I wanted to avoid this discussion, but I don't think I can, so here goes ...
Given its size, Wikipedia has an enormous responsibility to people everywhere. While most of us who work on Wikipedia know how to take its content with a grain of salt, the fact is that the vast majority of people simply turn to Wikipedia as a first (only?) source of reference. Like it or not, warn against it or not, for many it is "the" reference--the most accessible source for reliable information.
This can be dangerous. For instance, putting pet pseudo-scientific theories on Wikipedia gives them a certan credence that they would not get anywhere else. Often, those articles will be better sourced than the more conventional, standard entries on accepted scientific theories. People seeking information, who are not quite discerning, will turn to the net, see the article, see the copious references, and come to accept that as normative scientific fact, when actually the vast majority of scientists may well reject it.
Rather than consider this as hypothesis, it has already happened, frustrating some of the conventional scientists who edit this site. The debates over use of the Pseudoscience category tag are very telling in this regard. Wikipedia's goal is to report, rather than promote ideas. It can, however, happen that by giving unequal weight to spurious topics, we are doing the latter.
Danny
In a message dated 9/18/2007 10:42:46 AM Eastern Daylight Time, ian2@knowledge.co.uk writes:
I completely fail to see what's so magic in "encyclopedias" that they must not list bloggers or actresses. Specially when they are not bound by the limits of the paper.
Indeed. There are already encyclopedias on:
Pseudoscience http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedia_of_Pseudoscience
Star Trek http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Star_Trek_Encyclopedia
Ideas http://www.amazon.com/Encyclopedia-Ideas-Inventions-Concepts-Discoveries/dp/... 00QRZLTC
African Americans At War http://used.addall.com/SuperRare/url.cgi?=~=http://www.powells.com/partner/5... /biblio/1576077462=~=Powells
Homicidal Poisonings http://used.addall.com/SuperRare/url.cgi?=~=http://dogbert.abebooks.com/abe/... raRoute?pid=16143&url=http://www.abebooks.co.uk/abe/BookDetails?bi=891861039
Magical spells http://used.addall.com/SuperRare/url.cgi?=~=http://newbibliophile.ammonet-se... ices.com/ibooknet/search?submit=AddAll&bookId=550017&dealerLogin=unclephil&the _club=ibooknet
World Shopping http://used.addall.com/SuperRare/url.cgi?=~=http://dogbert.abebooks.com/abe/... raRoute?pid=43&url=http://dogbert.abebooks.com/abe/BookDetails?bi=975949410=~= Abebooks
Asteroid Names http://used.addall.com/SuperRare/url.cgi?=~=http://dogbert.abebooks.com/abe/... raRoute?pid=43&url=http://dogbert.abebooks.com/abe/BookDetails?bi=243339144=~= Abebooks
Singapore Business http://used.addall.com/SuperRare/url.cgi?=~=http://dogbert.abebooks.com/abe/... raRoute?pid=43&url=http://dogbert.abebooks.com/abe/BookDetails?bi=962933484=~= Abebooks
Regards,
Ian Tresman www.plasma-universe.com
************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
This can be dangerous. For instance, putting pet pseudo-scientific theories on Wikipedia gives them a certan credence that they would not get anywhere else.
We don't put our own pet ideas into Wikipedia. That is original research and prohibited. But we do include the sum of human knowledge, whether it's credible or not.
Otherwise by your line of reasoning, we should remove all the articles on Communism, slang, pornography, terrorists, dictators, morals, etc etc, just in case people get the "wrong" idea.
Let's take the prime example of pseudoscience "astrology", and its description on Encarta. http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761552380/Astrology.html It is not labelled "pseudoscience", not is it even criticised. Encarta does what any decent encyclopedia should do, describe it. Neutrally.
By the same argument, EVERY single article describing a model, theory and hypothesis is given extra "credence" by its very mention on Wikipedia.
Regards,
Ian Tresman www.plasma-universe.com
On 18/09/2007, daniwo59@aol.com daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
This can be dangerous. For instance, putting pet pseudo-scientific theories on Wikipedia gives them a certan credence that they would not get anywhere else. Often, those articles will be better sourced than the more conventional, standard entries on accepted scientific theories. People seeking information, who are not quite discerning, will turn to the net, see the article, see the copious references, and come to accept that as normative scientific fact, when actually the vast majority of scientists may well reject it.
This is indeed a real problem. We generally accept that we should give "due weight" to topics - relatively obscure theories, don't get treated at the same length as their more widely supported brethren, which is fair and even the fringe theorists mostly accept it (if only for a quiet life). Much the same applies to real things; we would feel it greatly inappropriate for [[History of London]] to be a tenth the size of [[History of Basingstoke]].
But there are things which are *so* obscure that, whilst they exist, covering them "as topics" at all can be argued as giving them undue weight. So what do we do with those?
daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
Given its size, Wikipedia has an enormous responsibility to people everywhere. While most of us who work on Wikipedia know how to take its content with a grain of salt, the fact is that the vast majority of people simply turn to Wikipedia as a first (only?) source of reference. Like it or not, warn against it or not, for many it is "the" reference--the most accessible source for reliable information.
It's not our responsibility to protect people from themselves. It should be sufficient to warn people prominently that a given article is not supported by the mainstream scientific community. People who fail to heed warnings do so at their own risk.
This can be dangerous. For instance, putting pet pseudo-scientific theories on Wikipedia gives them a certan credence that they would not get anywhere else. Often, those articles will be better sourced than the more conventional, standard entries on accepted scientific theories. People seeking information, who are not quite discerning, will turn to the net, see the article, see the copious references, and come to accept that as normative scientific fact, when actually the vast majority of scientists may well reject it.
Maybe. This seems to establish the point that the quantity of references is not determinative. Still, unlike the devotee sources, we also allow for contrary views. That alone may defuse the notion that these articles are dangerous.
Rather than consider this as hypothesis, it has already happened, frustrating some of the conventional scientists who edit this site. The debates over use of the Pseudoscience category tag are very telling in this regard. Wikipedia's goal is to report, rather than promote ideas. It can, however, happen that by giving unequal weight to spurious topics, we are doing the latter.
If the conventional scientists feel frustrated by having these articles, too bad!" That does not justify labeling the people who have differing views with the pejorative tag "Pseudoscience"; there are plenty of less controversial terms that can be used,
Ec
If the conventional scientists feel frustrated by having these articles, too bad!" That does not justify labeling the people who have differing views with the pejorative tag "Pseudoscience"; there are plenty of less controversial terms that can be used,
That's exactly what's going on. But it is not just "pseuodoscientific" subject, but even scientific subjects that deviate from the mainstream view.
Many mainstream scientific article exclude "minority" scientific views, even though they are peer reviewed. And when they are included, it is in the context of them having been "refuted", "disproved", "dismissed", and other weasely language.
Regards,
Ian Tresman www.plasma-universe.com
On 30/09/2007, Ian Tresman ian2@knowledge.co.uk wrote:
If the conventional scientists feel frustrated by having these articles, too bad!" That does not justify labeling the people who have differing views with the pejorative tag "Pseudoscience"; there are plenty of less controversial terms that can be used,
That's exactly what's going on. But it is not just "pseuodoscientific" subject, but even scientific subjects that deviate from the mainstream view.
Many mainstream scientific article exclude "minority" scientific views, even though they are peer reviewed. And when they are
Many mainstream scientists exclude "minority" scientific views, even before they get peer reviewed!
included, it is in the context of them having been "refuted", "disproved", "dismissed", and other weasely language.
Regards,
Ian Tresman www.plasma-universe.com
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org