[WikiEN-l] Re: Challenge to Sheldon Rampton re: global warming

[Jonathan Walther]

I have to rise to Ed's defense.  I have only seen Ed trying to make sure
all sides of the story are represented.  Presenting global warming as a
scientifically proven "fact" is disengenous, dishonest, and unethical.
It is a popular theory, yes.  But it is also a controversial one.  I
have every confidence in Ed's neutrality.

I myself have read a lot of things that call the global warming as
environmental disaster hypothesis into question.  Two particularly 
potent pieces:

    http://reactor-core.org/summers-lease.html
    http://reactor-core.org/skeptical-environmentalist-defended

I do not believe Ed's edits are religiously motivated.  Ed has shown
himself to be very open minded on every topic I have seen him touch.  I
would hope that those complaining about his edits to the global warming
article could learn to show the same open mindedness.

I will reply to specific accusations below.

On Sat, Feb 01, 2003 at 12:46:28AM -0600, Sheldon Rampton wrote:
>I must say, though, that I find it remarkably hypocritical for Ed to 
>accuse *me* of being disingenous with regard to inserting a POV. I'm 
>not going to debate him here about the scientific evidence on global 
>warming, but it's very clear that he has been assiduously lobbying to 
>inject his point of view into the article - a point of view that he 
>expressed quite clearly in the Talk page, where he stated, "The whole 
>global warming thing is a hoax, and 'warmers' have used statistical 
>manipulation (i.e., lied) to bolster their arguments." Clearly, when 

I have no religious or ideological motivation for saying this, but I too
have read both sides of the story and agree with Ed the global warming
as an unprecedented and imminent disaster seems like a grand hoax.

>someone resorts to calling other people liars, that's a strong point 
>of view, and virtually every edit that Ed has made to this article is 
>an attempt to inject this point of view by challenging the 
>scientificity of the global warming hypothesis and impugning the 
>motives of its proponents.

If you observed the unscientific and unprofessional way that proponents
of global warming have impugned and slandered those who point out flaws
in their reasoning, you would be giving Ed Poor medals for his
Christ-like mildness and forbearance.

>Ed has also injected a point of view into his articles about Sun 
>Myung Moon and the Unification Church. The article about Moon reads 
>more like worshipful hagiography than a serious attempt at biography. 
>It gushes about his "cheerful attitude" and "intolerance of 
>injustice," and states that Moon "had a vision or revelation of Jesus 
>Christ while praying on top of a tall hill," as though this were a 
>documented fact.

Who are you to say that these are not documented facts?  There is
nothing fanciful or alleged about them.  Ed Poor is in a unique
situation to have first or second hand knowledge of those things, since
his Messiah is still alive.

>The article on "Sun Myung Moon/tax case" consists 
>primarily of Moon's defense arguments and even includes a 
>first-person statement by Ed in which he first states as fact an 
>undocumented claim that the government made an offer to "drop all the 
>charges," and then writes that this is "a story circulated among us 
>UC members." It's clearly POV and a violation of Wikipedia policy to 
>inject first-person commentary based on church gossip into the actual 
>text of articles.

No, it is not POV.  And here is why:  Ed clearly attributed the story.
As has been drilled into my head over the past few months, NPOV doesn't
mean that common POVs are eliminated, just that they are stated
neutrally and factually.

>ostentatious wealth while expecting his followers to live in poverty. 
>I would do this myself, except that I'm not really interested in 
>writing about the Unification Church. And since Ed "believes 
>passionately" in his church, one of the "best ways to attain 
>neutrality" would be to have him be the one who makes these arguments.

You overlook the fact that Ed is putting the facts as he knows them into
the Wikipedia, in the most neutral way he can.  It is bad form to expect
someone to trash their own religion in the name of "neutrality", and I
think you should be ashamed to have suggested such a thing.

Jonathan

-- 
                     Geek House Productions, Ltd.

  Providing Unix & Internet Contracting and Consulting,
  QA Testing, Technical Documentation, Systems Design & Implementation,
  General Programming, E-commerce, Web & Mail Services since 1998

Phone:   604-435-1205
Email:   djw at reactor-core.org
Webpage: http://reactor-core.org
Address: 2459 E 41st Ave, Vancouver, BC  V5R2W2
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 307 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20030131/4ff9d4e4/attachment.pgp