[Foundation-l] Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing, was Re: Ban and...

[David Goodman]

I see it that way too. It is sufficient that if such questions arise
and are published, then we report on them.

On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 8:11 AM,  <wiki-list at phizz.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> millosh at gmail.com wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 08:54, ???? <wiki-list at phizz.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> > Quite right, the articles in other subjects are polluted with irrelevant
>> > details so why not pollute this class of article too?
>> >
>> > Mention it if it is a major factor in some controversy. For example if a
>> > number of research results are saying that X is useless for Y, and one
>> > report by the manufacturer says X helps in 90% of cases of Y. Otherwise
>> > as others have said who funds the research is noise. You might as well
>> > add in the funding for any research in the Computer Science articles, in
>> > the history articles, in the social science articles, etc, etc.
>> >
>> > Frankly if manufacturer research isn't providing correct data, for
>> > policy makers, and other scientist to work from that is a major problem,
>> > and probably illegal in some places too.
>>
>> It is hard to say that irrelevant details exist. It is just a matter
>> of time when once irrelevant, details would become relevant enough for
>> some article. I witnessed a number of times that one detail [inside of
>> a Wikipedia article] was irrelevant at one point of time, while fully
>> relevant a year or two later.
>
>
> At which point add the detail. Information can have a positive and
> negative effect on an article. Until it becomes relevant, given
> proper weight, and can be synthesised into the article, odd bits
> of data simply detract from the present real information. Its as
> if you go home and your partner starts telling you about the events
> of the day, minute details of their journey into work, the trip
> to the supermarket, your brother died, details of how they selected
> items from the shopping list, details of the journey back from the
> supermarket.
>
>
>> It is more about well or badly worded articles. And POV pushers have
>> developed badly worded articles into the state of art, by pushing
>> inside of, let's say, introduction the information which doesn't
>> belong there.
>
>
> And this stuff doesn't belong in the article space, putting it
> there simple provides a handle for the POV pushers to hang stuff
> off of. Shove it in some appendix or expansion of the reference if
> it needs recording. But as someone said in the talk pages, primary
> research does belong in the article space anyway. Let them POV push
> in an area that few will look in.
>
> However, if you want to see POV pushing on drugs trying these:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mephedrone
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MDMA
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2C-T-2
>
> where the molecules are being given cute little animations,
> someone might just as well have stuck little smiley faces
> on them.
>
>
>> Connection between scientific studies and their sponsors is very
>> relevant. It goes up to the point that it is important to know who is
>> a mentor of some PhD student. Forcing students to build foundations
>> for fringe theories of their mentors is a common practice. The only
>> difference between the present and past practice is in the complexity
>> of mathematics and amount of data behind the fringe science.
>
>
> Perhaps one should have a credits listing at the end of each
> article listing the sponsors all the references. Something like
> the last 5 minutes of a Hollywood film? To avoid any possibility
> of bias one would also have to ensure that the same thing happened
> with every reference to every article, on every subject. After all
> that reference might have been sponsored by Jews, Christians, or
> Atheists.
>
>
>> The fact that there are no independent researches behind some drug
>> means exclusively that. Encyclopedia doesn't describe controversies
>> exclusively, it gives useful information about described matter. And
>> sponsors belong to the set of relevant information.
>>
>> Let's say, it is historically very important to detect Leonardo da
>> Vinci's sponsors; or the fact that Tales of Milet was independently
>> wealthy; or the fact that not just funds were important in Copernicus'
>> decision to become quiet.
>
>
> The point is that information becomes relevant in retrospect. At
> the time it was news, which may or may not have been correct. One
> needs to decide whether the point of the project is to fulminate
> gossip, or to record facts.
>
>
>> There are much more scientists and inventions today than in past, but
>> it is equally important to detect context around them.
>>
>> It is sad to see that Wikipedians are showing the same kind of fear
>> toward more information, as classical encyclopedists was showing in
>> relation to Wikipedia. Again, there are no irrelevant information (or
>> the most of information treated as so are not irrelevant), there are
>> just well and badly worded articles.
>>
>
> Its not fear of information, its concern that the addition of
> minutia detracts from the main purpose of the article, and that
> it provides a handle for some agenda pushing. In these postings and
> on the talk page there are references to "Big Pharma". IOW some
> are looking to add this stuff simply in order to POV push.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



-- 
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG