Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:38, 28 January 2008

Given the level of dysfunction that has come to prevail on Misplaced Pages, the most appropriate course for a principled scientist is to withdraw from the project.

The bureaucracy should either take corrective steps to fix this situation, or else suffer the eventual loss of huge amounts of valuable talent and volunteered resources.

If you agree with this statement, post it to your pages, and pass it on. (discuss this here)

Archives

Barnstars Humor Mainpage ToDo Staging Area 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Fact, theory and a new journal

This article is likely to interest you, found via the links shown at Talk:evolution.... dave souza, talk 00:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Evolution resource

Just wanted to share this link, it's for the new "big" textbook on Evolution. Amazingly, most of the figures from the book are available free of charge on the web page, so it's a really useful resource. It may be a useful external link on some articles. I've added it to a few, maybe you can see further uses.

http://www.evolution-textbook.org/

I also messaged Dave Souza and Adam Cuerden. Samsara (talk • contribs) 19:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Improving things and trying to increase efficiency

"We just have to keep some level of control on these things so we grow in a rational fashion" - <shakes head wryly> Ah, if only we had all been here when the first Misplaced Pages pages were being created! :-) Sometimes I find it helps to look at the very first version of an article, or in the case of homeopathy, the first version after the great software change in December 2001. See here. And I see Hamlet is today's featured article. The first version of Hamlet, from July 2001, is classic. Over two years later, in September 2003, it looked like this. Carcharoth (talk) 00:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course things are getting better. But let me tell you a little story. Let's consider evolution. Now if you look at evolution, it has improved drastically and outside reviewers have even said it was something like you would get from a junior faculty member or better. However, just a year or two ago, evolution was embattled and under seige. Huge attacks by hordes of creationists and POV warriors. It was downgraded from an FA and maybe wasnt even a GA anymore and was getting worse steadily, while editors quit one after another and the article slowly was eroding. It was a constant effort to even slow the decline as things got worse and worse, and there were extremely heated fights on the talk page between pro and anti-science forces.

What happened to turn it around?

Well, we did several things:

• We created an FAQ on the talk page
• We organized the history to avoid arguing the same thing 10,000 times, so we could just point to the previous argument
• We created introduction to evolution to draw off people from the main page who did not understand it anyway
• We farmed out the troll bait and creationist material to a suite of daughter articles, mostly well written and addressing the most common complaints
• We started aggressively deleting any comments from antiscience trolls from the talk page

The attacks slowed and ceased. Then the work on the article could actually focus on improving the article, instead of defending it from ignorant jerks of various flavors. And it improved. And is still improving as a result.

We spend much less effort on maintaining and protecting evolution and it is a better article, and most new edits go towards real improvements, not nonsense. The goal here is to increase the efficiency; more output per unit of input. And therefore get better content into Misplaced Pages for the amount of effort that is expended.

If we can create systems to make us more effective and efficient by reducing some of the problems, as we did on a small scale at evolution, then that is a good thing, right?--Filll (talk) 01:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like a model process that should be applied to other controversial articles. Think of a good name for it, and make it an essay in the Misplaced Pages namespace, or possibly a subpage of an existing page. How about the (not-yet existing) Misplaced Pages:Long-term article management? I don't know. But the FAQ, history (by this, I think you mean organising the talk page archives by theme, rather than chronologically), and talk page management are great ideas. The creation of daughter articles would need more care and discussion. If that sort of thing is mishandled, it can make things worse, especially if the daughter articles are poorly named. Do you have examples of the daughter articles for evolution? I wonder if any of these ideaas could be applied to human? I remember that article being hopelessly tangled on the issue of what stance it should take - science, soul, medicine, anthropology, sociology, or everything under the sun. Carcharoth (talk) 01:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I do not propose that necessarily for all articles, but evolution is a very important subject, so it was worth the effort. And yes I know many of the daughter articles since I contributed to several of them. For example, evolution as theory and fact (done with User: Orangemarlin, which I am planning to rewrite, and have partially rewritten in a sandbox; it looks a bit ugly since it was one of my first articles), objections to evolution (done with User: Silence, but User: Orangemarlin and I wrote huge sections of it and we have more material to use in a rewrite), level of support for evolution (which is going to be rewritten to be cleaner and shorter and is being rewritten in a sandbox), creation-evolution controversy (done before me but slowly being cleaned up and rewritten with User: Hrafn) , creationism (again done before me but slowly being cleaned up and rewritten with User: Hrafn and others, and includes probably a dozen daughter pages as well), intelligent design (done before me but I have helped with it, and includes about 150-200 daughter pages as well, of which I have contributed about 20 or more), falsifiability of evolution (not yet in the mainspace, but slowly being written and rewritten in a sandbox) and several others. I also wrote the original evolution FAQ, which Silence rewrote, and then was used as a model for the intelligent design talk page FAQ written by User: ConfuciusOrnis, and helped User: Random Replicator and others write Introduction to evolution (which clarifies the topic for many people who do not understand it and therefore just object on general principles when they are really only confused). Also, there are Simple Misplaced Pages versions of evolution, principally by User: Adam Cuerden and intelligent design, principally by User: Adam Cuerden, and the atttendent daughter pages on Simple Misplaced Pages, which are also useful in this regard. There are articles which try to cover linguistic problems like evolution (term) and evolution (disambiguation), since language misunderstandings can cause all kinds of problems typically. There is a section of an article reached by Misconceptions about evolution that is also a point by point summary, and used to be a much longer separate article. There are also many daughter articles to evolution that are more advanced than evolution itself, and cover special details, like evidence of evolution, or modern evolutionary synthesis, or evolution of complexity, and probably at least a couple of hundred more.

So that gives a small sample of some of what has been done to try to fix things. And miraculously, it was fairly successful. However, it was so much work and required so many man hours of so many people including a large number of experts, that I would not suggest it in all cases. Instead, I would suggest finding trying to find new ways to do the same thing, but in a more efficient way. --Filll (talk) 01:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Note

How was my comment tendentious? I don't understand and am seriously asking for insight. Anthon01 (talk) 03:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Getting 10 or so cites that show homeopathy is pseudoscience and then rejecting them over and over and being snarky and obnoxious and challenging and combative, after engaging in similar behavior for weeks or months on end is pretty close to tendentious in my book. I am looking for the regulation that shows we can delete such posts on sight. It has been used before and it works.--Filll (talk) 03:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not mean to be uncivil or offend

I have been informed that using the phrase "homeopathy promoter" instead of "homeopathy supporter" is offensive. I worry that perhaps even using the phrase "homeopathy supporter" is offensive as well and I request that someone suggest another phrase that is less offensive.

I also have been informed clearly that suggesting people follow NPOV or do not understand NPOV is offensive and uncivil. I suggest that this might indicate we have a severe problem here, worse than I had feared. --Filll (talk) 13:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

there is no reason for these kind of labels at all. you have supported labeling me in this way, but actually I don't see myself as a homeopathy promoter or supporter. I am just an interested physician, looking to describe homeopathy on wikipedia. I don't see the huge need to identify "camps" and I don't see the need to use derogeratory labels. Abridged 17:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Well a "physician" who uses the word "Derogeratory". Interesting.

What if I decided the word "physician" was offensive, and one of the most offensive uncivil expletives and pieces of vile invective ever uttered? I think that might be reasonable and appropriate in the circumstances, don't you? Should I file a formal complaint against you for using the word "physician"? What do you think? --Filll (talk) 17:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I don't know what you are talking about. And if you are insulting my spelling above, I do make spelling mistakes sometimes. Abridged 17:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

How did I insult your spelling? Why don't you start an RfC against me or petition Arbcomm to have me banned? Would you prefer that I made the report to AN/I myself for being offensive and uncivil? I beg your apologies for any offense I might have caused or any inadvertant incivility that might have been inferred from this post or any other post of mine.--Filll (talk) 17:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought you might have been picking on me for spelling derogeratory wrong since I could not understand your comment above, "well a physician who users the word derogeratory, interesting." I am not interested in pursuing any action against you, actually, I was just answering a question you seem to have posed on your user page. Abridged 18:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Want me to help you file a formal complaint? Come on. I know you want to have me banned.--Filll (talk) 18:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? You voted to have me banned, but I don't want to have anyone banned. See you later. Abridged 18:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I beg to differ. I have observed you in action you forget.--Filll (talk) 18:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Look, I'm not even sure what you are talking about. I brought an RFC after I asked someone to strike a personal attack and he wouldn't. This is not the same as asking to have someone banned. I have never asked for anyone to be banned. Abridged 18:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead and try to get me banned. I used the word "promoter" anyway. I did not call you a promoter, but I have called others promoters. So ban me. Go ahead. You know you want to get me banned. And it will help you in whatever you are up to.--Filll (talk) 19:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Consensus

Would you agree to advocate on the Homeopathy article what you advocate in the edit summary here? Anthon01 (talk) 14:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Taking your lead, I find the word "advocate" highly offensive and akin to the worst possible expletive. Please refrain from using such egregiously offensive and deprecatory terms such as "advocate".--Filll (talk) 14:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

In fact, since people can find the expression "NPOV" offensive, lets agree to declare the word "consensus" offensive. How does that sound?--Filll (talk) 16:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Just curious

I'm just curious about what you do in real life. Abridged 17:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh are you? --Filll (talk) 17:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am. You see yourself as defending science here, and I'm curious about what your field is, and what level you are working on. I don't mean to be intrusive, but alot of people have asked me about myself on my user page and I've answered so I thought I could perhaps ask you the same question. Abridged 17:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I have stated it repeatedly on Misplaced Pages. I invite you to look for it, so you have something to do. --Filll (talk) 17:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Gee, thanks, that was civil. Abridged 17:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Repeating material excessively is uncivil and I do not mean to be uncivil or offensive in any way. Also, working in science or subscribing to the use of double blind tests and the scientific method and publication in mainstream peer-reviewed journals is viewed widely on Misplaced Pages as uncivil and offensive and I do not mean to be offensive or uncivil in any possible way so it is best that I do not repeat anything that might give anyone anywhere any possible offense so I will respectfully decline to repeat any improper behavior.--Filll (talk) 17:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, so I looked back on your user page and you are a physicist and research scientist. I was just was curious if you were working in medical research, and I guess you are not. Not sure about why you are going on a rant about the scientific method, etc, here, it seems like a non-sequitor. Abridged 18:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks but I do not need any more attacks.--Filll (talk) 18:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not attacking you, I'm just trying to understand where you are coming from so I can work with you better. Abridged 18:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Why not try to get me banned? You will probably succeed. Try it.--Filll (talk) 18:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Fill, you seem to be in a really bad mood. Why would I want to have anyone banned? I was just curious about your background so I can understand you better. You don't have to see me as some kind of Misplaced Pages enemy. Abridged 18:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I will not speculate as to why you wanted to have anyone banned and why you did the things you did. It might be viewed as uncivil and offensive. But I should be banned in any case since I am so offensive and uncivil, right? After all, I used the word "promoter". Highly offensive, clearly.--Filll (talk) 18:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Take care Fill Abridged 18:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

You win. Why not join me in my proposal to pick an article or two, like homeopathy, and forbid all those who believe in science, the scientific method, double blind studies and allopathic medicine from editing the article or the talk page, so the others can produce a "real NPOV" version. Then after 6 months, then have the resulting product reviewed internally and externally to see if it satisfies Misplaced Pages and reader requirements and NPOV?--Filll (talk) 18:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Fill, I do not think this is a good idea. Abridged 19:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Why? It's not just homeopathy, it's every article around here. We accidentally ran across an article Thuja where an obvious backdoor attempt to promote homeopathy had been written. Then we noticed numerous plant articles expounded the ability of the plant to cure things. Then I read the article on Alzheimer's, and there was a section on Ginkgo--but I read the underlying references and found some more recent ones, and it was clear that Ginkgo does nothing, absolutely nothing, for Alzheimer's patients. Every medical article has Alternative (meaning untested magic) cruft in it. It's a battle. And as long as Misplaced Pages is in the top 10 websites to research information, how sad is it that anti-scientific principles, such as Homeopathy, are allowed to be in these articles. People believe in this woo, which is only enriching homeopaths, who charge $2000 for a couple of liters of distilled water, and it does nothing for health. So, we should all walk away from the articles, and let Misplaced Pages rot away. The misinterpretation of NPOV is horrible. We're fighting a losing battle, since most admins don't understand NPOV especially when SPOV is clearly the same as NPOV in many medical and science articles. It's time for a strike by the science and medical writers. OrangeMarlin 19:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

See below. And I think it is fine to say in the Thuja article that highly dilatd and successed preparations of Thuja are used by homeopaths to treat warts, with a cite to an appropriate source and WITHOUT any healthclaim that it WORKS. This is encyclopedic and not irresponsible. Abridged 19:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Civility

Starting at an AN/I thread about Talk:Homeopathy and your posts there, I was led around to various pages where your participation is less than civil. My best recommendation for you is to take a few days off of wiki—a little wikibreak to calm down—because it is obvious that your frustrations with the site are reaching a pinnacle. And while I understand from where these frustrations stem, and can appreciate them, it is not an excuse for chronic disregard for Misplaced Pages policy. You have been informally warned by various users on various article talk pages, but this is that pesky official warning where it's noted that continued incivility could result in a block. Have a cup of tea and a good book, perhaps, and remember it's only a website.

Despite our previous disagreement, I really don't want to see you blocked. I agree with most of your points regarding content, but it is in the realm of Misplaced Pages policy that we disagree. For that reason, however, should the incivility continue, I will not be the blocking admin, so please don't feel like I'm on a mission to block you. It's honestly not my intention here. If you need to vent about the situations most frustrating you, feel free to e-mail me and we may be able to figure out something to remedy some of the issues. Regards, Lara❤Love 19:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there something new from last night? I was cautioned last night and I was unable to soften or change the post that I made because the page was too long and moving too fast. And so I have been extremely cautious today. I do not want to offend anyone or be judged as uncivil. I mistakenly referred to someone as a "homeopathy promoter" instead of a "homeopathy supporter" (which itself might very well be judged to be offensive. And so I have been careful to avoid the offensive phrase.

And I really believe that since the people who are science-oriented, or allopathic oriented, or adovcates of double blind studies or the scientific method are interfering with the others on homeopathy, we should let them edit the page and its talk page unfettered and unimpeded. Is that offensive? I think it is in the best interests of all since it would reduce conflict and fighting here.--Filll (talk) 19:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm always curious as to why people give such advice. I contend that a psychoanalyst, with significant training, would take years to understand the motives and stresses that a person has in their life. An amateur admin (meaning amateur in the sense of psychiatric treatment) has no clue what is going on with people over the internet. And LaraLove, here's the problem, and why some of us are so damn passionate. These medical and science articles are full of cruft, placed by anti-science charlatans. People will come to Misplaced Pages to read these articles and think that a couple of liters of distilled water will cure all. People die from this medical advice. It will be, in only a short period of time, an US citizen will die because of what they read here. And the lawsuits will be aplenty. But, legal issues aside, the ethics of Misplaced Pages allowing false medicine to be promoted (yes, promoted) keeps me awake at night. So no, it's more than a website. The immorality of Alternative Medicine placed in medical articles is horrendous. So, passion is necessary herein. OrangeMarlin 19:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Fill, based on my previous interaction with you, you would probably count me in the fringy group you would see editing the article during the "walk out" you are proposing, and yet I am a very firm believer in the scientific method, double blind placebo controlled trials, and practice what homeopaths call "allopathy". Orangemarlin, maybe there should be a disclamer on all medical and alt med articles, or on some main wiki page that any wikipedia shoudl not be seen as a substitute for consultation with a physician. That might allay some of your concerns and help you sleep a little more soundly. Abridged 19:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I sleep quite fine thank you. No, a disclaimer doesn't work, since we all know how well the "Smoking Kills" disclaimer works on cigarettes. Alternative Medicine cruft should be removed. Oh yeah, if something in Alternative Medicine is found to work through rigorous scientific and medical analysis, it should be there. Then it's just medicine. OrangeMarlin 19:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

<undent> Well Abridged, since you are so sure you are right and you are so sure that you are a science supporter, lets do the scientific thing. Let's put your theory to the test. Let's do a real scientific test. And see how things go. You know you do not want to fight with the people you are fighting with. We are just obstructing you and getting in your way. So I am proposing a truce, that we stop fighting. And you get your way. And then we see the results. Fair?--Filll (talk) 19:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Look, I don't even know what you are talking about in terms of "getting my way." I'm going to go do some work now. See you later. Abridged 20:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It is amazing to me that I am offering a peace pipe, and a truce, to stop the conflict and trouble between the warring factions, and that one group is not interested. I find far more support for this proposal among the supporters of mainstream science and medical views.

I am stunned. I don't get it. What is wrong with letting alternative medicine and complementary medicine and alien abduction and big foot advocates the chance to write articles as they see fit? What is wrong with that?

I have been criticized and threatened over and over and over for being nasty and cruel for insisting that science be prominent and we try to write things according to NPOV. And I have finally realized that maybe the best option might be to give up, and give the people struggling to keep mainstream science out of articles on Misplaced Pages the chance to write the articles as they see fit.

It would stop wasted time. It would stop wasted conflict. It would give everyone a chance to be productive and show what they can do.

And although dozens of mainstream science and medical supporters think this is a good option and a good idea, very few if any supporters of WP:FRINGE views think it is a good idea (ok Whig thought it might be at one time, but I do not know if he still thinks so). Why is that? Can someone explain this to me?

I really am sort of surprised.--Filll (talk) 20:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

List of remedies

Hi there, Tim Vickers rescued the old list and set it up on my user page here so I would suggest you can either just edit it as-is as you wish or just lift it from there and do with it what you wish. I don't mind either way. Hope that's OK, cheers Peter morrell 22:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Brilliant! This is great news. I didn't even know such a list ever existed. I really appreciate it. Thank you.--Filll (talk) 22:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The clowns are winning

Random Replicator (talk · contribs) has left Misplaced Pages. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 03:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

If it is true, it is very unfortunate. But of course, we have to WP:AGF no matter what, because all established editors being productive are expendable and all trolls and disruptive editors must be protected at all costs. --Filll (talk) 03:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)