[WikiEN-l] The creationists are coming ..

[Guettarda]

On 9/7/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Erik Moeller wrote:
> > .. and they're going to spam our e-mail queue:
> > http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/09/wikipedia_youre_on_notice.html
> >
> > It would be nice to get some evolutionary biologists to review our
> > entries on the respective topics systematically. I suspect there's
> > probably a lot of creationist POV creep already.
>
> It would also be nice to get some creationists to review our entries on
> Creatonism and Intelligent Design systematically; I suspect there's a
> lot of evolutionist POV creep.


There is constant "creationist review" of these articles; new people come
along, raise complaints, and one of three things tends to happen:
(a) they are pointed towards the copious supporting citations,
(b) they point raise a point that gets discussed at length, often with the
wording being adjusted or (additional) supporting citations are supplied
(c) since they rant about evolutionist POV, but fail to supply concrete
suggestions, there is no progress.

Bear in mind that the blog posting admits that, in violation of WP:AUTO DI
employees have tried to alter the article to their liking.

One of the perennial complaints about the article is that it states that
"all" of the major proponents of ID are connected with the DI (the complaint
being that it should be changed to "most").  That sounds like an eminently
reasonable request, until it is examined carefully.  To begin with, the
statement is referenced and supported by sworn court testimony by both
sides.  In addition, no one has been able to come up with a major supporter
which isn't affiliated with the DI.  While it might seem like common sense
to replace "all" with "most" it would require replacing what sources say
with one's own opinion.  If a major proponent was found that was not
affililated with the DI, the statement might have to be modified to reflect
this, but even so, since "all" comes from an external source the article
would still have to reflect what the source says, rather than our
interpretation of what the source says.

Another perennial complaint involves the statement that ID supporters have
produced no publications in peer-reviewed science journals.  Again, this is
a statement from sources - it isn't really our place as editors to argue
about what constitutes "peer-reviewed science".  There is a list of
"peer-reviewed publications" which Dembski says he compiled in preparation
for the Kitzmiller trial.  This list has been posted to the ID page several
times to "disprove" the assertion.  However, the statement has not been
changed for three reasons: (1) while Dembski's list is presented as being
connected with the trial, Dembski withdrew from the trial, so it is just
speculation to consider whether he would have stood behind that list under
oath; (2) Behe, another major proponent of ID said that there are no ID
publications in peer-reviewed science journals; and (3) it's easy enough to
look at Dembski's list and see that most of the publications he lists don't
do what he claims (e.g., he lists a publication by Behe).

A third change that is made regularly to the article is to redefine ID into
something much more broad than the article currently addresses, usually
unsupported by references ("I think...") or, most recently, using a letter
to the editor to an Iowa newspaper by what appears to be just any old
person.

Ian


--
> Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
> Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
> "We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
> Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
>
>