Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:06, 30 July 2010

Template:Fix bunching

This is Jimbo Wales's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, Index, A, B, C, D, E, F, G, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252Auto-archiving period: 1 day

Archives

Index –index– October 28, 2001 – April 12, 2004 April 16, 2004 – August 23, 2004 August 28, 2004 – December 8, 2004 December 9, 2004 – March 23, 2005 March 23, 2005 – July 24, 2005 July 26, 2005 – September 9, 2005 September 9, 2005 – September 24, 2005 September – December 2005 January 2006 January – February 2006 February 2006 February 2006, cont. March 2006 April 2006 – late May 2006 May 24 – July 2006 July 2006 – August 2006 August 2006 Most of September 2006 Late September 2006 – Early November 2006 Most of November 2006 Late November 2006 – December 8, 2006 December 9, 2006 – Mid January 2007 From December 22, 2006 blanking Mid January 2007 – Mid February 2007 Mid February 2007– Feb 25, 2007 From March 2, 2007 blanking March 2–5, 2007 March 5–11, 2007 March 11 – April 3, 2007 April 2 – May 2, 2007 May 3 – June 7, 2007 June 9 – July 4, 2007 July 13 – August 17, 2007 August 17 – September 11, 2007 September 14 – October 7, 2007 October 28 – December 1, 2007 December 2 – December 16, 2007 December 15 – January 4, 2008 January 4 – January 30, 2008 January 30 – February 28, 2008 February 28 – March 11, 2008 March 9 – April 18, 2008 April 18 – May 30, 2008 May 30 – July 27, 2008 July 26 – October 4, 2008 October 4 – November 12, 2008 November 10 – December 10, 2008 December 5 – December 25, 2008 December 25 – January 16, 2009 January 15 – January 27, 2009 January 26 – February 10, 2009 February 8 – March 18, 2009 March 18 – May 6, 2009 May 5 – June 9, 2009 June 10 – July 11, 2009 July 12 – August 25, 2009 August 26 – October 3, 2009 October 4 – November 20, 2009 November 20 – December 21, 2009 December 22, 2009 – January 25, 2010 January 22, 2010 – February 22, 2010 February 22, 2010 – March 17, 2010 March 17, 2010 – April 9, 2010 April 11, 2010 – April 24, 2010 April 23, 2010 – May 12, 2010 May 10, 2010 – June 4, 2010 June 4, 2010 – June 26, 2010 June 26, 2010 – July 22, 2010 July 22, 2010 – August 23, 2010 August 4, 2010 – August 28, 2010 August 28, 2010 – September 14, 2010 September 13, 2010 – October 6, 2010 October 6, 2010 – November 8, 2010 November 8, 2010 – November 21, 2010 November 21, 2010 – December 6, 2010 December 6, 2010 – December 22, 2010 December 21, 2010 – January 17, 2011 January 16, 2011 – February 10, 2011 February 6, 2011 – March 19, 2011 March 16, 2011 – March 26, 2011 March 26, 2011 – April 22, 2011 April 22, 2011 – May 16, 2011 May 17, 2011 – June 9, 2011 June 10, 2011 – July 1, 2011 July 1, 2011 – July 15, 2011 July 16, 2011 – July 26, 2011 July 26, 2011 – August 15, 2011 August 14, 2011 – August 23, 2011 August 21, 2011 – August 31, 2011 August 30, 2011 – September 7, 2011 September 4, 2011 – September 25, 2011 September 26, 2011 – October 19, 2011 October 16, 2011 – November 5, 2011 November 4, 2011 – November 12, 2011 November 11, 2011 – November 24, 2011 November 24, 2011 – December 6, 2011 December 3, 2011 – December 14, 2011 December 10, 2011 – December 16, 2011 (RFC about the Stop Online Piracy Act) December 15, 2011 – December 30, 2011 December 27, 2011 – January 9, 2012 January 9, 2012 – January 18, 2012 January 17, 2012 – January 30, 2012 January 28, 2012 – February 12, 2012 February 7, 2012 – February 25, 2012 February 19, 2012 – March 4, 2012 February 27, 2012 – March 18, 2012 March 17, 2012 – April 2, 2012 March 31, 2012 – April 13, 2012 April 12, 2012 – April 18, 2012 April 18, 2012 – April 26, 2012 April 26, 2012 – May 6, 2012 May 2, 2012 – May 22, 2012 May 19, 2012 – June 9, 2012 June 4, 2012 – June 20, 2012 June 18, 2012 – June 28, 2012 June 26, 2012 – July 12, 2012 July 3, 2012 – July 22, 2012 July 19, 2012 – July 29, 2012 July 25, 2012 – August 9, 2012 August 7, 2012 – August 30, 2012 August 29, 2012 – September 13, 2012 September 13, 2012 – September 27, 2012 September 26, 2012 – October 5, 2012 September 24, 2012 – October 20, 2012 October 9, 2012 – October 31, 2012 October 29, 2012 – November 19, 2012 November 17, 2012 – December 5, 2012 December 2–15, 2012 December 15–28, 2012 December 24, 2012 – January 12, 2013 January 13–31, 2013 February 1–10, 2013 February 11–28, 2013 March 1–16, 2013 March 17–27, 2013 March 28 – April 6, 2013 April 6–19, 2013 April 19 – May 3, 2013 April 25 – May 8, 2013 May 6–19, 2013 May 18–30, 2013 May 27 – June 16, 2013 June 17–30, 2013 June 27 – July 30, 2013 July 31 – August 4, 2013 August 4–12, 2013 August 13–27, 2013 August 28 – September 4, 2013 September 5–10, 2013 September 11–22, 2013 September 24 – October 6, 2013 October 7–16, 2013 October 17–27, 2103 October 28 – November 6, 2013 November 7–19, 2013 November 20–27, 2013 November 28 – December 5, 2013 December 6–24, 2013 December 25–30, 2013 December 31, 2013 – January 14, 2014 January 15–24, 2014 January 25–29, 2014 January 30 – February 10, 2014 Archives not yet dated: 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 This manual archive index may be out of date. Future archives: 184 185 186

This page has archives. Sections older than 1 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present.

Template:Fix bunching

Template:Fix bunching

"I would personally like to medicate this idiot with a very large right fist..."

Perhaps you have an opinion to offer in this AN/I discussion involving the activities of an admin, WP:NPA, and civility in general? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Any reason why you specifically solicit the opinion of Jimbo in this discussion? Fram (talk) 13:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

My guess is that it would have something to do with him being the founder of a website where admins are threatening violence to people. But thats just a guess.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo has publicity expressed a personal interest in the general issue of civility on the internet. I don't expect his opinion, if he chooses to express one, will count for more than anyone else's in this particular instance. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Many people have expressed their interest in such things, e.g. by participating in discussions on the policy talk pages of NPA or of CIVIL. You are not contacting any of these. Any reason why you specifically solicit Jimbo's opinion? Fram (talk) 13:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

See above. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Let me be absolutely clear on one thing: I think it is absolutely perfectly appropriate for people to come to me with information and concerns about admin misbehavior, and I think Delicious carbuncle for bringing this to my attention. I am concerned, Fram, that you would try to discourage people from contacting me - I can't think of any reasonable basis for doing that. It is important to me that I keep track of what is going on, and it is helpful to me to be pointed to interesting and important discussions of all kinds. Why shouldn't that happen?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 05:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

IMHO, Delicious Carbuncle was:

a) trying to make a mountain out of an out-of-context molehill

b) "asking the other parent" when the consensus at ANI was that it was, indeed, a molehill

c) edit warring at WP:NPA to make a point

--Enric Naval (talk) 05:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Be that as it may, I still would like for people to never discourage others from speaking to me. Considering that I don't intervene at this level, it can't really be forum shopping. It does, however, inform my thinking about things in general to be kept aware of concerns that people have. That's important. :-) --Jimbo Wales (talk) 05:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll continue to discourage people to come to you though when it is obvious that they are doing so for canvassing reasons, in the hope of getting an argument from authority. You could easily frequent WP:ANI, WP:AN, and other relevant noticeboards where admin behaviour is routinely discussedn if you want to stay informed. That you don't consider canvassing a "reasonable basis" for concern is in itself telling. You no longer intervene perhaps, but you comment, and people use such comments as having more weight than other people's comments. That may not be how you see it or want it, but it is a reality and the sole reason why some discussions are brought to your attention. Fram (talk) 07:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• I would suggest that the basis of WP:NPA is respect for others; and perhaps someone who has given their time to improving the encyclopedia should be respected for their efforts, and their unusual lapse in voicing their frustration at a persistent vandal returning to disrupt the project in their accustomed manner, might be shown that respect by not having their intemperate remarks promoted as reason to question both their ability and dedication to the encyclopedia. That same respect should also be apparent that when a majority of commentators opine that there is no grounds for a review of the admin over the one instance, that an appeal to a apparent voice of authority - in the hope of a different opinion - is inappropriate. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)**Addendum. I have blocked Delicious carbuncle for 24 hours - I have given my rationale at ANI. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedians are real people. They get stressed, annoyed, curse at people. It's obviously an empty threat. Some things shouldn't be taken so seriously. -- Jack•?! 01:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you. A single out-of-character outburst should be noted and forgiven. A pattern of behavior suggests that a break from the project, or finding a new hobby, could be better for everyone. There's no reason to be super uptight about admins sometimes saying the wrong thing - but neither should we accept it as being perfectly ok and thereby empower and forgive behavior that is to the detriment of the encyclopedia. We can both insist on high standards generally, and recognize human frailty. Balance is the key.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 05:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that Jimbo. I'm sure you have heard of Bambifan before now as he is a particulary notorious troll and vandal. PM has been battling this particular vandal for years, and has tried every tool available to him to find some permanent resolution to the problem, including contacting ISPs with abuse reports, rangeblocking half of BellSouth, and even offering to mentor Bambifan. Nothing has made a bit of difference. I fully agree with PM that it is probably time some legal action was taken, but of course that would mean finding out who he really is. Dealing with obsessive people can be very frustrating, in the case of this particular user it can also get exceptionally personal. He will actually create socks to deliberately get the attention of users who have blocked or reported him in the past, like he misses you when your not around. PM is now on a break, and now DC is blocked for trying to edit-war his view of this matter into policy. What sucks is that this sort of chaos is exactly what BF101 wants to happen. If there is anything else that can be done about BF101 in the front office I urge you to do it. Thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Slander of biographical subjects

I am sorry to say that a day later individuals remain slandered by willfull distortions and misrepresentation of their comments and views in Misplaced Pages articles. It is distressing to see that you and admins like Mastcell are willing to stand by while the people who are article subjects are denigrated in this way.

I challenge you to find a reliable source that says Philip E. Johnson wrote that "HIV tests do not detect HIV". This is an utter fabrication. It is also false that he has written that "HIV does not cause AIDS". He questioned the relation between the two in the 1990s and called for further study. His article also includes innaccurate paraphrases of cherry picked quotes taken out of context. Nowhere does Johnson say "the US has lost its strength by relinquishing its faith in the 'true God'" Nowhere does he state a goal of trying to return "Christianity to pride of place in US society." And it's also misleading to say that he says "academics are afraid to discuss certain subjects because they fear Muslim students," when in fact he said that professors were afraid to discuss the subject of Muslim terrorism for fear of how Muslim students will react. In each case we see his words and writings being twisted and distorted, misrepresented, taken out of context, and used to denigrate him and his views.

If you take the BLP policy as well as our other editing policies seriously, I call on you to take swift action to empower good faith editors and administrators to take on this epidemic of attacks on biographical subjects and the misguided editors and admins who are carrying them out and encouraging them. There are many more examples of this kind of distortion and abuse and it needs to stop. Freakshownerd (talk) 15:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

This tidbit in the Bradley Manning article is another example: "However, in light of Manning's micro viewpoint of the war, he instead decided he knew better than anyone else and endangered thousands of soldiers lives by leaking the classified information."

Maybe you'll be more responsive when someone subpeona's you? I'm going to keep making you aware of biased, improperly cited, and slanderous content until you respond. Freakshownerd (talk) 18:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The edit to Arrest of Bradley Manning was vandalism, made by an account named Goeatadick11 (talk · contribs) which I've blocked for an obvious username issue. Vandalism of BLPs is a real and ongoing concern, albeit separate from your accusations against good-faith editors. I've invoked pending changes protection on the Bradley Manning article since it is, in effect, a BLP and has been subject to inappropriate editing from new users and IPs. It seems like this is the kind of situation for which pending changes was designed. MastCell  18:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Why haven't you taken action to correct the pattern of slanderous misinformation and distortion being included in the Philip E. Johnson article? Do you think it's appropriate for the lie that Johnson wrote that "HIV test do note test for HIV" to stand? Here's a search for Philip E. Johnson and HIV tests don't test for HIV: . Guess what website is the only one containing that information? And of course it's not in the cites added by user:keepcalmandcarryon to falsely suggest it's valid content. Are you suggesting that individuals repeatedly adding lies to articles with bogus citations are acting in good faith? Is that Misplaced Pages's official stand? Because my conclusion is that administrators who threaten good faith editors trying to clean up BLP violations are guilty of collusion and improper behavior themselves. You are culpable. Freakshownerd (talk) 18:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Have you read this article, which is cited in Philip E. Johnson? Once you have, let's discuss this at Talk:Phillip E. Johnson. As an aside, if you're able to reign in the aggressive belligerence, it will be that much easier to discern valid points amidst the sound and fury of your posts. MastCell  19:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Surely you're not suggesting that this passage "The claimed correlation between HIV and AIDS is flawed at an even more fundamental level, however. Even if the "AIDS test" were administered in every case, the tests are unreliable. Authoritative papers in both Bio/Technology (June 1993) and the Journal of the American Medical Association (November 27, 1991) have shown that the tests are not standardized and give many "false positives" because they react to substances other than HIV antibodies. Even if that were not the case, the tests at best confirm the presence of antibodies and not the virus itself, much less the virus in an active, replicating state. Antibodies typically mean that the body has fought off a viral infection, and they may persist long after the virus itself has disappeared from the body. Since it is often difficult to find live virus even in the bodies of patients who are dying of AIDS, Gallo and others have to speculate that HIV can cause AIDS even when it is no longer present and only antibodies are left." can be paraphrased into HIV tests do not test for HIV"? And I see that the same editor has carried out his dishonest smeary attacks at the Kary Mullis page as well. Let's keep this discussion out in the open. Is that section what you're talking about in trying to claim that Johnson has stated that HIV tests don't test for HIV? Do you dispute that they test for HIV by detecting HIV antibodies, antigens, or RNA, rather than the virus itself, which was s omething he noted in questioning how accurate the tests were in detecting the virus itself? Do you support these distortions of what he's actually saying to try to make him look silly? Freakshownerd (talk) 23:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to discuss AIDS-denialist talking points with you on Jimbo's talk page. (OK, just one: what do mean when you say HIV tests detect HIV antigens and RNA, not "the virus itself"? What do you think a virus consists of? How do you think viruses are generally detected in medical practice?) If you want to discuss this further, then I'll be happy to do so on the article talk page, which is the appropriate venue. MastCell  04:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

It strikes me that this dispute is a routine editing dispute that ought to be easy to resolve. One of the best ways to improve things, when people are concerned that a summary of someone's view is not accurate, is to quote the person directly, or to propose an alternative summary to try to find agreement. On the specific content issue, I think it fairly clear that "HIV tests do not test for HIV" - as a standalone - is not an uncontroversial summary of Johnson's position. But surely there is a summary of his position that can be found readily which both captures the nuance of what he was saying, and yet would satisfy those who would be critical of him. I don't know enough about the history of this particular controversy (I remember reading about it 10 years ago or so) to be able to write a proper summary of his position myself, but I do know that it is very often that case that scientists who take minority positions, particularly when those positions turn out to be wrong in the end, are often caricatured in a way that's unfair.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 05:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Johnson writes that HIV tests detect, at the best, the absence of HIV, i.e., a past, vanquished infection instead of a present virus. He also states that the tests are unreliable. He repeats the point that HIV tests often detect something else. I'm at a loss to understand how the given summary is a caricature or in any way unfair. But I'm also willing to entertain, offer and discuss alternative formulations. Freakshownerd has proposed no such alternatives and appears to prefer accusing me of slander to discussing the sources.

I'm also at a loss to understand how "routine editing dispute" applies when an editor passes 3RR repeatedly; accuses others of lying, distortion, slander and all manner of nefarious intent; refuses to discuss controversial edits on the talk pages but readily forum shops; and issues a veiled threat about potential subpoenas. It's disturbing to me that nothing has been done to address this behaviour, not even the placement of a single template message on the user's talk page. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 15:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Having not read more than the extended quote above, it seems that he does indeed not say HIV tests detect, at the best, the absence of HIV, i.e., a past, vanquished infection instead of a present virus but that he in fact says the tests at best confirm the presence of antibodies and not the virus itself - I am at a loss to explain how a person who otherwise exhibits above average reading comprehension would so easily be able to go from one to the other. I don't know when the extended quote was made, but I can see that around the time of the journal articles he cites there were issues with false positives noted by the CDC. Unomi (talk) 15:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

If you want to discuss the difference between false-positive ELISA results (as in the article you cite) and false-positive HIV test results, please stop by my talk page. It's a common error to conflate the two, although the (moderate) complexity of HIV testing has also been intentionally exploited by people with odd ideas about HIV/AIDS.

Re: Jimbo, I think we can reach a consensus representation that will be honest with the reader, fair to the subject, and satisfactory to involved editors (I agree we're not there yet). Personally, though, I'm not going to touch the article with a ten-foot pole until I see Freakshownerd calm down at least a little bit, because I don't think it's worth it until that happens. MastCell  16:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, Freakshownerd, are you feeling calmer today? :-) Perhaps we can move forward constructively. I would like to repeat that I've not studied the issue in depth, and so I'm not sure that any formulation from me will be all that helpful, but it doesn't seem on the surface to be that difficult. Would it be ok with everyone to say "Johnson argued that the tests at best confirm the presence of antibodies and not the virus itself" rather than saying "Johnson argued that HIV tests don't test for HIV"? (And this conversation should probably continue at the talk page of the article rather than here.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:42, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I think wording along those lines, or drawn directly from the piece coauthored by Johnson, would be fine. I'll move over to the article talk page to go further. MastCell  19:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

As long as an individual's views are accurately represented I'm flexible. I don't know if it's notable that Duesberg said HIV tests looked for antibodies (it seems to be well established and not at all what's in dispute), but I certainly have no objection to it being noted. This seems to be only a piece of peripheral worth in explaining Duesberg's views and arguments, which should be summarized in his article and included along with the key refutations and rebuttals.

Picking out misleading snippets as Keepcarryon has done in a series of edits across a series of articles related to these subjects, as well as misrepresenting what is and isn't in sources, isn't okay. I'm not here to engage in snipe hunts. Keepcalmandcarryon also added a blatant and inflammatory falsehood stating that Philip E. Johnson said he lamented the presence of Muslim students on the Berkeley campus, which is absolutely untrue. That kind of grotesque and dishonest distortion is totally unacceptable and Keepcalmandcarryon needs to stop cherrypicking quotes from primary sources and paraphrasing them innaccurately, as he's been reminded by two independent admins whose assistance he sought out at noticeboards. That's not how articles should be written and it's not appropriate for editors to find statements we don't like and highlight them in articles based on our personal whims.

If people hold stupid views then include appropriate criticism and rebuttals (ie. secondary sources) that expose why they're wrong. There shouldn't be a place in an encyclopedia for dishonest smears and misrepresentations about living people, and an editor who engages in adding them repeatedly should be blocked. Instead of aiding me in making sure our BLP policies are upheld I've been threatened by MastCell, which I don't appreciate. Cleaning up BLPs is a dirty job and editors willing to go through the sources and to help in the effort need to be assisted in every way possible instead of being attacked and labeled fringe nutjobs. I'm more or less sane as far as I can tell and my views on the HIV - AIDs connection, which are none of anyone here's business, should be entirely irrelevant. For what it's worth, they just so happen to be very mainstream. Whether the contrarian arguments are interesting, intriguing, moronic or some combination, articles about the people who expressed them should be treated respectfully and intelligently according to common sense, basic ethics, and the editing rules we are supposed to share and uphold. Freakshownerd (talk) 22:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

If you could specify where you believe I've threatened you, ideally with a diff, I will be happy to apologize. On the subject, you left a rather aggressive "warning" on my talk page a few days ago, accusing me of all manner of conduct unbecoming an administrator, and of defaming people. I asked for specifics, but I haven't seen a response. Do you think you could either take the time to flesh out your concerns for me to address them, or failing that, stop constantly making unsupported accusations? That's often a useful first step toward collaboration. MastCell  23:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I take BLP violations very seriously MastCell. Please assist me in stopping the pattern of violations I've noted above and cease coming after editors trying to clean up and balance distorted portrayals of scientists and academics with unpopular viewpoints. That is all I ask, and I think it's quite reasonable. I have no objection to pointed criticisms of theories that have been debunked as long as they come from reliable sources. I do object to editors pushing their preferred POVs by distorting article content, violating editing policies, and smearing biographical subjects with falsehoods. Freakshownerd (talk) 23:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Dr. Frankenstein, I presume?

Thank you very much for commenting on the Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy page. I greatly appreciate not only your logic but your civility.

My heading refers to my observation that Misplaced Pages has become a monster of sorts. It seems human nature needs checks and balances....and a police force. You are an admirable and rare example of following the rules you make for others, but I see Lord of the Flies playing out here. I'm requesting a stronger regulating authority at Misplaced Pages--a police force, if you will.

The only other online site in which I participate is FunTrivia, a family-friendly quiz site ruled by a benevolent dictator with a loyal cadre of lieutenants who ensure we adhere to his rules, not least of which is civility. Can you not do the same? I believe we would see much more progress on the encyclopedia if you did.

Here are some of my thoughts: To a fellow editor: Although not designed as such, WP is, among other things, a social experiment, whether Jimbo accepts that fact or not. I've long thought it was similar to the boys on that island —a microcosm where human nature takes its inevitable course as the pecking order is established and justice lurches blindly.

To another fellow editor: As you can't help but being aware, I think the article should be titled "Climategate." Nevertheless, we have to work within the framework that is actually present, not the ideal one laid out in the 5 Pillars and the many pages of policy. There are clearly controlling editors who will not even look at the sources we provide, who will not even consider or investigate the fact that "Climategate" is the most common term. Therefore, I think it's in everyone's best interest to lay this issue aside for months--or even years--until history makes this usage impossible to avoid.

To a third fellow editor: I myself find it difficult to let outrageous statements pass, but it seems to be in the best interests of everyone and everything at present. They aren't listening, they don't want to listen, they are entrenched. Trying to convince them only makes them dig in deeper. They're in siege mode, and rightfully so, under an onslaught of evidence they don't want to consider. They are intelligent and, aside from blind spots, informed, so eventually they should wake up and smell the coffee. The article isn't changing right now whether we are silent or adamant, so we may as well try to foster some good feelings that could lead to cooperation later.

Imo, editors such as those to whom I refer in my third comment impede progress, or "keep the article hostage," to use their own terminology. Those who keep arguing against something and who refuse to document their own assertions or investigate the documentation of other editors' assertions should not be allowed to take up time and space on WP pages, again, imo.

Wrt to WP:CIVIL, many times I have seen rudeness such as you addressed regarding "bollocks" allowed to stand, the guilty editor continuing to insult with impunity, and then see that same editor cry "Personal attack!" or shut someone down with WP:CIVIL when the offense was much less or even, so far as I can tell, entirely imaginary. A police force, properly deployed, should be able to curb that kind of behavior.

Thanks for your time, thanks for creating and maintaining Misplaced Pages, and best wishes, --Yopienso (talk) 01:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

A couple days ago, I suggested that matter be put before ArbCom. In retrospect, I realize the request was largely motivated by my understanding of the stranglehold a few agenda-driven editors have managed to assume in all matters relating to global warming on wikipedia. As far as the Climategate title issue is concerned, at face value, the process is indeed playing out as it should. But beneath the surface, a cancer of manipulation has consumed its integrity the same way it does in all global warming-related matters. The problem is twofold:

1) Objective editors just don't have the patience to police material for objectivity the same way activists do for an agenda.

2) Many well-intentioned editors avoid the subject entirely for fear of being hung in a witchhunt.

Thomas Jefferson summarized the problem best: 'All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.' Too bad he didn't offer any solutions.
--K10wnsta (talk) 05:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

@ K10wnsta, your "understanding of the stranglehold a few agenda-driven editors have managed to assume in all matters relating to global warming on wikipedia" looks rather like a conspiracy theory based on a presumption of bad faith, and possibly on a misunderstanding of the due weight to be given to clear majority views on aspects of global warming. There is indeed "a cancer of manipulation" of mass media information on the subject, driven in part by political ideology, commercial interests and by bloggers with a high opinion of their own rejection of majority expert views on the subject. The political and social aspects of this are not easy to cover objectively, if only because of a shortage of objective sources and a surfeit of polemical sources. Naturally, many editors come to the topic with perceptions based on the mass media and on their sympathies. Misplaced Pages can give good coverage to such social conflicts, provided editors act in good faith and show willingness to go along with core policies, which become of particular importance when dealing with fringe views and popular pseudoscience. . dave souza, talk 15:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The only problem with your argument is that there has been something of a hijacking of the NPOV policy and a considerable misuse of its UNDUE section, which is now used to exclude significant-minority views, not only tiny-minority ones. SlimVirgin 16:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

My goodness, a hijacking! The evaluation of significant minority, tiny minority and fringe views on any given topic is of course a matter for evidence from reliable sources and editor discussion on the relevant talk pages. Suitable proposals for specific articles will of course be welcome. . dave souza, talk 17:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

But as you know, a problem has developed whereby some editors are interpreting "reliable source" to mean experts they agree with, and the definition of "expert" is becoming more restrictive. One example was the attempt (the successful attempt when I last checked) to prevent The Hockey Stick Illusion by A.W. Montford—a meticulously researched book on the global warming hockey stick controversy—not to be allowed as a source, even in the article devoted to that controversy. Cla68 describes his efforts to use the book as a source here. The argument by editors opposed to its use is that the writer is not a scientist and/or that the work was not peer-reviewed, and therefore it is not an RS. In this way, significant-minority views are being kept out of articles, and this is just one of many examples, and not only in the climate-change field, though it has happened there most aggressively.

That is why I use the word "hijacked" of the NPOV policy. I use it advisedly, and I see what has been happening as a major threat to Misplaced Pages's neutrality. SlimVirgin 18:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

A splendid example, if rather detailed for Jimbo's page. As has been stated on relevant article talk pages and at WP:RSN, the book is a reliable source for the fringe opinions of the blogger who wrote it to promote the opinions of another blogger and retired mining engineer who has published prominent papers attacking the work of scientists. Given that it's claimed to present a history of science, it should be noted that the author is neither a historian nor a scientist, and it is not a scholarly source. Both bloggers have been active proponents of views which have little traction within science, and as such it's a primary source for these views. To the extent that these opinions are strongly supported politically by a significant minority, primarily in the U.S., then these views are properly shown in relevant articles where they're significant, but it remains a questionable source for these views. So far Cla68 only seems to have proposed it as a source for uncontroversial statements readily supported by more reliable sources. . . dave souza, talk 18:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Your post illustrates the problem exactly. Montford has a background in science publishing. He immersed himself in the Hockey stick controversy, and produced a book of investigative journalism—a detective story—detailing how the temperature reconstruction took place, and the efforts of two men, Steve MacIntyre and Ross McKitrick, to find the data that reconstruction was based on. For that research, he is dismissed on Misplaced Pages—by editors who disagree with him—as "a blogger" and a primary source, when he is clearly a secondary source, and the fact that he maintains a blog is not relevant to whether his book is well-researched. This is the only book (that I know of) dedicated to exploring the efforts to uncover the Hockey stick data, yet it's not allowed as a source in the Misplaced Pages article devoted precisely to that controversy. This is how the NPOV policy, specifically the UNDUE section, is being misused to keep out significant-minority views. SlimVirgin 18:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

As does your post. What evidence do you have to support your contention that it's a reliable source, albeit by a non-expert? At the time one of the five brief "reviews" praising the book was by intelligent design proponent George Gilder who'd similarly praised Signature in the Cell, so by your argument we should be using that book in microbiology articles as a source to show that there's "designed information" in cells. All sources should be carefully evaluated, using third party sources, and not given a free pass because there's a manufactured "controversy". Our policies were agreed for good reason, even if you feel they're unfair to minority views of unproven significance. . . dave souza, talk 19:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The NPOV policy has not been agreed upon; the words you rely on have been pushed into the policy very aggressively by a small number of like-minded editors, then stretched even further on individual talk pages to exclude sources those editors don't like. People who disagree are attacked and threatened, to the point where most give up.

Dave, the point is this: we're here as Wikipedians. Not as people with views about this or that. What that should mean is that we go the extra mile in each article to find reliable sources to represent all the majority and significant-minority views, including the ones we disagree with. That is the spirit of the NPOV policy, and the spirit will always matter more than the letter.

Instead, we see a small but vociferous group always doing the opposite, and not only in climate-change articles. Misinterpreting NPOV, misinterpreting UNDUE, misinterpreting FRINGE—and rewriting those pages to suit the agenda, then edit-warring when anyone tries to fix them—all for the purpose of excluding certain kinds of material, material that questions mainstream POV. But the same editors are happy to use blogs as sources to denigrate living persons they don't like. So this is not a question of high standards of sourcing. This is a question of—and I use the word again—the hijacking of Misplaced Pages to suppress certain views, and the hijacking of its most important policy to facilitate that suppression. SlimVirgin 20:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

It's hard for me to square these claims of hijacking and suppression with the reality on the ground. I can virtually guarantee that for any topic area of your choice, Misplaced Pages will give minoritarian views far more coverage than you'll find in any comparable reference work. And not just marginally more coverage; our coverage of alternative, fringe, non-mainstream, and heterodox viewpoints exceeds that of any other serious reference work by orders of magnitude. We can certainly improve our coverage, which tends to veer between excessively sympathetic and excessively debunking. But let's start by grounding ourselves in reality: despite the ostensible "hijacking" of policy to "suppress" minoritarian views, we have an encyclopedia where they are exponentially over-represented in comparison to our peers. MastCell  21:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

We don't really have peers, MastCell. Other projects don't have our space, our profile, our neutrality policy, our high number of contributors, so there isn't really anything we can be compared to. And anyway we're trailblazers, not followers, and the NPOV policy is what another editor has called our secret sauce. Yet it has been badly undermined over the last couple of years, both in terms of the way it's written and the way it's applied and explained to newbies. Speaking as a reader, there are whole sets of articles on WP I know I can't trust because they're the kinds of articles where significant-minority POVs are likely to have been removed. The advantage I have over other readers is that I know which accounts engage in that kind of thing, so I can look at the article history, look for their edits, and read the version before they reverted. But it's a shame that anyone has to do that. SlimVirgin 01:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course we have peers. We aren't the first people to try to construct a general-purpose encyclopedia, and we'd be foolish not to examine the approaches that others have taken. I appreciate that our model is novel and substantially different from those that have come before, but I think we can still learn something from their efforts. You may feel that we're incomparable, unique Web 2.0 trailblazers - and maybe we are - but I can tell you that every day Misplaced Pages is compared to established reference works. In fact, most of the scholarly literature that has been generated about Misplaced Pages consists of such comparisons. I'm not saying that we should aspire to look exactly like Britannica, but let's not pretend that no one has ever approached the question of how to accurately summarize a controversy for a general audience before. We can learn something useful if we're open to learning, although that requires a certain humility. MastCell  03:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I very much have to agree with you here, MastCell. It's a truely great thing to aspire to be better than those who have come before, but rarely can this be done without studying their triumphs and examining their failings. It's like trying to build a new and better laser without ever looking to see how current lasers are built, or even asking why they are constructed in such a way. Rarely does discounting the successes and failures of others yield any improvement. Zaereth (talk) 17:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• SlimVirgin is exactly right, as are Yopienso and K10wnsta. After trying to address POV and other issues on various CC/GW articles, as well BLP issues there, it is not worth it. There is a completely different set of rules enforced by what appears to be mob rule - anyone that does not tow the line established by the CC/GW activists can expect to receive comments like these: 1) "your recent POV pushing of birther-turned-climategater Ken Cuccinelli reveals that you are pushing a very, very fringe POV, so you should be more careful with your edits in the future if you want to continue editing these articles." in response to a suggestion for an addition to an article; 2) "Frankly I would prefer you not to, given your previous editing in this topic area." in response to an offer to help with an article (self-retracted by user after comment by admin); and 3) "Bollocks. He said nothing of the sort. Don't invent things," in response to an editor proposing a name change compromise. Today, three editors were making what I saw as possitve contributions to an article. The article creator, through a series of edits, deleted almost all of them. One editor reverted and suggested discussion on the talk page. The creator edited the changes out again. I made my first and only edit, to revert that and request discussion per WP:BRD and that was ignored. The creator edits the changes out again. I make no more edits, but get warned for edit-warring. It's not worth it to edit in the area, and I'm not going to risk getting blocked for one edit.

Editors are belittled, told that they don't a good enough understanding of science, hit with WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE if they try and post a minority view, and are consistently combative. And if you ask them to explain their position, they just ignore the question. My first negative experience in this area came after I posted something on Connolley that was well-sourced through multiple reliable sources - granted the article I wrote was for crap, but I was blocked and sent to an SPI immediately. That's how they manage to control the issue, no one else wants to edit there. It is the third rail of Misplaced Pages - touch it and die.

It's just not worth it. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 19:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

{edit conflict} Dave, Jimbo commented on the CRUec talk page that "Climategate" and "scandal" are part and parcel of this controversy. Some of us have compiled lists proving just that. The editors who have the "strangle-hold," however, refuse to accept them and typically refuse to even look at them. Just today I provided a list of articles that use the word "scandal," and the first response was from an editor who falsely claimed, "Most, if not all of those sources are either outdated or slanted opinion pieces." My complaint is precisely this refusal to admit evidence, and in itself is evidence of NPOV. At this point in its development, WP seems to need a police force to uphold its lofty ideals. --Yopienso (talk) 19:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Yopienso, imposing diktats in content disputes rather goes against the way of Misplaced Pages, and robust discussions can be expected. The manufactured scandal of the CRU emails is itself emerging as a scandalous misrepresentation of both the emails and the science, though it's by no means black and white. Editors naturally reflect the views and information around them, and getting an agreed position on the NPOV way to give due weight to various strongly opposed views in a live and developing debate is never going to be easy. The best way forward is editors of good will finding good quality sources and avoiding original research. . . dave souza, talk 19:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

You missed the point. There is very little robust discussion on this specific point, but refusal to join a discussion. I'm an editor of good will, (See my contributions: http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Yopienso) I've found good quality sources (Did you look at them?), and have not submitted original research. (You know that in the past as I've been learning I have always willingly retracted it.) But the stone wall is there. The "diktats" I want "imposed" would quell disruption. An editor who refuses to consider information s/he has requested is disruptive. --Yopienso (talk) 20:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, agree that evidence should be considered, which I think is happening now. As suggested by an Arb, have been avoiding getting much involved in this topic area, not entirely successfully, so didn't check all your links. . . dave souza, talk 20:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

While I agree that a police force is a contradiction of the Misplaced Pages way, the comments on this page show that something does need to be done. Its not just climategate that is experiencing this problem (of over-enforcement of some rules, under enforcement of others). I tried to make some revisions to International recognition of Kosovo a couple of weeks ago. I was carefully paring down the article, splitting it up into new articles. But because I made one careless edit summary to the main article, I had two hours worth of work reverted as vandalism by an administrator. My edit summary was careless because I was only taking a break. You only had to look at the diffs to know that I wasn't vandalizing anything. Instead he said that the article (the fifth longest on Misplaced Pages) did not need to be broken down. I was also criticized by another editor for not following the procedure for splitting articles. I'd only just begun! --*Kat* (talk) 19:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, sorry to hear about this hassle, one bright point is that work isn't lost as you can always use the edit history to retrieve your previous edits. Will advise on your talk page, thanks for sticking in at editing! . . dave souza, talk 20:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

This approach is refreshing. It's the approach that's needed. But it's not the approach that's been in evidence on the actual pages, unfortunately. ++Lar: t/c 03:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Bad faith, Mr. Souza, can only be presumed in the absence of proof to the contrary. Rest assured, I make no presumptions. Following 100+ hours of observation, analysis, and occassional interaction with the cadre of editors so closely guarding that hot button issue, I can say with absolute certainty that my opinion of them has moved beyond bad faith to sit squarely in the realm of no faith at all. If the matter ever went before arbitration, there would be little challenge in demonstrating a clear and prolonged pattern of bias, intimidation, and groupthink being employed to manipulate the content of those articles.
Furthermore, it is not our task to assign motives to the media's coverage of a topic (unless those motives are the subject of the topic itself), nor is it to synthesize theories as to a 'political ideology' driving it.
--K10wnsta (talk) 21:09, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

You may not be aware, but the matter is before arbitration as we speak, with a proposed decision expected "any day now"... Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change. The perspective of those editors who have not been involved for a long time, such as yourself, is especially valuable, although the case no longer is accepting new evidence except in limited circumstances. Comments can be made on the proposed decision talk page, either now, or after the decision is posted. ++Lar: t/c 03:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreement

I gotta agree with the spirit of Yopienso's observations even though I have not had that specific problem. The problem I've noticed is that, in our (Wikipedians in general) zeal to enforce some rules, we are forgetting others. FAITH and BITE in particular that are being increasingly disregarded. I think this is partly because it has become so easy to tag articles (and the corresponding talk pages) and rollback revisions that we just do it automatically. We don't stop and think about whether or not the revision was really vandalism (as opposed to just incorrect) or if the editor was intentionally creating a irrelevant article. Tagging articles and rolling back revisions isn't intended to be a personal criticism, but for the person who has been tagged and rolled back, its gotta sting. Does that make sense?

For example, a newbie editor started an article on a local club. But he didn't follow protocol. First he created a redirect, then he created the page, with just the title, then he started writing the article. Well, faster than you could say Misplaced Pages, the page with just the title had a SPEEDY tag on it. And while I agree that the article, as it stood, was deserving of a SPEEDY delete, the newbie editor, deserved the benefit of GOOD FAITH. But he wasn't going to get it because he was too busy writing his article to realize that it was already up for deletion.--*Kat* (talk) 06:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we do need to not be too quick to shoot first, but an IP or unconfirmed user that has the intention of creating a wikipedia article, should be able to discuss on the talkpage where he would get all the help he required. Or he will find the Misplaced Pages:Help desk or start a discussion on his talkpage, and a wikipedia editor will assist him as he requests. I think there are plenty of avenues that new users can, and do, go down to get readily available assistance. Off2riorob (talk) 12:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the Yopienso's view as well, but this is also occurring in the world outside of Misplaced Pages. WP struggles most and most visibly with controversial articles, making them the least valuable of the entries. Climategate wont be Climategate until it ceases to be controversial... i.e. the controversy about it in the non WP world is somehow settled.Thelmadatter (talk) 18:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• Wow. So it's not just my imagination or overreacting. I agree with Yopienso's view and SlimVirgin's and GregJackP's and the rest. I, along with two other editors, made a few edits to Attorney General of Virginia's climate science investigation over the course of several hours and arrived at a rough consensus on sources and the wording of some edits -- only to awake the next morning to find that the article creator (ChrisO) had reverted all the changes and referred to me as a "disruptive editor." Before making edits, I was careful to discuss them on the talk page, but they were all reverted without discussion. One of the other editors expressed displeasure at the total disregard of what had been collaborative improvements to the article. I was then warned for edit warring. I gave up because it's not worth it to try to battle the activists who are so invested in the article that they will engage in revert wars and malicious invective while protecting their POV in articles. This has happened in three or four GW/CC articles that I have tried to edit lately. There is virtually no room for neutral edits, reliable sources are systematically disallowed unless they conform to the "scientific consensus," the activists maintain such oppressive ownership over the articles, they are willing to violate all the rules, including the probation restrictions, in order to keep the articles biased in favor of their POV. This area is the cesspool of wiki and reads like Greenpeace propaganda frankly. There is a very concerted (if not coordinated) effort to keep information out of this encyclopedia. Minor4th 06:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

@ Minor4th, your revert removed a balance showing a majority viewpoint as well as minority views, which Chris had been discussing on the talk page, and showed only the minority claim that the various investigations indirectly related to the subject were a "whitewash". Chris reverted your change, calling the reversion disruptive, but as far as I've seen didn't call you a "disruptive editor." You may feel that the article should reflect the views of Fox News, the Daily Mail and the Cato Institute skeptic Pat Michaels, but please accept that it should also balance this with mainstream views to meet NPOV, and should focus on the article topic. . . dave souza, talk 07:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Dave's commentary above is correct. I think this incident actually illustrates a significant part of the problem - that some editors aren't aware of, or don't acquaint themselves with, or simply disagree with some of the basic principles of NPOV. The dispute I recently had with Minor4th - who has only been an editor for a few months - is a perfect illustration of this problem. Minor4th added unattributed allegations (that had in fact been investigated and repudiated) as proven fact, and it omitted one viewpoint entirely. Minor4th complained that my action in rewording the disputed passage to attribute the allegations and adding the other viewpoint was "POV". In fact, as anyone familiar with NPOV would know, WP:NPOV#Attributing and specifying biased statements requires attribution and balance. For the record, the discussion and contrasting versions are at Talk:Attorney General of Virginia's climate science investigation#Versions.

This kind of dispute would be easily avoided if only editors took the time to learn what NPOV requires and not to dismiss out of hand the advice that others give them about it. There is a constant problem in this topic area of new editors jumping in and getting into trouble because they don't understand basic content policies. I suspect there's not much we can do about that, though... -- ChrisO (talk) 11:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

It would also be appropriate if you didn't try to explain such technical legal factors as copyright to an attorney. Or did you forget about the incivility you showed in that discussion, and the snarky comment above about how long Minor4th has been here? The perfect illustration of the problem was that, instead of trying to be helpful and direct him to policy, you pointed out that a) he didn't know what he was talking about (which was copyright law) and b) he should leave it to others to interpret what was, in effect, a legal issue, in addition to being a policy issue. As I pointed out at the time, maybe if one is not a lawyer, they should not comment on those issues at all - you know, leave it to the experts like many of us have been told in the CC/GW arena. GregJackP Boomer! 13:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, this is another good illustration of the problem of inexperience that I mentioned (and perhaps of the Dunning-Kruger effect in operation as well). I wouldn't presume to lecture an attorney on copyright law, since I'm not qualified to do so. However, I am qualified to tell him what Misplaced Pages's copyright policy requires, specifically in relation to the non-free content criteria. Things that are completely legal under copyright law are not permitted under Misplaced Pages's copyright policies. Thus, when an image is deleted for failing to meet the NFCC, it's pointless to say "but I know copyright law!" or "I'm a lawyer" as an argument for why an image should not be deleted. I don't blame Minor4th for this - it took me a long time (far more than the four months he's had) to fully understand the NFCC. It's also pointless to get angry and defensive when someone explains to you why you have to do things a certain way, or not do it at all. That is something that editors can do something about - unfortunately I've seen many editors flame out because they're not willing to learn how to work within Misplaced Pages's policies. Hopefully Minor4th won't go down this road. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

We also have experienced editors who don't understand Misplaced Pages's basic content policies. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed we do. Tarc (talk) 12:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem, Chris, is that the NPOV policy is so badly written—and in particular the much-misused UNDUE section—that it allows editors to make it say whatever they want it to say. Attempts to remove some of the wordiness (such as here), so there's less of a forest for POV pushers to hide behind, are resisted with threats and reverts. Attempts to explain on talk pages that it's being wrongly applied are ignored by swarms of editors who use it to exclude significant-minority POVs, rather than seeing it as something that's there to protect those POVs. The letter of the policy is being used as a weapon against the spirit of the policy.

The result of this—apart from our having a lot of rotten articles—is that we're going to fail to attract a new generation of Wikipedians, because without strong institutional support for neutrality, the project is a significantly less attractive place to work. SlimVirgin 15:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Exactly so. Minor4th 15:22, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• I don't think that any of the CC activists care what NPOV, BLP or reliable sources really are, so long as it fits their agenda. Or can you even begin to explain how these are not reliable: The New Yorker, National Post, The Daily Telegraph (Australia), The Times, Nature, Canada Free Press, and Fox News to name but a few. If it doesn't say what the activists want it to say, it's not a reliable source. Or fringe. Or undue. The above sources had what the CC activists claimed was negative BLP info on Connolley - can't use those, they are not reliable. It is different for sceptics however. For example, in CC/GW, Patrick Michaels is a prominent climate change sceptic (along with numerous others) - but the CC group uses anything they can to keep his views out of Misplaced Pages, even as a minority view. Dave is part of that group, as is Chris. Unless you agree with them, they don't want to hear it, and the group in general will not hesitate to run people off, ignore civility, and take admin action against them. That is why it is not worth it to edit that part of Misplaced Pages, and it is why many will not use Wiki for serious research. GregJackP Boomer! 13:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

No encyclopedia is used for serious research. Encyclopedias, as a grou:p, are too broad for serious research. What sets Misplaced Pages apart from other Encyclopedias is that here sources are cited. That's enough to point a "serious researcher" in the right direction.--*Kat* (talk) 13:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

This discussion is going nowhere here, please wait there is a major arbcom case addressing all of these issues right now. Polargeo (talk) 13:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• I'd just like to pipe in here real quick to agree that this issue is too hot to handle for most admins. It's such as shitstorm of accusations, blocks, edit wars, etc that we practically need a second ArbCom just to oversee GW related articles. I know I'm not the only admin who passes by any report/unblock request/ANI thread or whatever else that has the taint of this never ending toxic dispute on it. (On a side note, if Misplaced Pages is Jimbo's Frankenstein monster, does that mean at some point it will turn on him and kill him? For safety's sake, nobody wave any flaming objects at Misplaced Pages...) Beeblebrox (talk) 17:25, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec) The issue goes well beyond CC, although that's a good case in point, and in any case Arbcom decides behavior, not content policies. I think the frustration expressed here, on Jimbo's page, by many editors, conveys an implicit wish on their part. Years ago, when Misplaced Pages was in its diapers, Jimbo made some critical points about neutrality and verifiability, which have become the foundation of our current sourcing policies. I think now that Misplaced Pages is an almost grownup, it's time to right the ship again, or apply another needed course correction. As I see it, the problem is that many editors feel that it is their holy duty to educate the masses based on the mainstream views, and that any dissenting opinions are blasphemous heresy. It is important to understand that Misplaced Pages is not a teacher, but a librarian: we present the sources in our library to our customers, in a neutral fashion, without picking favorites and suppressing the views we don't like, except a tiny minority lunatic fringe. When we start suppressing all dissent, we lose the most important advantage of our product: openness. It's time for someone, perhaps Jimbo, to take this to heart and get us back on course, into adulthood. Crum375 (talk) 17:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Crum 375; well said: "Misplaced Pages is not a teacher, but a librarian." --Yopienso (talk) 17:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

But that was always Jimbo's point: we include majority- and significant-minority POVS, and exclude tiny-minority ones, except perhaps in articles devoted to them. That is the spirit of NPOV right there. It is not being applied, because certain editors are interpreting "reliable sources" to mean sources who reflect the majority POV. So significant-minority voices end up being incorrectly labelled "fringe," simply because they disagree, and we end up with a tautology—"majority view" = "what most reliable sources say," but "reliable source" = "someone not bucking too much against the majority view." We need to get back to basics, and away from the idea that the minute a source dissents from the mainstream view, he becomes ipso facto unreliable and fringe. SlimVirgin 17:45, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you're overstating it. This is not about someone "dissenting from the mainstream view". The real question, it seems to me, is the disagreement among editors about exactly what counts as minority and fringe. Take creationism, for instance. In the United States and many other countries, a plurality - probably a majority - of the general public believes in creationism. However, only a tiny minority of scientists do so. Is creationism therefore a majority POV (going by public opinion) or a tiny-minority POV (going by scientific opinion)? Do we write articles on evolution to reflect pro-creationist public opinion or anti-creationist scientific opinion? Does this mean that creationist works are reliable sources for articles on evolution? There's an additional danger here, namely that of engaging in false equivalence. If 97% of scientists endorse a particular scientific theory or fact, should the views of the dissenting 3% receive the same amount of attention? If you have a consensus of scientists on the one hand and a large number of dissenting non-scientists on the other hand, should the views of the non-scientists be given equal weight? Ultimately I think this boils down to two key issues - (1) how you judge the proportion of dissenters and proponents and (2) whether the proponents are better qualified than the dissenters to give an expert opinion. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:18, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Whereas I think SlimVirgin has it exactly right. This dispute, at the heart, is not about content. Nor is it "skeptics vs. science", as a certain faction wishes it to be painted so they can marginalize their opposition. It's about policy and the correct application of it. It's about what Misplaced Pages is all about. I'm not surprised that you disagree ChrisO, since you've been involved in actively suppressing minority views in a wide range of CC/GW related articles for some time now, as have others in a certain faction. CC/GW, the topic area, is not just about the science, and thus, if we are talking about the parts of it that aren't pure science (which is the majority of the content in the area), we should not be excluding all sources other than scientific ones. Or skewing RS to favor the majority scientific view while excluding or denigrating popular opinion. Note: Holding this view does not make me a "skeptic" (in my view AGW is real, and highly worrisome), a "biased" admin, nor does it make me an "involved" admin ... despite any attempts to paint me so by those who would find it more convenient to have me removed from the playing field. It merely makes me a wikipedian. Which I suggest some in a certain faction are not. At least, not any longer, not in this area. ++Lar: t/c 18:55, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec) In my own view, the best way to gauge the relative preponderance of views and gain diversity is to use high quality secondary sources who review and compare them. The best such sources are the ones more distant from the action, with no direct ax to grind, and the ones which are most reputable. Very often those are the mainstream newspapers, such as the New York Times. This is true for all topics, scientific or otherwise. For scientific articles, obviously the major publications like Nature would be a good source, but not necessarily for controversial issues, where the integrity of scientists is at stake, for example. The point is that we must remain open, and remember we are here to present the sources, not to teach the Truth. Crum375 (talk) 19:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Chris, one has ever argued that we judge what's majority or significant-minority by what the global public thinks. We go by what reliable sources think. The problem is that the definition of that is becoming ever-more restrictive—in violation of the sourcing policy, which is not restrictive—in order to produce articles with POVs that the article's editors agree with. So there is a pushing of "scientific point of view," or "scholarly point of view," then it gets more restrictive still, to become only "peer-viewed scholarly point of view." When that doesn't produce the desired result, it becomes more specialist still, with an insistence that the sources be academic specialists in the tiny area under consideration. That leads to the absurdity, to give just one example, of a professor of philosophy who specializes in the philosophy of religion, not being allowed as a source for the theory that Jesus may not have existed. No, the sources have to be biblical scholars. And guess what they believe.

That's exactly the attitude we've seen in the CC articles, where an article's reliable sources are defined in terms of which POV they'll deliver.

You are right that it is difficult to judge the proportion of dissenters. I would go further and say that it is impossible. This is what is wrong with UNDUE. We have to use common sense and present readers with all reliably published POVs so that they can judge for themselves what's worth paying attention to. Our articles must be libraries in which our readers educate themselves, not where they're told what to think. One of the most horrible aspects of the CC articles has been watching a few editors who work in universities acting to suppress material that other writers have produced in good faith after a lot of careful research. That is not what academia is about, and it's not what Misplaced Pages is about either. SlimVirgin 19:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Government Propaganda Organizations and Misplaced Pages

What is Misplaced Pages's plan of action for dealing this sort of thing?

http://en.wikipedia.org/Propaganda_in_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China#Propaganda_on_the_Internet

"It is believed that such government-sponsored Internet commentators have now become widespread and their numbers could be in the tens of thousands; Bandurski suggests the number may be up to 280,000 while The Guardian puts the estimate as 300,000. According to The Guardian, the growth in popularity of such astroturfing owes to the ease with which web 2.0 technologies such as Twitter, Misplaced Pages and YouTube can be employed to sway public opinion. The BBC reports that special centres have been set up to train China's 'army of internet spin doctors'."

I also noticed that a user editing an article that I am working on where whitewashing has been occurring editing this article about this other government organization that

"JIDF members also edit content on Misplaced Pages entries and monitor YouTube and Google Earth. JIDF's measures include reporting Misplaced Pages editors it claims are anti-Israel, and taking action against entries seen as including one-sided or false accounts of the history of Israel and the Mideast conflict. On Google Earth, it has taken steps to remove photos showing Palestinian villages listed as having been destroyed during the foundation of the State of Israel."

http://en.wikipedia.org/JIDF#Elsewhere_on_the_Web

I understand that there is an admin noticeboard, but if some admins are also paid full time government employees it becomes less potent. If a dispute comes about, it would be difficult to take the time for an average Misplaced Pages user to counteract a gang of full time government employees who continuously make misleading statements that might appear to an uninvolved admin passing through to be true solely because a group of users are making these statements.

I'm not sure if this is what is going on with the article I am currently editing. It's possible that the group is just a group of nationalists attempting to whitewash an article, but it is possible that some of the users are government employees as the wikipedia article relates to alleged international spying although its title has been changed and content about spying has been pushed to the bottom of the page in favor of an almost unnotable tourist trap in a different country. I understand that it important to combat racism, but government and sometimes corporate officials being paid to edit articles clearly fall under the category of propaganda.

Thus, I ask, What is Misplaced Pages's plan for dealing with government propaganda organizations?

Thank you for your time. Preciseaccuracy (talk) 20:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

This, I believe, stands as one of the most pressing issues facing the project today.
--K10wnsta (talk) 21:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Does this have something to do with the claim that WP is a front for the CIA :-) Preciseaccuracy, you just can't handle the heat or understand what collaboration means. Your infatuation with that article is incredible, it might seem that you are representing foreign interests as well. --Shuki (talk) 23:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not under government or corporate employment to edit articles on Misplaced Pages. However, it is possible that I or any other user is under government/corporate employment to edit Misplaced Pages articles. Does Misplaced Pages have a plan of action for dealing with this? Anyway, the user above Shuki is one of the editors causing trouble with the article I am working on. He claims along with other users that a tourist trap in China is somehow reasonably connected to Allegations of Israel spying on the United States and that the tourist trap in China should be the focus of an article originally about Suspected Spying . Side note: It's interesting that after months of the Chinese tourist trap section overshadowing the section about spying allegations, only about an hour or two after posting here, the section about the tourist trap has finally been allowed to move from the top to the bottom of the Misplaced Pages article.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 01:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

With all the strikeouts, it's not clear what I'm supposed to be looking into here. I think that our existing processes work reasonably well to enforce neutrality, although of course it can always be a struggle. Because we discourage voting, because we discourage article "ownership", because we have multiple ways for uninvolved editors to be alerted to a dispute and called into it, the system is already designed to be robust to POV-pushers, whether paid or unpaid. Is it perfect? No. Can there be improvements? I'm sure - and encourage conversation about what those improvements might be.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Is there a specific process to undertake for editing an article where there is likely involvement of a paid corporate or government editors?

I understand that there is an admin noticeboard, but if some admins are also paid full time government employees it becomes less potent. Some users that are government employees could build there way up by editing unrelated articles, but when a key dispute comes up they could enter pretending to be neutral. If a dispute comes about, it would be difficult to take the time for an average Misplaced Pages user to counteract a gang of full time government employees who continuously make misleading statements that might appear to another uninvolved admin passing through to be true solely because a group of users are making these statements. Preciseaccuracy (talk) 18:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I find this concept to be highly implausible. Yes, lots of things might seem plausible to an admin "passing through" but one of the great things about Misplaced Pages is that it is not hard to get serious people to take a hard look at almost anything, in incredible detail. If you have a specific example, I'm sure a lot of people would be eager to look into it.

About a year ago, a guy from a human rights organization claimed to me that we had a serious problem with paid operatives in support of Hugo Chavez working to make sure that nothing negative about him is posted in Misplaced Pages. I asked him for details, including diffs, but nothing ever came of it. I looked carefully at the articles in question, and they looked like just about any contentious area of Misplaced Pages - i.e. plenty of people on all sides engaged in a vigorous and healthy discussion, and where the use of reliable sources was agreed to by essentially all sides.

Regarding China, it's quite difficult to look at our articles on, for example, Censorship in the People's Republic of China and imagine that an army of hundreds of thousands of Chinese bureaucrats are in control of things.

I think organized advocacy groups of all kinds are certainly something we should think about, but I'm unaware of any very serious problems. You mention JIDF, but I think a cursory look at dozens of articles suggest that, if anything, we have a problem with anti-Israeli bias, not the other way around. (And of course strong advocates of both sides may argue that we're biased simply because we don't present their favored view of the world unrebutted.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)