| Revision as of 21:13, 11 June 2010 editEphery (talk | contribs)2,524 edits →Progress on Race and Intelligence has been made as a result of mediation← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:16, 11 June 2010 edit undoEphery (talk | contribs)2,524 edits →Draft stuffNext edit → | ||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
| ===Progress on ] has been made as a result of mediation === | ===Progress on ] 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 started in November 2009. Over the next 6 months, significant progress was made: compare of mediation with . Note how the new version was less then 1/2 the length (and now consistent with ]) 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 that it was an improvement over the old one. Important issues that had been the source of much conflict over the years were resolved. , "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 ] applies to the work of ] and others. I think that Ludwigs2 deserves a great deal of credit for the success of the mediation. Note, importantly, that no other Misplaced Pages editor volunteered to do the mediation. 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. | I started on Misplaced Pages in June 2006 and first became involved with race and intelligence related controversies in the fall of 2009. A started in November 2009. Over the next 6 months, significant progress was made: compare of mediation with . Note how the new version was less then 1/2 the length (and now consistent with ]) 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 that it was an improvement over the old one. Important issues that had been the source of much conflict over the years were resolved. , "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 ] applies to the work of ] and others. I think that Ludwigs2 deserves a great deal of credit for the success of the mediation. Note, importantly, that no other Misplaced Pages editor volunteered to do the mediation. 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 ] continues to be possible === | ===Progress on ] continues to be possible === | ||
Revision as of 21:16, 11 June 2010
- For Barnstars, see: User:David.Kane#Awards.
 Archives |
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 Misplaced Pages editor volunteered to do the mediation. 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 sort of 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 resulted in widespread consensus among editors of very different viewpoints. Common factors: 1) Drafting was done on the Talk page, not in the article itself. 2) Drafting occurred over many days, allowing all editors 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, a living person. 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 and
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)