Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:57, 19 March 2002

I live and work in New York City as a software engineer and am interested in science, history, music and religion. I am a member of the Unification Church and believe there is an absolute standard of right and wrong, although I do not claim full knowledge of what that standard is. I like to create stub pages. They're better than nothing, and they attract writers.

After comments by SR and April, I am temporarily postponing any edits to controversial topics such as sex education and the CFC-ozone depletion-UV-skin cancer issue. My own ethical principles forbid me to entertain a double-standard or otherwise to act hypocritically. I need some time to sort this out.

I have frequently made sweeping generalizations and often have failed to attribute a point of view to its proponent, giving the impression that it is a generally accepted viewpoint (when it's merely my own belief).

I like debate, especially if it helps us reach consensus. I don't mind if people call me names, but I try to avoid returning the favor. Sometimes, however, I focus more on "winning" the debate than on improving the article about which we are debating, which is counter-productive.

Nice catch on Sergio Aragones last week, by the way. RjLesch

From old Ed Poor article

I've decided that my bias is not an insuperable obstacle to my participation in Misplaced Pages.

However, I no longer think that the Misplaced Pages can be a useful resource for resolving controversies. At best, it can be a starting point for someone researching a controversial subject such as global warming or evolution. If my fellow Wikipedians will allow me to link from articles on "settled" issues to other articles outlining objections by skeptics, I will be satisfied.

I do not wish to place the Misplaced Pages imprimatur on my viewpoints or to abuse the Misplaced Pages for advocacy. But I think it's useful to the general reader if viewpoints, even if wildly different and seemingly false are described. The alternative is censorship.

Perhaps one effective way to incorporate veering points of view such as creationism or environmental skepticism is to link from main articles (e.g., evolution and global warming) to articles about alternative views. We did that successfully with feminism and masculism -- at least, the vandalism of feminism stopped. This way, the main article on a belief would be from the point of view of its adherents, and articles about alternative beliefs would also be included. Thus global warming can keep its "scientists generally believe" viewpoint, while another article, possibly entitled environmental skepticism, could outline objections to the generally accepted theory. -- Ed

Deprecated:

I am suspending my participation in Misplaced Pages indefinitely, due to a conflict of interest. I think I may be abusing the concept of NPOV to cloak my own desire to advocate the points of view I believe to be right.

Now, I might actually be right on several or even all of the points I advocate. The question, though, is not whether I am right but whether my advocacy of these points fits in with the purposes that Larry and Jimbo have in mind for the Misplaced Pages. -- Ed Poor

Software Engineer, father of two. Interested in philosophy, science, pizza, music, children, and world peace -- not necessarily in that order.

Mistakes I've made (thanks for catching 'em!):

I made a mildly offensive joke in a discussion with Wesley, who graciously and patiently explained my error. Thanks, Wesley. (I guess the lesson for me is not to be such a wise guy, especially if I have a "poor" sense of humor.)

I erroneously wrote that the New Yorker was known for its leftist bias. I guess that would be like saying sharks were "known" for being wet. Thanks, Larry, I stand corrected.

Stubs I started (which then blossomed due to others) include:

Bible stories

Among my contributions are:

Unification Church, Sun Myung Moon, deprogramming,

sexual orientation

I have mucked around with:

Evolution, Falsifiability, Intelligent Design, Creationism,

Homosexuality

Global warming

I love science but am only a layman.

Articles I'm trying to write or edit:

SEPP

I try to remove "bias" from Misplaced Pages articles on controversies dear to me, but I recognize that what I call "bias" may merely be ideas I misunderstand. I may in some cases also fail to distinguish between personal belief and documented fact, whether through wishful thinking or sheer sloppiness. Feel free to set me straight at any time. When I feel I've absorbed the lesson, I'll add it to my Learning page.

I respond to praise, reason, and pizza -- not necessarily in that order!!

Hi Ed, I just wanted to say welcome to Misplaced Pages, and tell you not to be discouraged by criticism of your contributions; its par for the course around here. You don't seem to be taking it personally though, and that will take you far around here. :) --STG

Hi Ed, If you are going to make "Race and Intelligence" a separate article, couldn't you provide a link in the "race" article to that new one? I just skimmed over it and didn't see it -- if it is there and I missed it, I apologize. I didn't put it in myself because I think it should come sooner than the list of links at the end, but I am not sure where would be most appropriate. Can you remember where the "race and intelligence" section used to be, write a sentence calling attention to the debate (it is a big part of race, however you look at it -- scientifically, racistly, whatever), and providing the link? SR

Talk

Ed, I agree that more specificity in the Sexual ducation article would be a good thing. But otherwise I think you are missing my (and perhaps others') point:

1) it is wrong for you or anyone to assume that because someone rejects your version of morality, that they reject morality. Many people do what they do because they believe it to be right; if what they do is different from what you do, it doesn't mean that they do what they believe to be wrong, it means that you and they disagree over what is right.

2) here is what I would beg you to do: be consistent in your use of the word "morality." In many of your contributions you start off qualifying the word morality ("traditional morality" or "conservative morality." But as soon as you begin writing about the people you disagree with, the qualifying term drops out; thus, you write sentences like "They regard morality as confining and restricitive" (in the sexual morality article). Do you not see what your inconsistencey implies? Why do you not write "They regard traditional morality as confining...?" What you do write implies that these people are simply immoral, and not that they have a different moral standard than you. This is the lack of NPOV. My advice to you is to go over your previous contributions, and wherever you use the word "morality" you qualify it, somehow, so that it is clear that you are not suggesting that some people are moral and others immoral, but rather that people are arguing over what the moral thing to do is. SR

SR, you're spilling a lot of ink (or darkening a lot of phosphor) to no avail. If my articles need editing, just edit them. Anyone would get the impression you don't believe in absolute values. I won't compromise with the destroyers of morality and goodness -- not one little bit. That said, if the wikipedia editorial policy requires a qualifier, please just stick it in. And if there is information missing about other points of view that you think readers will want to see, please add it. -- Ed

Sorry Ed, but to participate in Misplaced Pages you must compromise with others, regardless of your estimation of their morality. I too stand utterly opposed to the destroyers of morality and goodness, and yet I am trying to engage in a constructive dialogue with you, so you see, I am capable of minimal compromises.

NPOV may be the outcome of a constant process of negotiation and modification of articles. But I take it as a given that people should come to Misplaced Pages in good faith and not make contributions that are blatantly NPOV. Otherwise, as JHK has observed, they are wasting people's time and undermining the value of the project. Do you come to Misplaced Pages in good faith? That is what I assumed when I tried to offer you some simple and constructive advice. I promise I will not spill any more ink over this -- if I haven't made myself clear by now, I don't know that I ever will. Perhaps you think you have been clear, but your stated committment to NPOV and Misplaced Pages contradicts the language of your own contributions. Frankly, you sound a bit confused. That's natural, because evil's best weapon is confusion. I just wanted to give you a bit of guidance; that's what I am here for. ;) SR

Thanks for the humor :-) I think I've shown my good faith by not re-re-re-reverting sex education after you re-re-reverted it.

If there's anything specific you want changed, please just change it. I may be a slow learner, but I learn best from example: edit my contributions into an acceptable form, and I will do my best to adhere to that form in the future. --Ed

Ed, I was impressed with your ability to compromise in various articles (specifically in the case of ]. However, I have one suggestion. If you want to start an article, ask yourself if you are doing it to present a moral viewpoint or to provide a NPOV. If you are doing it to point out your version of morality/immorality, then it isn't in the spirit of the Misplaced Pages. It is not fair to say, "Well, if people think it's not NPOV, they can merely add to it." People who might be qualified to edit the article might not ever notice it. Contributors should attempt to be NPOV from the start. If you're doing it to point out an opposing viewpoint in a factual manner, on a topic that needs it, then go ahead. The only reason I point this out is your Summary field in a couple of your recent topics seems to indicate that you're writing the articles because you want to present a moral viewpoint, not because you want to present a NPOV (link to a site promoting immorality in teens; teens can make wise decisions??). My two cents. --Rgamble

I think I've been pretty open about my intentions from the start. There is nothing "subtle" about my approach, Dr. Kemp's opinion notwithstanding.

I want to ensure that good and true points of view are included in the Misplaced Pages. It's as simple as that.

Now, I realize that Larry and Jimbo have an NPOV policy, and I applaud that. It's actually quite necessary, lest he who speaks loudest and longest win each debate. It's rather daring of them to permit such near-anarchy.

It's true that I sometimes (often?) forget to qualify my contributions. I'm a terrible writer, I admit it. Yet it's rare for anything I've contributed to be really need to be deleted from an article; it just needs proper wording.

Perhaps it's inherently hard for authors to be their own editors. Other wikipedians have asked me for advice on how to attain NPOV, and I've been thanked repeatedly for finding NPOV solutions to apparently intractable raging feuds. (Remember Bible Stories?) I ask you all to return the favor, as needed. -- Ed Poor

I agree with Rgamble on the general principle - but others are far worse at this than Ed. But we all need to be reminded once in a while that we must rise above our personal feelings on a subject and present it fairly. That is not to say the we should include every idiosyncratic line of reasoning - all it means is that we must include good arguments on the most prevalent viewpoints on an issue. For example, it would be ridculous to include anything more than a single sentence on flat-earthers on an article about the earth. --maveric149~

• To clarify, I do not mean to say that I think Ed is a terrible writer, nor do I believe he is not a good contributor to the Misplaced Pages. I merely wanted to point out that if he is worried himself about not always putting forth a NPOV (and he does seem to state this in previous comments) that he should merely ask himself (as I do also when I write an article) whether it's to provide factual information or another viewpoint about something, or whether it's to promote or sway others to a moral viewpoint. Subtle distinction but I think if a Summary indicates strongly that the writer feels the item being discussed is immoral, then it's not being written strictly to provide a NPOV. Just a suggestion, and one I follow myself. --Rgamble

--- Ed -- FYI, subpages no longer exist. Slashes don't mean anything special. You're actually just creating new user pages within the User: namespace, i.e., there are now users named Ed Poor/unkempt and Ed Poor/Dr Kemp -- with their own associated pages in the User talk: namespace.

Ed, the Ozone depletion article is looking pretty good. I think separating advocacy (of all sorts) was a smart move, and is a good way to proceed with similar topics. -D