Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:30, 30 January 2010

The Telegraph: Misplaced Pages, an anti-intellectual venture to its core?

As much as I love Misplaced Pages, it has some serious flaws. The following excerpt from an article published by The Telegraph is spot-on:

"Knowledge is democratic in the sense that no one has the right to claim the last word. Misplaced Pages is democratic in the different and corrosive sense that anyone can join in regardless of competence.

"Every editor’s contribution is of equal value. That is an affront to the notion of disinterested intellectual inquiry. What Misplaced Pages prizes is not greater approximations to truth but a greater degree of consensus.

"That ethos undermines Misplaced Pages in principle as a reference source. There are many Misplaced Pages articles that are scrupulous, balanced and fair treatments of their subjects. But these are liable to be overthrown at any time by an editor with an idée fixe and an empty life.

"The default position of Misplaced Pages is to leave editors to sort it out among themselves. The loudest voices and most obsessive contributors become the arbiters of truth."

http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article6930560.ece

Talkback

Climategate: I’m starting to change my mind about Robert Graham

Up until now, I’ve agreed with the position that Robert Graham’s quote about the hacker being an insider should be excluded from the article. However, I just read the entire article from top to bottom and given all the other people who are quoted in the article, Graham’s opinion is about as notable as anyone else’s on the topic. You have to read the article from top to bottom to understand what I mean. At this point, I’m starting to think that given the context of the entire article as a whole, a sentence or two from Graham would not violate WP:UNDUE.

For those that don’t know the background regarding this issue, we have at least three reliable sources: ComputerWorld, Reuters and PC World which which quote an established expert, Robert Graham, speaking within his area of expertise (network security) that it was probably an insider. Robert Graham is a notable expert who's opinion has been cited by numerous reliable sources for his expertise on network security including BBC News, CNET, MSNBC, eWeek, InfoWorld, USA Today and many others. Robert Graham is a published author whose work in the relevant field (network security) has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Elsevier is a respected publishing house. According to our article on Elsevier, they publish many peer-reviewed, academic journals including The Lancet and Cell.

At this time, I don’t have any specific proposal to include this in the article which is why I’m only posting this on my talk page. But I think I'm starting to change my mind about this. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's finally gone to ArbCom

Somebody filed a request to ArbCom. My statement can be read here. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Biased Articles Suggested

Following your practice of neutrality, you should offer a few other suggestions of articles that are not only apologising for the scientists. I would recommend the program from the finnish TV: The Finnish TV, YLE, The Finnish Broadcasting Co., TV1, aired a few weeks ago an excellent program covering the climategate scandal. This should remind us what journalism should be, something that is forgotten a long time ago. It is even more surprising coming from a government owned TV channel. Below is the program with English subtitles:

part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unKZhr3JMhA part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Clpmt5_8MBg part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDHbOu7Sq8

English transcription: http://ohjelmat.yle.fi/mot/viime_viikon_mot/transcript_english —Preceding unsigned comment added by Echofloripa (talk • contribs) 17:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Climategate vote

I know it's a lot to ask, but could you please remove your comment from the title vote? I'm trying to limit discussion and keep the vote on track. The editors disagree on so many points, and I want to see if we can get consensus by limiting the debate to one topic at a time. Nightmote (talk) 18:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Climate Change discretionary sanctions proposal

Discussion regarding a climate change discretionary sanctions proposal can be found here. Here was my response:

I want to point out that the main problem at the Climatic Research Unit e-mail controversy article is NOT the typical case of AGW skeptics attempting to push their POV. Sure, that's a problem, but there's another problem at this particular article. There are editors there who are refusing to admit that there's a controversy in an article about the controversy. Those of you who are familiar with my work on the 9/11 conspiracy theories and Lunar landing hoax articles know that I am no fringe theorist and have absolutely no desire in promoting minority or fringe viewpoints against scientific consensus. But in an article about a controversy, you have to at least explain what the controversy is about. We have editors who are so overzealous that they are refusing to even mention what the controversy is about. So we have POV-pushing coming from two different directions. What's more, some of the criticism is coming not from AGW skeptics, but from AGW proponents such as George Monbiot and colleague Michael Mann. I strongly urge the admins on this board to take into consideration that there's more going on at Climatic Research Unit e-mail controversy article than the typical AGW skeptic nonsense when implementing this proposal. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Another ArbCom case

Here: My response is here:

I, too, am concerned with enacting this proposal. The discussion on the admin page seemed to focus exclusively on sock puppets and POV-pushing from AGW skeptics. I do not see how this proposal will address POV-pushing from AGW proponents in articles about the controversy. I posted my concern here, but was pretty much ignored. I reposted my concerns again and instead of a thoughtful discussion, the proposal was almost immediately enacted. How was this proposal enacted without first achieving consensus and without any real discussion about one of the biggest problems we're facing here? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I created a sock puppet for use with my iPhone

I created a sock puppet, User:AQFK, because "A_Quest_For_Knowledge" is too long/painful to type in my iPhone. I probably won't make very many edits with this account. It will mostly be used to follow my watchlist when I'm on the go or don't have access to a real computer. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Jones Email edit

IMO adding a new email to the Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident article is a very major change, one that would probably be better discussed on the talk page first. Maybe instead of adding it you should start a discussion on the talk page. My apologies if there has been one, and I have missed it. Prodego 01:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

1. Please note that I am a previously uninvolved editor who stumbled upon this article by chance. I have no dog in this dispute between the two warring factions.
2. As I have stated several times now, the discretionary proposal does NOT appear to address the POW-pushing from the AGW crowd. I've brought this issue up several times and every time, my concerns have been ignored repeatedly. Perhaps, we should have paid more attention to my concerns?
3. Since my concerns have been repeatedly ignored, I decided to be WP:BOLD and make edits which are neutral and well-supported by third-party reliable sources. My edits are only controversial to those who have a stake in the Great Misplaced Pages Climate Change Wars. I don't. I simply want to follow WP:NPOV. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The sanctions are not targeted at a particular group, so it is hard to see how it would affect one group of POV pushers from another. While you may certainly believe your edits are NPOV, on an article subject to the controversy this one is, discussion and forming consensus is very important, and being bold is not so important. Major changes to a controversial article are likely to be controversial, and I would strongly urge you to discuss them, because if you are unwilling to work with other editors, your presence at the article will not be positive, and you will not be welcome there. Prodego 02:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Although I have brought this up repeatedly, my objections have been ignored. I don't know what can be expected to be accomplished when the sanctions did not address the major problem with this article. Did we hope that it would go away? All my edits have been made in good faith and in accordance with WP:NPOV. If anyone disagrees, can we please discuss the elephant in the room? Namely, the POV-pushing from AGW proponents. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Breaking my Wiki-addiction

It's been 3 days since I've edited Misplaced Pages and my life is much better for it. I've gotten so much sh*t done around the house, it isn't funny. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Common misconceptions again

Hi Quest,

I know you and I have disagreed on this article in the past, but it looks like you have reverted several of my edits at once (all of which had clear edit summaries) without any thought at all, or at least without any consideration of the relevant policies, and without specific explanations. There is no requirement for an editor to supply sources to prove something is not a misconception - as you know, the burden of evidence is on the editor who adds or restores material, per WP:V.

Why did you restore sources which are clearly not reliable (dtl.org, calvarybiblechurch.org, christiananswers.net) without any explanation? (I removed these 3 non-reliable sources for the Nativity misconceptions as they are unnecessary - there were also reliable sources cited.)

Why did you restore unsourced and challenged material (the forbidden fruit example, and Adam and Eve's children) without supplying any sources at all? The material which you restored without explanation is obvious original research. Again, according to policy, the burden of evidence is on you.

Why did you restore the JFK "Ich bin ein Berliner" example and the unreliable source used to justify it? Or did you look at the source (a blog with no visible policy on fact-checking or editorial control) and somehow conclude that it is reliable? If so, why did you not explain this?

Why did you restore 2 music examples which have been on the talk page for weeks, but which you have failed to discuss in any detail?

Your past disagreements with me seem to be getting in the way of following basic policies. Please consider these examples and give some thought to the motives behind your reverts. --hippo43 (talk) 10:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:V, unsourced material may be removed. I believe you removed material that was sourced. In at least one case, you removed material admitting that you never even bothered reading the source. Please make a good faith effort to actually read the sources. If you cannot, I suggest you let others edit this article. Also, please keep in mind that per WP:PRESERVE, you're supposed to make a good faith effort to find sources yourself. I know that in the past, you deleted dozens of items that were easily sourced if you had only bothered to Google it yourself. Please be careful not to edit war. I would hate to see you get banned again. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

So, again, no answers to the questions above. I'm sure you're aware that WP:PRESERVE says "Try to preserve useful content" (my emphasis). If you think I removed material that was reliably and accurately sourced, please point it out. If you think I admitted to not bothering to read a source, please point it out. --hippo43 (talk) 23:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Quest, please help – the drama never seems to end. Thank you very much in advance. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't call him Bill

He doesn't like it. If we're going to demand that he act civilly, we should do the same, and I think it's clear that being called Bill or Will is something he considers offensive. Please respect that. ATren (talk) 20:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't know that. I'll refactor my comments. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks. It's been a hot topic on the GW probation page, but if you hadn't read that page recently you might not have known that. Thanks for refactoring. ATren (talk) 20:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Warning re: accusations of criminality

I don't usually give warnings for spirited discussion but this was beyond the pale. Calling people "criminals" absent an actual conviction is a blatant and obvious violation of Misplaced Pages's policies on the treatment of living persons. Please don't do it again. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 07:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The mainstream viewpoint - which by definition is backed by numerous reliable sources - is that the UAE violated the Freedom of Information Act. Repeating what reliable sources say about a topic is not a BLP violation. Your accusation is frivolous and without merit. I ask that you withdraw it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:45, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I can see where you're coming from on this, though I disagree. As we seem to have a good faith difference of opinion I will take this to the BLP noticeboard for clarification. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Climategate

A Quest for Knowledge, a few years ago I made the same mistake of believing you could hold a rational discussion about edit changes on global warming (at a time I believed in global warming). I was sadly deluded, because the truth is that there are certain political activists who have worked out that if they have sufficient numbers of acitivists and coordinate their activities behind the scenes, they can make Misplaced Pages say whatever they want and neither you nor I can stop that. In effect they have turned Misplaced Pages into a mouthpiece for their organisations.

Whilst in the greater scheme of things in the real world it matters very little what Misplaced Pages says, because people only need to read a few newspapers to realise Misplaced Pages isn't reporting accurately on the subject, from the point of view of other editors - the fact Misplaced Pages is know to portray Global Warming falsely does cast a slur on every other article completely undermines the hard work done by other honest editors - and that does annoy me!

My own view it that I would not wish my signon to appear on any global warming articles, because that would in some way suggest I endorse the articles, and these articles are so far from NPOV, that I would rather have nothing to do with them.

So, for me it is the spectator fun of watching a sandcastle** of lies being slowly eroded by the truth. Given the sloppiness of the "scientific" process we've seen, there's no doubt that many more revelations will occur. We know there are plenty of dubious practices in the adjustment to temperature records, and irrespective of what the climate does in the future, the decline in global temperatures and the decline in the reputation of climate "scientists" will be historically important either as the reason no action took place for the next few years, or as the point at which the "scam" was shown to be false.

What I'm trying to say, is that trying to be calm and rational in the middle of a bun fight is a bit pointless. Either join in one or other side and at least have a bit of fun - or get out the room and watch their antics like you would monkeys at the zoo! Isonomia (talk) 10:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• • Sandcastles ... the rule is that you build the sandcastle and then watch as the tide rises and slowly overcomes the defences. Obviously, an even more fun variant is to actively try to reinforce the defences, but you do so knowing the tide will win. Which I suppose makes the global warmers just kids having fun trying to maintain their sandcastles against the tide of natural temperature variation! (PS. It's snowing here - and now the sun is out on a prestine white landscape, so I feeling just a but forgiving!)Isonomia (talk) 10:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Notification of article probation

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, PAGE NAME, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)