Just when I thought the English Wikipedia had enough noticeboards, I happened to see this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard
I have to say I'm not optimistic about it. Looks like it could turn into the recruiting point for every content dispute slash witch hunt of the week.
I don't think it's very ethical, and definitely not in the project's interests to invite others to jump into edit wars involving events they know next to nothing about, particularly if it's something they had never heard of until ten minutes before they reverted back to some government's official explanation of it.
I'm not saying that doesn't happen already, but I doubt making it "part of the job" as an official wiki-process is going to help matters. Surely there are editors in good standing (and maybe even some admins) who really don't care who shot JFK or what happened that night in 1947. Just like there will be others like myself who, as readers, would prefer to learn about all the viewpoints and draw their own conclusions.
We should respect that, rather than pointing the "closet conspiracy theorist" finger around, if this is actually going to work.
The question should not be "lol, you mean you actually believe _____?", but more like "Is there a compelling reason not to acknowledge that many people do believe _____?".
Last warning though, if I see something like "How do you feel about WP:FRINGE theories, and will you <s>help patrol the following articles</s> assist us at WP:FTN if we support your RFA?" become a one of the 20 non-standard standard questions I will seriously cut myself.
—C.W.
From: "Charlotte Webb" charlottethewebb@gmail.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia:Fringe noticeboards/Theory Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 01:20:46 -0500
Just when I thought the English Wikipedia had enough noticeboards, I happened to see this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard
I have to say I'm not optimistic about it. Looks like it could turn into the recruiting point for every content dispute slash witch hunt of the week.
I don't think it's very ethical, and definitely not in the project's interests to invite others to jump into edit wars involving events they know next to nothing about, particularly if it's something they had never heard of until ten minutes before they reverted back to some government's official explanation of it.
I'm not saying that doesn't happen already, but I doubt making it "part of the job" as an official wiki-process is going to help matters. Surely there are editors in good standing (and maybe even some admins) who really don't care who shot JFK or what happened that night in 1947. Just like there will be others like myself who, as readers, would prefer to learn about all the viewpoints and draw their own conclusions.
We should respect that, rather than pointing the "closet conspiracy theorist" finger around, if this is actually going to work.
The question should not be "lol, you mean you actually believe _____?", but more like "Is there a compelling reason not to acknowledge that many people do believe _____?".
Last warning though, if I see something like "How do you feel about WP:FRINGE theories, and will you <s>help patrol the following articles</s> assist us at WP:FTN if we support your RFA?" become a one of the 20 non-standard standard questions I will seriously cut myself.
C.W.
Crikey. Well, I did create the thing, so I guess it's my job to police it so that it doesn't turn into witchhunt forum.
In all honesty, I think you're underestimating just how bad a problem fringe theory pushing is. You go and have a look at some of our more obscure articles, particularly on "nationalist" topics. Then check what the academic literature (not government propaganda, academia) actually says about the subject matter. Often the disparity between what should be written at Wikipedia and what's actually there is vast. It's so easy for an article, particularly an obscure one, to be taken over by a crank who just shoves his lonely point-of-view non-stop, shouts loudly, and wins through apathy, or through lack of eyes. The notability of the crank's theory is not discussed at all: he just includes it as fact. Nothing wrong with notable fringe theories being discussed, but non-notable ones promoted as fact?
Some of our articles stay in this awful state for years.
We have good mechanism in place for dealing with vandals, but a non-existent one for dealing with trolls and cranks, which are much more of long-term threat. Particularly cranks, because we have no effective method that deals with someone that shouts hard enough and long enough, promoting some whacko craziness. If you revert them, unfortunately that's a "content dispute" and you're "involved". You can revert, block, and ignore a vandal. You can't do the same to a crank, no matter how awful the stuff he's pushing is. Hopefully, having a place to report incidences of such nutcasery will help, though the problem won't entirely go away until we get binding content arbitration.
So why the noticeboard? Well, I think that it's not a bad idea to have some more impartial eyes on disputes concerning fringe theories. Not to encourage edit wars, but to deal with promotion of fringe theories as mainstream opinion(the main problem), and as a central place to talk about when discussion of a fringe theory that may (or may not be) notable should be included.
That RfA scenario is surely a bit unlikely, no?
Cheers,
Moreschi
P.S: "We do need to centralise discussion on fringe theory pushing, since a lot of it happens on out-of-the-way articles (geostatistics and kriging are examples I've seen, in which it's taken forever to recruit someone knowledgeable enough to push back versus a monomaniacal crank) -- it'd be great to have a single place to post problems for attention by experts." - Antandrus
"But articles that implicitly assert some of these things DO exist on the project, and while this might be better suited as a Wikiproject, that can always be changed going forward if the noticeboard turns out to be something useful." - Chairboy
Look at MONGO, having to deal with exactly this kind of nonsense all day and night.
_________________________________________________________________ Tell MSN about your most memorable emails! http://www.emailbritain.co.uk/
On 7/6/07, Christiano Moreschi moreschiwikiman@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
Crikey. Well, I did create the thing, so I guess it's my job to police it so that it doesn't turn into witchhunt forum.
In all honesty, I think you're underestimating just how bad a problem fringe theory pushing is. You go and have a look at some of our more obscure articles, particularly on "nationalist" topics.
Once I had CVU-like people telling me I underestimated how bad vandalism can be. Of course I wanted to say I'd been around longer and reverted more vandalism than they, and I'd never panicked about it, but I didn't think it was worth arguing. Then there was the spam-fighter generation who would prefer to delete an article about a product, or a company, or a shopping mall and ban the author. For implying that both potential assets could be salvaged, I was accused of underestimating the evilness of "spammers".
Conversely it has been asserted that I over-estimate the dangers of copyright infringement because I'm so... paranoid, you know?
Then check what the academic literature (not government propaganda, academia) actually says about the subject matter.
As most academia is subsidized by state governments, at least in the United States, this distinction might not be a gaping one.
It's so easy for an article, particularly an obscure one, to be taken over by a crank who just shoves his lonely point-of-view non-stop, shouts loudly, and wins through apathy, or through lack of eyes.
Please, Christiano, teach me how to do this. I always wanted to write a featured article. :)
The notability of the crank's theory is not discussed at all: he just includes it as fact. Nothing wrong with notable fringe theories being discussed, but non-notable ones promoted as fact?
Theories, even mainstream ones, shouldn't exactly be presented ("in-universe") as fact. For a more balanced article, assume everything is fictional, describe it to the best of your ability, and cite your sources. I try to avoid using the N-word whenever possible.
We have good mechanism in place for dealing with vandals, but a non-existent one for dealing with trolls and cranks, which are much more of long-term threat. Particularly cranks, because we have no effective method that deals with someone that shouts hard enough and long enough, promoting some whacko craziness. If you revert them, unfortunately that's a "content dispute" and you're "involved". You can revert, block, and ignore a vandal. You can't do the same to a crank, no matter how awful the stuff he's pushing is. Hopefully, having a place to report incidences of such nutcasery will help, though the problem won't entirely go away until we get binding content arbitration.
"Binding content arbitration" is the last thing we need.
So why the noticeboard? Well, I think that it's not a bad idea to have some more impartial eyes on disputes concerning fringe theories. Not to encourage edit wars, but to deal with promotion of fringe theories as mainstream opinion(the main problem), and as a central place to talk about when discussion of a fringe theory that may (or may not be) notable should be included.
Impartial eyes, if they exist, belong to people who really don't know or care about the content dispute, but they'll help you anyway because they think you're generally a good guy, and they can see that you're under a lot of stress and they just want you to be happy again. Recruitment.
That RfA scenario is surely a bit unlikely, no?
Not hardly. I've seen quite a bit of single-issue voting. Do you not remember when Doc Glasgow opposed over a dozen RFA candidates for being "too soft on BLP issues", or when Zoe voted in the arbcom elections based entirely on the candidates' view of the Seabhcan/MONGO remedies?
P.S: "We do need to centralise discussion on fringe theory pushing, since a lot of it happens on out-of-the-way articles (geostatistics and kriging are examples I've seen, in which it's taken forever to recruit someone knowledgeable enough to push back versus a monomaniacal crank) -- it'd be great to have a single place to post problems for attention by experts." - Antandrus
Let's not kid ourselves here. The person or people being recruited need not be "knowledgeable" when "agreeable" will do just fine. Where are you going to find "experts" who are not already editing the article? You would have to start recruiting off-site!
Look at MONGO, having to deal with exactly this kind of nonsense all day and night.
MONGO has been relieved of that "duty" as of 17 December 2006, despite the campaigning of Zoe and others on his behalf. Check out the evidence page for that if you ever get a chance.
—C.W.
On 7/6/07, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
Theories, even mainstream ones, shouldn't exactly be presented ("in-universe") as fact.
The earth is a reasonably well-approximated oblate spheroid.
Given that 0+1=1 and 1+1=2 2+2=4
Speciation happens
It is possible to analytically solve the Schrödinger equation for Hydrogen atom
These are facts. Presenting them as anything else would be misleading.
For a more balanced article, assume everything is fictional, describe it to the best of your ability, and cite your sources. I try to avoid using the N-word whenever possible.
Again doing so would be missleading. The earth centred solar system model is wrong.
On Friday 06 July 2007 16:44, geni wrote:
On 7/6/07, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
Theories, even mainstream ones, shouldn't exactly be presented ("in-universe") as fact.
The earth is a reasonably well-approximated oblate spheroid.
Given that 0+1=1 and 1+1=2 2+2=4
Speciation happens
It is possible to analytically solve the Schrödinger equation for Hydrogen atom
These are facts. Presenting them as anything else would be misleading.
The last three are, because they can be derived through pure reason.
But the first isn't. It's simply the current scientific consensus, based on the available evidence--but it could still be wrong.
On 7/6/07, Kurt Maxwell Weber kmw@armory.com wrote:
The last three are, because they can be derived through pure reason.
um no you can't derive Speciation happens through pure reason (you can't do the hydrogen one etheir but the reason is more complex.
But the first isn't. It's simply the current scientific consensus, based on the available evidence--but it could still be wrong.
Not really exra dimensions the size of the earth would be fairly easy to spot.
On 7/6/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
These are facts. Presenting them as anything else would be misleading.
I'm not talking about facts. I'm talking about unprovable and mutually conflicting theories.
Nobody's seriously dismissing Einstein as a nutter, but he himself admitted "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."
Such is the beauty of theories.
—C.W.
On 7/6/07, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/6/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
These are facts. Presenting them as anything else would be misleading.
I'm not talking about facts. I'm talking about unprovable and mutually conflicting theories.
Speciation is a theory
"The earth is a reasonably well-approximated oblate spheroid." is a theory.
The first conflictics with certian versions of creationism. The second conflicts with the Aristotelian model.
Nobody's seriously dismissing Einstein as a nutter, but he himself admitted "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."
Such is the beauty of theories.
If you are going to bring up falsificationism you could at least have the decency to credit Karl Popper rather than Einstein.
on 7/6/07 7:07 PM, geni at geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/6/07, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/6/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
These are facts. Presenting them as anything else would be misleading.
I'm not talking about facts. I'm talking about unprovable and mutually conflicting theories.
Speciation is a theory
"The earth is a reasonably well-approximated oblate spheroid." is a theory.
The first conflictics with certian versions of creationism. The second conflicts with the Aristotelian model.
Nobody's seriously dismissing Einstein as a nutter, but he himself admitted "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."
Such is the beauty of theories.
If you are going to bring up falsificationism you could at least have the decency to credit Karl Popper rather than Einstein.
http://www.laurasmidiheaven.com/Quotes/No-amount-of-experimentation-can-ever -prove-me-right-a-single-experiment-can-prove-me-wrong----Albert-Einstein-Qu ote.shtml
Marc
On 7/6/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 7/6/07 7:07 PM, geni at geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/6/07, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/6/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
These are facts. Presenting them as anything else would be misleading.
I'm not talking about facts. I'm talking about unprovable and mutually conflicting theories.
Speciation is a theory
"The earth is a reasonably well-approximated oblate spheroid." is a
theory.
The first conflictics with certian versions of creationism. The second conflicts with the Aristotelian model.
Nobody's seriously dismissing Einstein as a nutter, but he himself admitted "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."
Such is the beauty of theories.
If you are going to bring up falsificationism you could at least have the decency to credit Karl Popper rather than Einstein.
http://www.laurasmidiheaven.com/Quotes/No-amount-of-experimentation-can-ever
-prove-me-right-a-single-experiment-can-prove-me-wrong----Albert-Einstein-Qu ote.shtml
Marc
Marc,
Geni's point didn't go to the attribution of the specific quote, but rather to the fact that Popper (with such quotes as "*No matter how many instances of white swans we may have observed, this does not justify the conclusion that all swans are white.") *is much better known as an advocate of falsifiability than is Einstein.
I, of course, think that both get the point across quite nicely.
-- Jonel
on 7/6/07 7:33 PM, Nick Wilkins at nlwilkins@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/6/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 7/6/07 7:07 PM, geni at geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/6/07, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/6/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
These are facts. Presenting them as anything else would be misleading.
I'm not talking about facts. I'm talking about unprovable and mutually conflicting theories.
Speciation is a theory
"The earth is a reasonably well-approximated oblate spheroid." is a
theory.
The first conflictics with certian versions of creationism. The second conflicts with the Aristotelian model.
Nobody's seriously dismissing Einstein as a nutter, but he himself admitted "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."
Such is the beauty of theories.
If you are going to bring up falsificationism you could at least have the decency to credit Karl Popper rather than Einstein.
http://www.laurasmidiheaven.com/Quotes/No-amount-of-experimentation-can-ever
-prove-me-right-a-single-experiment-can-prove-me-wrong----Albert-Einstein-Qu ote.shtml
Marc
Marc,
Geni's point didn't go to the attribution of the specific quote, but rather to the fact that Popper (with such quotes as "*No matter how many instances of white swans we may have observed, this does not justify the conclusion that all swans are white.") *is much better known as an advocate of falsifiability than is Einstein.
I, of course, think that both get the point across quite nicely.
-- Jonel
Thanks, Jonel.
My error, Geni. Sorry.
Marc
geni wrote:
On 7/6/07, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/6/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
These are facts. Presenting them as anything else would be misleading.
I'm not talking about facts. I'm talking about unprovable and mutually conflicting theories.
Speciation is a theory
"The earth is a reasonably well-approximated oblate spheroid." is a theory.
The first conflictics with certian versions of creationism. The second conflicts with the Aristotelian model.
The oblate spheroid shape of the earth was not likely observable in Aristotle's time. Such a deviation from Aristotle's conclusion that the Earth was a sphere is trivial.
Nobody's seriously dismissing Einstein as a nutter, but he himself admitted "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."
Such is the beauty of theories.
If you are going to bring up falsificationism you could at least have the decency to credit Karl Popper rather than Einstein.
It's prmature to suggest that failing to mention Popper was indecent.
Ec
On 7/7/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
The oblate spheroid shape of the earth was not likely observable in Aristotle's time. Such a deviation from Aristotle's conclusion that the Earth was a sphere is trivial.
No because the Aristotelian model assumed perfect geometric shapes (see the shape of the orbitals). The perfect sphere thing also runs into problems if you manage to spot Baily's beads during an eclipse.
Such a deviation was not trivial at all then because it would involve tearing apart a key part of the model.
It's prmature to suggest that failing to mention Popper was indecent.
Ec
Popper provides us with a complete philosophy. Einstein less so
It also slows down the rate with which we can bring up Imre Lakatos and then Paul Feyerabend and start punching holes on the claim.
geni wrote:
On 7/7/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
The oblate spheroid shape of the earth was not likely observable in Aristotle's time. Such a deviation from Aristotle's conclusion that the Earth was a sphere is trivial.
No because the Aristotelian model assumed perfect geometric shapes (see the shape of the orbitals). The perfect sphere thing also runs into problems if you manage to spot Baily's beads during an eclipse.
Did Aristotle ever observe Baily's beads? How perfect is a perfect sphere. Aristotle never denied the existence of hills and mountains.
Such a deviation was not trivial at all then because it would involve tearing apart a key part of the model.
It's trivial enough to be beyond the observational powers of the time.
It's prmature to suggest that failing to mention Popper was indecent.
Ec
Popper provides us with a complete philosophy. Einstein less so
It also slows down the rate with which we can bring up Imre Lakatos and then Paul Feyerabend and start punching holes on the claim.
Charlotte did not mention falsificationism and Popper, you did. You also introduced the word "decent." It is presumptuous to suggest that she even knew about Popper.
Ec
It's trivial enough to be beyond the observational powers of the time.
What do the observational powers of the time have to do with it? We're not talking about the history of science, here, we're talking about modern fringe theories. Anyone still believing the Aristotelian theory in spite of modern observations is simply being irrational. Aristotle didn't know any better, people today do.
On 7/8/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
geni wrote:
On 7/7/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
The oblate spheroid shape of the earth was not likely observable in Aristotle's time. Such a deviation from Aristotle's conclusion that the Earth was a sphere is trivial.
No because the Aristotelian model assumed perfect geometric shapes (see the shape of the orbitals). The perfect sphere thing also runs into problems if you manage to spot Baily's beads during an eclipse.
Did Aristotle ever observe Baily's beads?
Not that we know of but they were observable (mid you technically the Greeks could have built telescopes and observed the mountains on the moon directly)
How perfect is a perfect sphere. Aristotle never denied the existence of hills and mountains.
The Aristotelian Model treated the earth slightly differently from the heavens. While in the case of the moon some corruption from earth was suggested I don't think that included mountains. Not sure what they thought of sun spots (can just about be seen with the naked eye in some cases).
Such a deviation was not trivial at all then because it would involve tearing apart a key part of the model.
It's trivial enough to be beyond the observational powers of the time.
Tycho Brahe demonstrated this is not the case.
Charlotte did not mention falsificationism and Popper, you did. You also introduced the word "decent." It is presumptuous to suggest that she even knew about Popper.
Trying to argue the philosophy of science without knowing about Popper would be tricky.
On 0, geni geniice@gmail.com scribbled:
On 7/7/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
The oblate spheroid shape of the earth was not likely observable in Aristotle's time. Such a deviation from Aristotle's conclusion that the Earth was a sphere is trivial.
No because the Aristotelian model assumed perfect geometric shapes (see the shape of the orbitals). The perfect sphere thing also runs into problems if you manage to spot Baily's beads during an eclipse.
Such a deviation was not trivial at all then because it would involve tearing apart a key part of the model.
It's premature to suggest that failing to mention Popper was indecent.
Ec
Popper provides us with a complete philosophy. Einstein less so
It also slows down the rate with which we can bring up Imre Lakatos and then Paul Feyerabend and start punching holes on the claim.
-- geni
Oooh, and then can we begin discussing how Hempel's Raven paradox eluicidates precisely why confirmatory instances do so much less than disconfirmatory instances, and from there move on to a discussion of Bayesian vs. frequentists interpretations of observation and theory? (Possibly bringing a bit of computer science's denotational semantics by way of digital philosophy?)
-- gwern IM IN UR UTILITY FUNCTION, DECREASING UR CONFIDENCE INTERVALS
Oooh, and then can we begin discussing how Hempel's Raven paradox eluicidates precisely why confirmatory instances do so much less than disconfirmatory instances, and from there move on to a discussion of Bayesian vs. frequentists interpretations of observation and theory? (Possibly bringing a bit of computer science's denotational semantics by way of digital philosophy?)
No.
On 08/07/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Oooh, and then can we begin discussing how Hempel's Raven paradox eluicidates precisely why confirmatory instances do so much less than disconfirmatory instances, and from there move on to a discussion of Bayesian vs. frequentists interpretations of observation and theory? (Possibly bringing a bit of computer science's denotational semantics by way of digital philosophy?)
No.
No, you need to be a bunch of Wikipedians down the pub boring any non-encyclopedists unfortunate enough to be stuck at your table.
- d.
The proposal might have been based on a desire to exclude significant pseudoscience criticism of scientific theories, rather than to keep them proportional. I agree that they are sometimes over-expansively treated, but I also see where they are not treated adequately. I consequently have suggested modifying the text to say
"this noticeboard is designed to deal...with fringe theories being pushed onto existing articles, or with attempts to remove such discussions when justified." "and cases where those primarily working on a page try to exclude appropriate mention of such theories. "
So far these modifications remain. Properly seen, the board might well serve to attract the attention of those who are of both views, and therefore diminish the effect of the small cliques that can form at particular articles. DGG
On 7/8/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 08/07/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Oooh, and then can we begin discussing how Hempel's Raven paradox eluicidates precisely why confirmatory instances do so much less than disconfirmatory instances, and from there move on to a discussion of Bayesian vs. frequentists interpretations of observation and theory? (Possibly bringing a bit of computer science's denotational semantics by way of digital philosophy?)
No.
No, you need to be a bunch of Wikipedians down the pub boring any non-encyclopedists unfortunate enough to be stuck at your table.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Charlotte Webb wrote:
On 7/6/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
These are facts. Presenting them as anything else would be misleading.
I'm not talking about facts. I'm talking about unprovable and mutually conflicting theories.
Nobody's seriously dismissing Einstein as a nutter, but he himself admitted "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."
Such is the beauty of theories.
One who does not appreciate the role of theories ends up with the factual notion that God created the world in six days.
We don't now consider Einstein a nutter, but that wasn't always the case. One also needs to allow for the possibility that mutually conflicting theories may both be right.. We are not in a position to do the original research necessary to prove that premise. We can cite the proofs that others have given. If it results in antinomy, I'm prepared to live with that.
Perhaps the one big failing of our Aristotelian tradition is the belief that there must be a right answer that logically excludes all others.
Ec