[WikiEN-l] A definite version of WP:CRYSTAL

[Jay Litwyn]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Carcharoth" <carcharothwp at googlemail.com>
To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2008 6:46 AM
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] A definite version of WP:CRYSTAL


> On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 1:27 PM, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 2008/11/13 Jay Litwyn <brewhaha at edmc.net>:
>>
>> > Since I believe in global warming and I see a contest between it and
>> > economics, I see a very hot dispute that really should be off-loaded.
>> There
>> > are so many other places for volatile information to go. In other 
>> > words,
>> if
>> > someone did [[global warming]], I think they should expect to end up on
>> > another site, unless the article is restricted to history.
>>
>> I think this is going to end in tears - where do we draw the line? Do
>> we just not talk about global warming; do we talk about it as
>> something that is believed to have happened up to and including last
>> week; do we talk about it and imply it may continue to happen; do we
>> talk about it in general terms in the future but give no numbers?

You can say lots about the future. And I do not understand why synthesis 
from anyone has to be here, because there is so much you can say about the 
past without synthesis about what might happen in the future from anyone. 
You can talk about the mini ice age. You can talk about polar ice samples. 
You can put what has already happened to average temperatures on a graph. 
You can tell what happens in a glass vessel when it is filled with carbon 
dioxide or water or normal atmosphere and exposed to sunlight. You can 
explain the meaning of microwave samples made from satellites.

>> I'm not sure this approach is helpful; it tries to deal with a small
>> set of specific (percieved) problems by applying a draconian general
>> rule. I mean, take cosmology. We'd be a shoddy encyclopedia if we
>> didn't talk about the [[heat death of the universe]], a very
>> well-known concept... but it's entirely hypothetical, it exists as a
>> paper theory with some substantiating numbers, and it's several
>> billion years ahead.

Okay...you hav a point there. That is what the three laws of thermodynamics 
mean, and it has not been rigorously and unequivocally proven that they are 
immutable, except perhaps in the exhaustive sense, say in Perpetual Motion 
Machine.

Ginsbergès restatement of the three laws of thermodynamics (my keyboard is 
flaky):
1. You canèt win.
2. You canèt break even.
3. You canèt quit.

> Talking about the future is fine, as long as it is grounded in reliable
> sources in the present. I think the original intent of WP:CRYSTAL was to
> avoid original research and to avoid articles about future events becoming
> too disconnected from the present and becoming "in-universe" (to borrow a
> phrase from the debates about articles on fictional topics). In other 
> words,
> having an article about a future scenario, or an alternate history, or an
> alternate reality, or a fictional topic, should always be securely 
> grounded
> in what people have said in the past and are saying now.

Maybe I didnèt emphasize the other places for topics about the future 
enough. People will get it in unequivocal terms enough in the papers, while, 
if the policy is worded definitely, then our tone is not likely to become 
inflamatory. We write primers, graph trends of history and write numbers 
measured. Extrapolation is an exercise for the reader. Some people WANT 
global warming. So, you could do a fork into future.wikia.com Do you want 
global warming...YES (link to environmental consequences) NO (link to 
economic consequences). Actually, there are both for both choices, and 
fiction is not a strong point of my writing.