Hi all,
A new user named Mr-Natural-Health has created a number of new articles in recent days which are disturbingly non-neutral -- this individual has an axe to grind with mainstream medicine. See:
Allopathy Natural Health Natural therapy Heroic medicine Patient empowerment
Though several are currently listed on Cleanup and have been edited a bit, VfD might be a better place, since they are so slanted that deleting and starting anew is probably the wisest strategy. However, if anyone would like to lend hand and try to salvage something...
V.
On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 06:10:40PM +0100, Viajero wrote:
Hi all,
A new user named Mr-Natural-Health has created a number of new articles in recent days which are disturbingly non-neutral -- this individual has an axe to grind with mainstream medicine. See:
Mr-Natural-Health is not in a very collaborative mood either. They called me names on the talk page of one of those articles and on their user page, but they seem to have edited it out now.
Allopathy Natural Health Natural therapy Heroic medicine Patient empowerment
Though several are currently listed on Cleanup and have been edited a bit, VfD might be a better place, since they are so slanted that deleting and starting anew is probably the wisest strategy. However, if anyone would like to lend hand and try to salvage something...
Just my opinion, but if you try to salvage something you'll probably be met with even more propaganda. Better to start from scratch. That way we can incorporate only those points which MNH has written which seem to constitute a legitimate alternate viewpoint rather than NPOVing the whole lot of it.
Arvind
V. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 12/01/03 at 10:52 PM, Arvind Narayanan arvindn@meenakshi.cs.iitm.ernet.in said:
Mr-Natural-Health is not in a very collaborative mood either. They called me names on the talk page of one of those articles and on their user page, but they seem to have edited it out now.
I saw that. Mr N-H thinks that people that interfere with his articles are "vandals" and "busy-bodies" who "don't have a life".
V.
On Monday 01 December 2003 12:10, Viajero wrote:
Hi all,
A new user named Mr-Natural-Health has created a number of new articles in recent days which are disturbingly non-neutral -- this individual has an axe to grind with mainstream medicine. See:
Allopathy Natural Health Natural therapy Heroic medicine Patient empowerment
Though several are currently listed on Cleanup and have been edited a bit, VfD might be a better place, since they are so slanted that deleting and starting anew is probably the wisest strategy. However, if anyone would like to lend hand and try to salvage something...
V.
This person needs a stern talking to. From his user page: under "modified pages" "Alternative medicine - I cleaned up this article. I removed the anti-bias and made it pro-alternative medicine."
under "Interests" "To get important natural health related information and definitions in an Internet accessible encyclopedia / dictionary."
It is clear that /his/her/its purpose is to inject their POV and remove that of others.
Best, Sascha Noyes
Sascha Noyes wrote:
This person needs a stern talking to. From his user page: under "modified pages" "Alternative medicine - I cleaned up this article. I removed the anti-bias and made it pro-alternative medicine."
under "Interests" "To get important natural health related information and definitions in an Internet accessible encyclopedia / dictionary."
It is clear that /his/her/its purpose is to inject their POV and remove that of others.
So he's trying to put his own spin on things. How is that so different from what most Wikipedians are trying to accomplish? Announcing areas of interest is pretty normal.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
This person needs a stern talking to. From his user page: under "modified pages" "Alternative medicine - I cleaned up this article. I removed the anti-bias and made it pro-alternative medicine."
under "Interests" "To get important natural health related information and definitions in an Internet accessible encyclopedia / dictionary."
It is clear that /his/her/its purpose is to inject their POV and remove that of others.
So he's trying to put his own spin on things. How is that so different from what most Wikipedians are trying to accomplish? Announcing areas of interest is pretty normal.
But doesn't that first one go pretty far beyond announcing an area of interest? We don't want articles to be "pro-alternative medicine" or "anti-alternative medicine".
Certainly, if he came across an anti-biased article, and made it more neutral, that's wonderful, not a problem at all. But if his intention is to make it pro-, hmmm, not really right, eh?
The second one, I agree, is a perfectly valid goal.
--Jimbo
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
From his user page:
under "modified pages" "Alternative medicine - I cleaned up this article. I removed the anti-bias and made it pro-alternative medicine."
under "Interests" "To get important natural health related information and definitions in an Internet accessible encyclopedia / dictionary."
It is clear that /his/her/its purpose is to inject their POV and remove that of others.
So he's trying to put his own spin on things. How is that so different from what most Wikipedians are trying to accomplish? Announcing areas of interest is pretty normal.
But doesn't that first one go pretty far beyond announcing an area of interest? We don't want articles to be "pro-alternative medicine" or "anti-alternative medicine".
Certainly, if he came across an anti-biased article, and made it more neutral, that's wonderful, not a problem at all. But if his intention is to make it pro-, hmmm, not really right, eh?
How precise are people when writing to their own user pages? I don't pay much attention to mine, while others seem diligent in trying to take credit for every contribution they make. He might have said "made it *more* pro-alternative medicine" and it would have seemed less absolute by adding just one word. What I found remarkable about the articles was (at least a couple days ago) the lack of activity on the talk pages.
There are serious difficulties in dealing with any kind of alternative science topic. There is a tendency for the supporters of mainstream science to believe that there way is the only right way even when there is no evidence to that effect. Often there is no convincing evidence at all. This does not mean that every weird and wonderful idea that comes along should be treated as serious science, just that critics of the mainstream view should be accorded their fair share of respect.
Ec
On 12/04/03 at 05:21 PM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net said:
What I found remarkable about the articles was (at least a couple days ago) the lack of activity on the talk pages.
Most of the activity the past few days has been here: Talk:Alternative medicine
I for one would like to see better coverage of alternative therapies in Wikipedia; the last time I looked, the acupuncture page, for one, was way out of date and pretty bad. Maybe Mr NH will be able to help out in due time, but my first impression is that he is strident and condescending.
V.
G'day Ray, G'day Sascha
At 01:54 AM 2/12/03 -0800, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Sascha Noyes wrote:
This person needs a stern talking to.
From his user page:
under "modified pages" "Alternative medicine - I cleaned up this article. I removed the anti-bias and made it pro-alternative medicine."
under "Interests" "To get important natural health related information and definitions in an Internet accessible encyclopedia / dictionary."
It is clear that /his/her/its purpose is to inject their POV and remove that of others.
So he's trying to put his own spin on things. How is that so different from what most Wikipedians are trying to accomplish? Announcing areas of interest is pretty normal.
Ec
Having had a quick look at the article history, I'd have to agree with Sascha.
The first quote about making it pro alternative medicine was exactly what this user did. The worst of it has already been removed. I haven't looked to see whether his claim of anti alternative medicine POV in what he found there is true, but what he left was certainly pro alternative medicine POV, it read just like a pamphlet you might pick up in a practitioner's waiting room.
But there have been no reversion wars so far that I can see, despite some corrections to the worst of his rhetoric. So it's possible that he will quickly get the idea of NPOV and even accept it. If he's as heavily involved in alternative medicine as I suspect, he may be a very good source of information on the subject.
I expect some Wikipedians regard alternative medicine as all gospel, and others regard it as all quackery. So to come up with a generally accepted NPOV will be quite a challenge, but IMO not an impossibility.
Andrew A
**** andrewa @ alder . ws http://www.zeta.org.au/~andrewa Phone 9441 4476 Mobile 04 2525 4476 ****
--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.532 / Virus Database: 326 - Release Date: 27/10/03
Viajero wrote:
A new user named Mr-Natural-Health has created a number of new articles in recent days which are disturbingly non-neutral -- this individual has an axe to grind with mainstream medicine. See:
Allopathy Natural Health Natural therapy Heroic medicine Patient empowerment
Though several are currently listed on Cleanup and have been edited a bit, VfD might be a better place, since they are so slanted that deleting and starting anew is probably the wisest strategy. However, if anyone would like to lend hand and try to salvage something...
I've looked through these articles, and they don't seem bad at all. His article writing doesn't seem to be from someone with an axe to grind. He basically tries to explain what these concepts are. His opponents seem to have put themselves into a defensive shell without doing much to try to reach a compromise. A couple of the articles haven't had single word put onto the talk page. The Allopathy talk page has even been bizarrely redirected to [[Talk:Criticisms of modern medicines]] in a way that does not respect that the allopathy's meaning has undergone significant variation since it was first used by Hahneman.
The level of intolerance coming from supporters of mainstream views is highly disturbing. The suggestion that these articles should be deleted has no foundation in any wiki principles, but suggests that the bully tactics of some kind of truth squad can prevail.
Knowledge flourishes in circumstances of openness. Brain-storming is a technique in some meetings that encourages participants to express their ideas without fear of ridicule. We all need to feel that we can continue to contribute without perpetually feeling that those with different views will quash our efforts.
Ec