[WikiEN-l] Wikipedia is *already* written from a scientific POV

[Fred Bauder]

On Jun 30, 2005, at 3:47 PM, Haukur Þorgeirsson wrote:

>> Establishing the truth of a proposition, however obvious, as this is,
>> is not the purpose of Wikipedia, nor the purpose of categories.
>> Categories are an aid to the reader to in finding information.
>>
>
> I don't understand the dichotomy you seem
> to be trying to uphold. Wikipedia provides
> information but not truth? What is truth?

"What is truth?" Indeed, and we have an article on it, but that  
article could not be said to offer a definitive and exhaustive answer.

> Here's the start of our article on the Eiffel Tower:
>
> "The Eiffel Tower ... is a metallic tower built
> on the Champ de Mars in Paris ... and is nowadays
> the most famous landmark and symbol of Paris."
>
> This is information. And truth.

Yes, the sun rises in the east.

>
> When we say "Homeopathy is a pseudoscience."
> we are also providing information by writing
> down a true statement. If I may paraphrase
> a couple of sentences from a certain sci-fi
> franchise:

Homeopathy is also alternative medicine and is, by report, the school  
of medicine used by the Royal family of the United Kingdom.

>
> "The first duty of every Wikipedian is to the truth,
> scientific truth, historical truth and personal truth.
> It is the guiding principle of Wikipedia."

This quotation may exist somewhere, but a Google search results in  
this return:
'Your search - Wikipedia "historical truth and personal truth" - did  
not match any documents'

Who says that and in what context?

>
> When reasonable people interpret available data
> in different ways we try to describe each position
> fairly.

Right, but we ought not declare one viewpoint or another "the truth."  
At least not within Wikipedia.

>
> Then there are some unreasonable positions. Those
> are usually dealt with in separate articles and
> otherwise ignored. Here's an excerpt from the
> start of the [[Apollo program]] article:
>
> "Project Apollo ... was devoted to the goal of landing a man on the  
> Moon
> and returning him safely to Earth within the decade of the 1960s. This
> goal was achieved with the Apollo 11 mission in 1969."
>
> There are many people who disagree with this but
> since their position is unreasonable it is not dealt
> with in the main article but relegated to a separate
> article. Now, *that* article will try to fairly present
> the views of those who believe that the Apollo program
> was a hoax. However, by choosing to privilege the
> reasonable view in the main article Wikipedia has
> *already* chosen a position, whatever category the
> hoax article is put into.

Same with 9/11. There is no way we could feature the view that it was  
all cooked up by plotters in the Bush administration or that the  
building did not collapse but was demolished by planted explosives.

>
> Or let's take [[Earth]]. Here's an excerpt from the lead:
>
> "The planet formed around 4.57 billion (4.57×109) years ago and  
> shortly
> thereafter acquired its single natural satellite, the Moon."
>
> There are many people who disagree with this. We try to
> describe their positions fairly in separate articles,
> e.g. [[Creationism]]. The article on creationism may
> try to be scrupulously fair to the creationists but the
> bottom line is that Wikipedia has *already* acknowledged
> the scientific facts as superior to the creationist
> theories (at least the "Young Earth" variety) by
> including them in main articles like [[Earth]].
>
> Including [[Creationism]] in [[Category:Pseudoscience]]
> is just icing on a cake that has already been baked.

Good cake.

Fred

>
> Regards,
> Haukur
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>