[WikiEN-l] Ethics - conflict of interest - relia
Thommandel at aol.com
Thommandel at aol.com
Tue Apr 11 14:30:37 UTC 2006
In a message dated 4/2/2006 7:20:01 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
Thommandel at aol.com writes:
In a message dated 4/2/2006 1:32:51 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
guettarda at gmail.com writes:
The essence of NPOV is to be able to "write for your enemies". It's a
great
(and somewhat humbling) experience to write fairly about something you
disagree with or someone you dislike.
Sounds good, but what if the writing is not fair? How does the NPOV handle
that? What if the writing is contradictory data, and the admin says on
entry
(A) that it belongs on entry (B) and on entry (B) he says it belongs on
(A)?
Is that what you call Neutral
Where is the WikiEthics aritcle?
I posed a question to this community concerning cross editing. I am a new
editor focused on the plasma cosmology article. There are three other editors
who also edit the Big bang article. It is clear from what these three say
that they support the big bang theory. The big bang theory is the most widely
accepted theory of cosmology. Plasma cosmology is what they have called a non
standard cosmology. It is an alternative theory to the big bang. The primary
contention of plasma cosmology is that the redshift is not a Doppler effect.
The primary contention of the big bang theory is that redshift is a measure
of Doppler effects, and thus a movement toward expansion if inferred. Plasma
cosmology contends that the redshift is caused by some process such as the
CREIL effect. In short the big bang theory entire foundation rests on the
assumption that the observed redshift is a measure of velocity. Without this
velocity component there would be no reason for expansion, no basis for a
beginning, no need for Inflation, and no big bang.
Now, the three editors mentioned above are big bang advocates. They are over
here "to help us" they say. But their idea of help is to ignore what plasma
cosmology actually says, instead they edit to say it their way. And only
what they say is what goes up. Anything else gets reverted. (I'm not sure where
the contest started) They allowed an incorrect definition to stand for
months. They wrote in claims like "discredited by most cosmologists." And when
they were confronted with the new facts, they decided to ridicule and insult
those who would argue with them "disrupting the entire wiki process. and
threaten to RFC or Ban.
I went to your list, and asked about the ethics of editing a competing
article. The first answer I got was "a good wikipedian can edit as he damn well
pleases." There were the yes'es. For the most part general agreement that
editors can do as they please. On newbi wrote that if the edit is disparaging, it
is unethical. If it is positive it is ethical.
Well, scientists are not above ethics. Indeed, some values are placed higher
in science, and a greater ethical conduct is required. For example,
manipulating the evidence is especially ethically constrained.
To the degree that it is a different story at Wikipedia is the degree
Wikipedia distances itself from real science. Wikipedia then would become
Wikifiction
Tommy Mandel
More information about the WikiEN-l
mailing list