Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:10, 23 April 2014

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Jytdog. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

MEDRS suggestions.

How did any of my suggestions substantially differ from the policies of no original research or reliability?

1. Extensively qualifying primary and animal model studies instead of reflexively deleting them. Secondary sources are ideal but not absolute. 2. Instead of using terms like "weak", "no good" or "good" evidence actually state the numerical benefit derived by a particular treatment compared to active or passive placebo. It is undeniable that terms like clinically/statistically significant are social conventions. This is simply reality. 3. Recognize that the currently used hierarchy of scientific journals is again a social construct with it's own particular problems. I have faced this several times where my source is denied because someone else had a "better" article from a "better" journal. It's just coincidental that their sourced article was inline with their own personal biases... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khimaris (talk • contribs) 22:41, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for talking, Khimaris. I appreciate your questing spirit, but Misplaced Pages, as it has been constructed, is not a site that will change the world; Misplaced Pages reflects the world. If you want to change Misplaced Pages so that Misplaced Pages will work to change the world, you need to start far deeper than MEDRS - you need to start with the very pillars of Misplaced Pages and work up from there. There are lots of other sites where you don't have to fight such a deep and protracted battle to write the kinds of things you want to write, right away. To answer your questions:

1. This I answer with a question. Would you please explain how extensively qualifying primary sources is not WP:OR?
2. Wikpedia is meant for the masses, for your average joe. Please see WP:TECHNICAL as well as sections 7 & 8 of this part of the 1st pillar. We therefore don't present mounds of data; we say things in plain English.
3. Yep. There is a social construct and Misplaced Pages is very, very solidly enmeshed in it. We describe what is as best we can, using the best sources we can find - sources produced by the best institutions that society has built to carry out the scientific method and the historical method (our best tools for grasping reality as objectively as humans can); we do not right great wrongs and we have no crystal ball.

There you go... Jytdog (talk) 23:07, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

It isn't original research to explicitly state the limitations of a paper that it openly states. When was the last time you read a peer reviewed article that didn't state it's own limitations?

It isn't overly technical to state something like 60% of people typically respond to a particular treatment. I can't imagine a literate person not understanding this.

Per WP:RGW I'm not engaging in activism for any particular issue. And per crystal ball I'm not engaging in unverifiable speculation. Every addition that I have made thus far has followed the stated and explicate content policies of Misplaced Pages. Nevertheless, I refuse to be beholden to the arbitrary foolishness of people saying, "My source is better" or "It was better before" whenever a conflict arises. I think you're learned enough to realize the extensive limitations and inherent biases of the currently existing academic hierarchy.

I think you are all misunderstanding where I'm coming from. So I'll state my biases. I'm an egalitarian transhumanist health nut and nerd who gets his flu shots every year and supports the use and deregulation of GMFs as a harm reduction strategy. I'm not afraid of science or the scientific method. I simply find the way information is being disseminated to be deeply troubling for the previously stated reasons.Khimaris (talk) 06:14, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Some of what you write is reasonable, and to be frank, some is over the top. Your intensity and urgency are making it difficult to have a rational conversation. Can you even see it? Where is that coming from? (those are both real questions about you (not about others); they are not rhetorical questions) Jytdog (talk) 06:57, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I really want to emphasize this to you, Khimaris - both the spirit and the letter of the policy, WP:RS and the guideline WP:MEDRS call us to reach first for secondary sources, read them carefully, and base content on them. You need a really good reason to work against that and rely on primary sources instead. This is a fundamental Misplaced Pages thing, and it does you no good, and makes you look less than credible, to blow past that, as you have been doing. When you are asked why you are going against Misplaced Pages's reliance on secondary sources, if you want to have a rational conversation, you need to answer positively; "why not" is a bad answer - an irrational answer - and is a sign that you have an ax to grind and are not working toward the best interest of the encyclopedia. I am not saying that you do have an ax to grind; I am describing how you are coming across. I wish you would calm down, and respond carefully and clearly as to why primary sources are justified where you want to use them. I understand that you have an issue with the spirit and letter of Misplaced Pages's policy on this matter, but fighting against policy when working on specific content is going to create nothing but misery for everyone involved. Nobody wants that. Jytdog (talk) 08:22, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Part of it is pride and part of it is a general disgust for the arbitrary nature of the wiki-hierarchy. I could spend a good three hours of my day happily reading pubmed, both primary and secondary sources, about some particular condition or treatment. I then make a small addition or rewording to the wikipedia article in question, that is fully inline with the various rules and regulations. In some cases the edit is reverted and I am condescended to and told to follow some rule the author pulled out of their ass. I've looked at the edit logs of these articles. It's typically the editor with the most extensive additions. They "own" the article. And they don't want their hard work that's earned them so many internet points to be changed. It's disgusting and childish.

It's hard to take consensus building seriously when the consensus is usually "Don't make significant changes my pet project". So this makes me "intense" and I "urgently" want this behavior to stop.

On the subject of primary sources: I prefer the addition of new qualified information. (Qualifying isn't original research by the way)Someone mentioned the idea of not adding primary sources at all because they are sometimes non-reproduceable. To this I say so what? The current practice of science will eventually find the right conclusion. There are enough PHDs and grad students fighting over funding to ensure this. Are you really saying that the Eventualist and Inclusionist editing tendencies are invalid and that people, like me, who subscribe to them have no place here? Khimaris (talk) 09:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for talking. You are clearly a smart person and you are lucky with that. And I understand your frustration with other editors - hell is other people, as they say. That of course includes me and you. From what I can gather, you appear to misunderstand a fundamental aspect of the Misplaced Pages mission, or perhaps, you consciously have taken a stance that you aware is outside the consensus. You don't seem to be aware that it is outside the consensus, so I am guessing it is a misunderstanding. Here it is - Misplaced Pages is not written for smart people with lots of time, and Misplaced Pages has nothing to do with "the free flow of information"; instead, this is an encyclopedia intended to present reliable information to the public (average people, who are busy), and it is written by editors who are bound by policies and guidelines. Being an "encyclopedia that anyone can edit", it absolutely needs these policies and guidelines or it would be filled with mountains of bullshit and talk pages would be an ugly wasteland of irrational bickering. Under the given policies and guidelines, we work hard to curate reliable information; to present the consensus of the experts in the field on any given topic, and we try to reach consensus about content disputes by talking through things within the framework of the policies and guidelines. Rejecting the policies and guidelines is rejecting the very basis upon which we can actually be egalitarian and can cooperate rationally - they form our world. When you say "so what" to including information from primary studies - which have a high likelihood of being false and when you ignore the imperative to reach for secondary sources, you are showing that you understand none of this. Do you see that? Until you really get all that, you are going to be miserable here and continue causing friction that is really avoidable. Really. If you want to change Misplaced Pages, please direct your energy to changing the policies, and don't torment editors who are following those policies - in spirit and letter - in given articles, and don't get yourself all worked up over specific content where those policies and guidelines are being played out. It is as foolish as yelling at a cop who is giving you a speeding ticket, arguing that speed limits are stupid. It isn't fair to anyone, including yourself, it just makes everybody have a shitty day, and it is just a big waste of time (except perhaps for satisfying your ego). Like I said you have a questing spirit - you need to be careful to aim that energy where it can be productive. Ten years ago when I first started working in a job I now totally love, I was arguing with my wonderful boss about my perception (which I now recognize as stunningly arrogant and ignorant) of some concepts underlying what we were doing, and she said to me: "You told me you find this work interesting and want to learn how to do it. You want to play this game. So you have to learn the rules and play by them, especially when you are starting out. If you want to play some other game, go do that." Bam. Eyes opened. Changed my life. Anyway, you are free to ignore me, or to try to understand what I am telling you. But you have some fundamental misunderstandings about Misplaced Pages - about what we do here under current policies and guidelines. In any case, good luck to you! Jytdog (talk) 09:42, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

And when I say "work on changing policies", I mean work on changing this, which you can do by discussing it on that policy's Talk page. Not on the Talk pages of existing articles. Jytdog (talk) 10:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Recent Revert

Thanks for your kind sentiments that my attempted edit on the page Judaism was "interesting." (smile) As you may have noticed, I am relatively new here at WP, and I admit that there is still much for me to learn. In this particular case, however, there is a very fine and delicate line that must be drawn between what is defined as WP:OR, and what is merely an attempt to explain in layman's terms what has been stated explicitly in Primary Sources, but which cannot otherwise be understood without elaborating. I'm not so certain that, by expanding on a text's meaning, it falls under the category of WP:OR, as we all interject and explain in our own words the primary and secondary sources used in making articles. For example:

The Midrash Rabba (Numbers Rabba 19:3), a Primary Source, says explicitly:

אמר רבי יוחנן בשם רשב"י: כתיב ולא תתחתן בם
למה? כי יסיר את בנך מאחרי 

בנך הבא מישראלית קרוי בנך, ואין בנך הבא מן הכושית קרוי בנך, אלא בנה

(Translation: "Said Rabbi Yochanan in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai, It is written: 'And do not consummate marriages with them' (Deut. 7:3). Why? 'For he will turn away your son from after me' (ibid.). Your son who comes from an Israelite woman is called 'your son,' but he that comes from the Negro woman is not called 'your son,' but rather her son.")

As you can see, the language used here is very terse and almost laconic. It seems, therefore, appropriate to explain its meaning to make it easier to understand. Perhaps with your advice we, together, can add a suitable footnote that explains its import. I have suggested the following:

The source from which the Sages of Israel learn that a child born from a Jewish mother is a Jew, although he might have a gentile father, is Deuteronomy 7:3. There is a prohibition against taking the Canaanites in marriage, viz., "You shall not consummate marriages with them, nor shall you give your daughter to his son or take his son for your daughter, since he will turn away your son from following me." By looking very closely and diacritically at the wording of the text, it says "...since he (the Canaanite father) will turn away your son (i.e. the child born to your Jewish daughter) from following me." Here, we see that G-d still reckons the child to be Jewish by calling him, your son - i.e., even though such unions were forbidden. G-d calls him your son, implying that he is still an Israelite because he was born from a Jewish mother. However, the opposite is not true. The Torah does not say, "...for she (the Canaanite mother) will turn away your son." In this case, the child would no longer be considered your son, but rather a gentile (cf. Yevamoth 17a; Numbers Rabba 19:3).Davidbena (talk) 10:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

It is interesting and nicely done! But as I wrote, this is indeed WP:OR - you produced that explanation and that is strictly out of bounds. The way to handle this, is to find a scholarly, published secondary source that explains that same thing, and add a footnote with content based on that source, and cite that source. There are plenty of reliable sources discussing this issue! Jytdog (talk) 10:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

OK. I accept your analysis. What would you think then if we add a short source in a footnote, quoting only the Primary Source from Midrash Rabba - without explaining its import? After all, the same WP guidelines provide for Misplaced Pages articles being "based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." What do you think? Davidbena (talk) 11:11, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Civility

I agree with you when you say on your User Page that Civility "is crucial for successful interactions among editors trying to write articles ... we have to work together - we have to see and acknowledge each other - to get anything good done ... civility is all about behavior -- it has nothing to do with who you are or what you believe; what matters is what you write, and how you write it. Civility is what makes this ultimate democratic space possible ... The best interactions are characterized by competence and civility ... Of the two, only one is a pillar. Civility. If editors work in a spirit that acknowledges the other's validity and one's own limitedness - if they assume good faith - a consensus can be reached, eventually. Take civility away, and there is no chance."

But I disagree with how you practice what you preach. I refer you to the Misplaced Pages Policy Page on Civility (shortcut WP:NICE). "Stated simply, editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect. In order to keep the focus on improving the encyclopedia and to help maintain a pleasant editing environment, editors should behave politely, calmly and reasonably, even during heated debates." Among other things, WP:NICE says: "Try not to get too intense", " Take great care to avoid the appearance of being heavy-handed or bossy", "Be calm", "don't make snide comments", "don't make personal remarks about editors", "don't be aggressive", "no personal attacks", no "rudeness, insults, name-calling", no "belittling a fellow editor".

I quote back to you verbatim et literatim some recent remarks you'd made to me and to other editors (f.e A1candidate, Khimaris, Nigelj, TimidGuy), not only on our User Talk Pages, but also on the Talk Pages of Articles, where you yourself said they don't belong (diff). I'm certain that if I dig deeper I will find many more examples, but I think these suffice to illustrate my point (I was going to organize them according to the nature of their incivility, but there are so many (38) of them that I had to resort to mere alphabetization): 'Again, you seem very committed to not actually discussing things... strange'; 'because i run out of patience with your behavior'; 'bizarre to me'; 'create nothing but misery for everyone involved'; 'Do you see that?'; 'don't get yourself all worked up'; 'don't torment editors who are following those policies'; 'filled with mountains of bullshit'; 'I have neither time nor desire to pander to your ego here'; 'If you want to learn, ask, don't argue - ask and listen'; 'It is as foolish as'; 'just a big waste of time (except perhaps for satisfying your ego)'; 'makes you look less than credible'; 'Maybe this is some kind of sport for you'; 'not a happy sign to me of things to come should you choose to continue working on WP'; 'profoundly un-Wikipedian behavior'; 'Running to no less than two drama boards'; 'slow down and breathe'; 'So blech'; 'that is a patience-trying request'; 'that it is your idea - a newbie's idea'; 'the issue is so trivial that it is not worth trying to take up the community's time with'; 'there is a strange inability to read going around'; 'umm'; 'you appear to misunderstand a fundamental aspect of the Misplaced Pages mission'; 'you are going to be miserable here'; 'You are not talking, you are arguing in a legalistic manner.'; 'you are not working toward the best interest of the encyclopedia'; 'you are showing that you understand none of this'; 'you can hear me, or not! your call, naturally. good luck! '; 'you consciously have taken a stance that you aware is outside the consensus'; 'You don't seem to be aware'; 'you have an ax to grind'; 'you need to be careful to aim that energy where it can be productive'; 'You should know by now'; 'you should know that you pick your battles; good judgement is essential'; 'Your intensity and urgency are making it difficult to have a rational conversation. Can you even see it? Where is that coming from?'

I would like to discuss with you here why you think that these comments of yours meet Misplaced Pages's Civility requirements. - Thanks; LeoRomero (talk) 01:56, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

This is over the top. Not responding and am enacting WP:SHUN. I suggest you do the same. Jytdog (talk) 03:06, 23 April 2014 (UTC)