Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:51, 5 January 2006

Features of Conspiracy Theories

Allegations exhibiting several of the following features are candidates for classification as conspiracy theories. Articles by User:Blackcats and User:Zen-master are good examples of articles containing these traits. Confidence in such classification improves the more such features are exhibited:

• Initiated on the basis of limited, partial or circumstantial evidence.
• Conceived in reaction to media reports and images, as opposed to, for example, thorough knowledge of the relevant forensic evidence.
• Addresses an event or process that has broad historical or emotional impact.
• Seeks to interpret a phenomenon which has near-universal interest and emotional significance, a story that may thus be of some compelling interest to a wide audience.
• Reduces morally complex social phenomena to simple, immoral actions.
• Impersonal, institutional processes, especially errors and oversights, interpreted as malign, consciously intended and designed by immoral individuals.
• Personifies complex social phenomena as powerful individual conspirators
• Related to (3) but distinct from it, deduces the existence of powerful individual conspirators from the 'impossibility' that a chain of events lacked direction by a person.
• Allots superhuman talents and/or resources to conspirators.
• May require conspirators to possess unique discipline, never to repent, to possess unknown technology, uncommon psychological insight, historical foresight, etc.
• Key steps in argument rely on inductive, not deductive reasoning.
• Inductive steps are mistaken to bear as much confidence as deductive ones.
• Appeals to 'common sense'.
• Common sense steps substitute for the more robust, academically respectable methodologies available for investigating sociological phenomena.
• Exhibits well-established logical and methodological fallacies
• Formal and informal logical fallacies are readily identifiable among the key steps of the argument.
• Is produced and circulated by 'outsiders', generally lacking peer review
• Story originates with a person who lacks any insider contact or knowledge, and enjoys popularity among persons who lack critical (especially technical) knowledge.
• Is upheld by persons with demonstrably false conceptions of relevant science
• At least some of the story's believers believe it on the basis of a mistaken grasp of elementary scientific facts.
• Enjoys zero credibility in expert communities
• Academics and professionals tend to ignore the story, treating it as too frivolous to invest their time and risk their personal authority in disproving.
• Rebuttals provided by experts are ignored or accommodated through elaborate new twists in the narrative
• When experts do respond to the story with critical new evidence, the conspiracy is elaborated (sometimes to a spectacular degree) to discount the new evidence.

NPOV: A Simple Formulation

We sometimes give an alternative formulation of the non-bias policy: assert facts, including facts about opinions — but don't assert opinions themselves. Certainly, there are bound to be borderline cases where a fact is disputed but we're not sure if we should take the dispute seriously, or where the distinction between fact and opinion will itself necessarily be in dispute. Nevertheless, there are many propositions that clearly express undisputed facts, and others that clearly express disputed values or opinions. That a survey produced a certain published result is a fact. That there is a planet called Mars is a fact. That Plato was a philosopher is a fact. No one seriously disputes any of these things. So we can feel free to assert as many of them as we can. On the other hand, that stealing is always wrong is a disputed value or opinion. That the Beatles were the greatest band is a value or opinion. That the United States was wrong to drop the atomic bomb over Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a disputed value or opinion.

Where we might want to state an opinion, we convert that opinion into a fact by attributing the opinion to someone. So, rather than asserting, "The Beatles were the greatest band", we can say, "Most Americans believe that the Beatles were the greatest band of the Sixties," which is a fact verifiable by survey results, or "The Beatles had more Billboard #1 hits than any other rock band," which is also a fact. In the first instance we assert an opinion; in the second and third instances we "convert" that opinion into fact by attributing it to someone. It's important to note this formulation is substantially different from the "some people believe ..." formulation popular in political debates. The reference requires an identifiable and subjectively quantifiable population or, better still, a name.

In presenting an opinion, moreover, it is important to bear in mind that there are disagreements about how opinions are best stated; sometimes, it will be necessary to qualify the description of an opinion or to present several formulations, simply to arrive at a solution that fairly represents all the leading views of the situation.

But it's not enough, to express the Misplaced Pages non-bias policy, just to say that we should state facts and not opinions. When asserting a fact about an opinion, it is important also to assert facts about competing opinions, and to do so without implying that any one of the opinions is correct. It's also generally important to give the facts about the reasons behind the views, and to make it clear who holds them. It's often best to cite a prominent representative of the view.Morton devonshire 23:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Welcome to the Misplaced Pages!

Welcome to the Misplaced Pages, Morton devonshire! And thanks for the contributions. Hope you enjoy editing here and becoming a Wikipedian! Here are a few perfunctory tips to hasten your acculturation into the Misplaced Pages experience:

• Take a look at the Misplaced Pages Tutorial and Manual of Style.
• When you have time, take a look at The five pillars of Misplaced Pages, and Assume good faith, but keep in mind the unique style you brought to the Wiki!
• Always keep the notion of NPOV in mind, be respectful of others' POV, and remember your unique perspective on the meaning of neutrality is invaluable!
• If you need any help, post your question at the Help Desk.
• Explore, be bold in editing, and, above all else, have fun!

And some odds and ends: Boilerplate text, Brilliant prose, Cite your sources, Civility, Conflict resolution, How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Pages needing attention, Peer review, Policy Library, Utilities, Verifiability, Village pump, Wikiquette, and you can sign your name on any page by typing 4 tildes: ~~~~.

Best of luck, Morton devonshire, and have fun! Ombudsman 05:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

NPOV?

For a guy with a piece about NPOV on your talk page, several of your recent edits are pretty surprising. I've reverted several accusations of anti-Americanism, and a few of Marxism, though I've left the latter where they are clearly accurate, which a few were. I suggest that you might review WP:NPOV and WP:V. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Testing reverted

Thanks for experimenting with Misplaced Pages. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks.

Please do not blank your talk page

Please do not blank your talk page. It is considered bad form. I have restored the comments you recently removed from your page. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, oh exalted one and Sockpuppet of Jmabel. Morton devonshire 00:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)