it may be true, but it is not a statement of fact.
Actually, fame *is* measurable. The opinion of one person as to whether it is the most famous landmark in Paris is worth little, but the opinions of a large number of people count for a lot, because by definition, fame is a measure of knowledge. If more people know about the Eiffel Tower than any other landmark in Paris, then it is the most famous. It doesn't take a huge sample size to establish confidence in this fact. (Or to discover that the Louvre or Notre Dame or something else is more famous - just ask enough people, and you will know.)