Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:06, 21 July 2010

For Barnstars, see: User:David.Kane#Awards.

Archives

1

Draft stuff

I am going to draft some R&I related material here.

Progress on Race and Intelligence has been made as a result of mediation

I started on Misplaced Pages in June 2006 and first became involved with race and intelligence related controversies in the fall of 2009. A mediation started in November 2009. Over the next 6 months, significant progress was made: compare the version toward the start of mediation with one near the end. Note how the new version was less then 1/2 the length (and now consistent with WP:SIZE) and how numerous formatting problems, incorrect citations, spelling errors, poor grammar, lousy writing and so on were fixed. Of course, the new version is not perfect, but uninvolved editors thought that it was an improvement over the old one. Important issues that had been the source of much conflict over the years were resolved. For example, "Research into race and intelligence is not "fringe", some of the conclusions drawn from that research are highly contentious and need to be presented as such in the article." This was extremely helpful since it obviates the need for fruitless and repetitive debates about whether or not WP:FRINGE applies to the work of Arthur Jensen and others. I think that Ludwigs2 deserves a great deal of credit for the success of the mediation. Note, importantly, that no other editor volunteered to do the mediation after the first two mediators left the process. Critics of Ludwigs2 should recognize that the choice we faced was not between Ludwigs2 and some hypothetical perfect mediator but between Ludwigs2 and nothing. We all owe him our thanks.

Progress on Race and Intelligence continues to be possible

True progress on Race and Intelligence and related articles seems to require a different editing procedure. Consider three concrete examples of such progress: the History section (here and here), the Debate Assumptions section (here and here) and the Lead here. All these cases resulted in significant improvements to the article and featured widespread consensus among editors of very different viewpoints. Common factors: 1) Drafting was done on the Talk page, not in the article itself. Only after the section was complete was it moved into article space. 2) Drafting occurred over many days, allowing all editors time to register their opinions. 3) Comments from all were repeatedly solicited and incorporated. 4) The entire section was edited at once, thus allowing compromise over what to include, what to exclude and the relative proportions devoted to different material. Standard editing procedures have produced seemingly endless conflict and edit wars at this article for years. I think that this new procedure --- which I call multi-day section-editing --- should be required going forward.

Guidance is needed on applying WP:BLP to contentious claims made about living persons

I suspect that many complaints about my behavior will center around recent disputes about material related to Arthur Jensen. The original debate is here. Several similar debates have followed, summarized here. Throughout, my behavior has been guided by my understanding of WP:BLP: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." The critical question, obviously, is just what "poorly sourced" means in this context. If a reliable source reports that person X says that Arthur Jensen wrote Extreme Claim A, do we just report that fact? Or should we demand to see evidence from Jensen's actual writings that he did, in fact, make Extreme Claim A? I would appreciate guidance from Arb Com on this situation. I argue that my interpretation has been made in good faith and, as evidence, cite the fact that uninvolved editors like Jimbo Wales, Off2riorob, and Rvcx were supportive of my position. (They may have changed their minds since then. See the full discussion for context.) Whether or not my deletions were right or wrong, it would be helpful if Arb Con were to provide guidance on this topic so that the policy is more clear going forward.

A list of sources that would allow for a thorough article to be written

Here is a list of sources that, alone, would allow us to write a thorough and complete article on Race and Intelligence. Restricting the article to these sources is not the Misplaced Pages way, but the standard approaches have failed for this article for years. Why not try something different?

• Ian J. Deary (2001), Intelligence: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0192893211
• James R. Flynn (2008), Where Have All the Liberals Gone?: Race, Class, and Ideals in America, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0521494311
• Loehlin, John C.; Lindzey, Gardner; Spuhler, J.N. (1975), Race Differences in Intelligence, W H Freeman & Co, ISBN 0716707535
• John Loehlin (1982), Robert Sternberg (ed.), Handbook of Human Intelligence, Cambridge University Press, p. 176-193, ISBN 0521296870
• Mackintosh, N.J. (1998), IQ and Human Intelligence, Oxford University Press, ISBN 019852367X
• Earl Hunt and Jerry Carlson (2007), "Considerations Relating to the Study of Group Differences in Intelligence", Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2 (2): 194–213, doi:10.1111/j.1745-6916.2007.00037.x
• Nisbett, Richard (2009), Intelligence and How to Get It: Why Schools and Cultures Count, W. W. Norton & Company, ISBN 0393065057
• Neisser, Ulrich; et al. (1996), "Intelligence: Knowns and unknowns" (PDF), American Psychologist, 51: 77–101 {{citation}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |first= (help)
• Robert J. Sternberg, Elena L. Grigorenko, and Kenneth K. Kidd (2005), "Intelligence, Race, and Genetics" (PDF), American Psychologist, 60 (1): 46–59, doi:10.1037/0003-066X.60.1.46, PMID 15641921 {{citation}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• Special issue of Psychology, Public Policy, and Law:
  • Rushton, J. P.; Jensen, A. R. (2005), "Thirty years of research on race differences in cognitive ability" (PDF), Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11: 235–294
  • Robert J. Sternberg (2005), "There are no public-policy implications: A reply to Rushton and Jensen (2005)" (PDF), Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11 (2): 295–301, doi:10.1037/1076-8971.11.2.295 {{citation}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Richard Nisbett (2005), "Heredity, environment, and race differences in IQ: A commentary on Rushton and Jensen (2005)" (PDF), Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11 (2): 302–310, doi:10.1037/1076-8971.11.2.302 {{citation}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Linda Gottfredson (2005), "What if the hereditarian hypothesis is true?" (PDF), Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11 (2): 311–319, doi:10.1037/1076-8971.11.2.311 {{citation}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Lisa Suzuki and Joshua Aronson (2005), "The cultural malleability of intelligence and its impact on the racial/ethnic hierarchy" (PDF), Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11 (2): 320–327, doi:10.1037/1076-8971.11.2.320 {{citation}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • J. Philippe Rushton and Arthur R. Jensen (2005), "WANTED: More Race Realism, Less Moralistic Fallacy" (PDF), Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11 (2): 328–336, doi:10.1037/1076-8971.11.2.328 {{citation}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Do any of these sources not belong? Are there other sources that are must additions?

Submitting evidence

I noticed your edit summary - no, evidence doesn't have to be submitted in one piece. It does need to stay under the word limit and avoid personalizing things, but you're welcome to work on it as you have time. As things get started, usually the drafting arbiter will give a timeline or let people know when a proposed decision is in the works so that they can be certain to have their evidence together by that time. Hope that helps. Shell 18:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. David.Kane (talk) 18:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Traveling

I am on the road and will only have intermittent access until June 27. David.Kane (talk) 07:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages Campus Ambassador at Harvard

Hi David, thanks for your interest in the Misplaced Pages Campus Ambassador role. More details about this role can be found at http://outreach.wikimedia.org/Wikipedia_Campus_Ambassador. Here is also a little bit more information; in a nutshell:

The Campus Ambassadors are crucial components of the Misplaced Pages Public Policy Initiative. Volunteers in this position will be in charge of training and supporting the participating professors and students on Misplaced Pages-related skills, such as how to create new articles, how to add references, how to add images, etc. Campus Ambassadors will also help recruit other people on campus to contribute to Misplaced Pages articles, for example by setting up Misplaced Pages-related student groups and by organizing "Welcome to Misplaced Pages" social events. In general they will become known as Misplaced Pages experts on the university campus (in your case, on the Harvard University campus). The estimated time commitment for this role is 3 to 5 hours a week, possibly slightly more at the very beginning and very end of the semester. The Wikimedia Foundation will hold a three-day training for all Campus Ambassadors in August, and will continue to stay in contact with and offer full support for the Campus Ambassadors throughout the academic semester.

If you are interested in being a Misplaced Pages Campus Ambassador at Harvard University, I would like to send you the application form. What email address can I send this to? (Feel free to email me this info if you prefer: alin@wikimedia.org).

Thanks. I look forward to hearing back from you soon!

Annie Lin, Campus Team Coordinator
Alin (Public Policy) (talk) 18:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Why less is not more

Do not feel beset over the suggestion that limiting sources for R&I, at least as a trial, has not received a vote of confidence. I believe the solution lies in appropriate representation of viewpoints as described in scholarship such as Hunt's and Carlson's—which is different from "embattled hereditarians versus embattled environmentalists." R&I is not a replay of the Hatfields and McCoys. More sources will provide the means to inject current scholarship while making for less whipping of authors for works published decades ago (while still accounting for their impact) and, most of all, telling a far richer account of the R&I subject matter. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 19:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

WeijiBaikeBianji considers you an agenda account (I think).

I suspect that WeijiBaikeBianji's last comment here is intended to be directed mostly at you, since you're the only editor who's recently removed a significant amount of content from the race and intelligence article. I thought I should point this comment out to you, in case you want to reply to it.

I notice from Cool Hand Luke’s comment here that he considers the presence of agenda accounts to be the primary problem with this article, so whether you or I get lumped into that category may be a matter of more than just whether we have a derogatory-sounding moniker attached to us. --Captain Occam (talk) 15:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)