User:Fyslee

Talk	Contributions	Email	Guestbook	Userboxes	Gifts	Watch

Barnometer

Barnometer™
	n00b	involved	been around	veteran	seen it all	older than the Cabal itself

Just hold your mouse pointer over each barnstar to read each greeting.

My articles

• Reindeer hunting in Greenland
• Flora and fauna of Greenland

Hope for Wikipedia as a reliable source

The following comment points out something that needs to be taken care of before Wikipedia can ever hope to be considered a reliable source by its own and other's standards:

• Look, the fact is that advocates of fringe or minoritarian viewpoints have a tough road to hoe on Wikipedia. This is supposed to be a serious encyclopedia. Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Wikipedia aspires to be such a respected work. WP:WEIGHT codifies this. Of course minority or fringe viewpoints can be represented and covered, but advocates who relentlessly push for favorable treatment of widely discredited fringe viewpoints and refuse to bow to any sort of consensus or Wikipedia policy don't last long (or rather, they shouldn't but often do). MastCell ^Talk 00:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC) [1]

Skeptic quotes

Below are a few quotes that express some of the guiding principles behind my skepticism:

Science & EBM versus so-Called "Alternative" Medicine (sCAM)

According to notable skeptics and physicians like Richard Dawkins, Carl Sagan, James Randi, Marcia Angell, Phil B. Fontanarosa, George D. Lundberg, and Stephen Barrett, the concept of "alternative" is often being misused in a misleading form of marketing, implying something that is far from the case:

• "Alternative has two possible meanings. Correctly employed, it refers to methods that have equal value for a particular purpose. (An example would be two antibiotics capable of killing a particular organism.) When applied to unproven methods, however, the term can be misleading because methods that are unsafe or ineffective are not reasonable alternatives to proven treatment. To emphasize this fact, we place the word "alternative" in quotation marks throughout this book whenever it is applied to methods that are not based on established scientific knowledge." - Stephen Barrett, MD [2]

• "There is no alternative medicine. There is only scientifically proven, evidence-based medicine supported by solid data or unproven medicine, for which scientific evidence is lacking. Whether a therapeutic practice is 'Eastern' or 'Western,' is unconventional or mainstream, or involves mind-body techniques or molecular genetics is largely irrelevant except for historical purposes and cultural interest. As believers in science and evidence, we must focus on fundamental issues-namely, the patient, the target disease or condition, the proposed or practiced treatment, and the need for convincing data on safety and therapeutic efficacy." - Fontanarosa P.B., and Lundberg G.D. "Alternative medicine meets science" JAMA. 1998; 280: 1618-1619.

• "There cannot be two kinds of medicine - conventional and alternative. There is only medicine that has been adequately tested and medicine that has not, medicine that works and medicine that may or may not work. Once a treatment has been tested rigorously, it no longer matters whether it was considered alternative at the outset. If it is found to be reasonably safe and effective, it will be accepted." - Angell M, Kassirer JP, "Alternative medicine--the risks of untested and unregulated remedies." N Engl J Med 1998;339:839.

Other quotes:

• "Evidence-based methods are effective, and effective methods should be evidence-based. If a method appears to be effective, then it should be possible to prove it. If the research has not been done yet, it should be. We must remember that 'Absence of proof is not the same as the absence of fact; it simply demonstrates the lack of adequate research.' - Robert Sydenham. 'Lack of evidence in the literature is not evidence of lack of effectiveness.'" -- Fyslee

• "In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. He asserts that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new "fact." Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything. He just goes on using the established theories of "conventional science" as usual. But if a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, that he has a negative hypothesis --saying, for instance, that a seeming psi result was actually due to an artifact--he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof." - Marcello Truzzi, Zetetic Scholar, #12-13, 1987.

• "Not knowing everything is not evidence that, in the absence of knowledge, any available appealing explanation is true. Sometimes the truth is unappealing." - Steve Zeitzew, MD

• "Science is a way of thinking, much more than it is a body of facts." - Carl Sagan

• "Science is not a body of information. Science is a method of investigation."

• "The medicine that I use has two things that distinguish it from some other forms of "medicine:"

1. It appears to work anywhere on the planet.

2. I don't have to believe in it for it to work." - David Ramey, DVM

• "Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves." - physicist Richard Feynman

• "Science is best defined as a careful, disciplined, logical search for knowledge about any and all aspects of the universe, obtained by examination of the best available evidence and always subject to correction and improvement upon discovery of better evidence. What's left is magic. And it doesn't work. Science cannot solve everything, but the alternatives really solve nothing."

• "Scientific thinking might be defined as learning to distinguish the exception from the rule. I'd have a hard time entrusting my health to someone who didn't know the difference." - Stan Polanski

• "Science makes a lousy religion and religion makes a lousy science." - Linda Rosa

• "Faith and Reason inhabit different worlds--and so far there is no space travel between them." - Erika Wilson

• "Entire vocabularies of esoteric jargon, based on circular reasoning and ignorance, have been invented by true believers to describe their imagined version of reality." -- Fyslee

• "We certainly shouldn't abandon the field to the quacks by not turning up to play." - Peter Moran

• "Deciding not to act is still a decision. If it results in death, it is a decision that led to death." - Graeme Kennedy

Skepticism, logic, and critical thinking

• "Mundus vult decipi." (The world wants to be deceived.)

• "Mankind's capacity for deception and self-deception knows no limits." -- Fyslee

• "The worst thing that bad people can do is make us doubt good people". - Jacinto Benavente (1866-1954); Spanish dramatist.

• "Skepticism is the first step toward truth." - Denis Diderot

• "The brightest flashes in the world of thought are incomplete until they have been proven to have their counterparts in the world of fact." - John Tyndall (1820-1893), physicist

• "It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence." - William Kingdon Clifford

• "A habit of basing convictions upon evidence, and of giving to them only that degree of certainty which the evidence warrants, would, if it became general, cure most of the ills from which this world is suffering." - Bertrand Russell

• "Test everything; hold fast what is good." - 1 Thess. 5:21

• "Scholars are trained to scrutinize, to insist on adequate evidence, to ferret out logical inconsistencies and weak arguments. We are naturally suspicious of claims that go beyond our experience. Scholars are trained skeptics. Our professional motto is 'show me'. Where's your evidence? If you can't prove it, you shouldn't believe it!...If trust is the natural disposition of childhood, doubt is our disposition as adults. Academic training cultivates an ethic of suspicion, if not unbelief....we've learned to put every aspect of life through the fire of critical reflection....[But] the fact we don't know everything doesn't mean we don't know anything." - Richard Rice, Ph.D.; Spectrum, v. 28:1, pp. 39-40.

• "Everybody is entitled to his own opinions but not his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

• "Don't confuse ignorance with a point of view." - Dilbert

• "The plural of anecdote is not data." - Roger Brinner [3]

• "Humans have brains that are built to work on anecdote rather than real data." - Jeffrey P. Utz, MD

• "Anecdotes are useless precisely because they may point to idiosyncratic responses." - Pediatric Allergy & Immunology, 1999 Nov;10(4) 226-234

My POV on NPOV

Wikipedia's NPOV policy must not be misused so it becomes synonymous with revisionism, censorship, whitewashing, or political correctness. Editors must present both sides of any controversy. To leave out one side amounts to promoting the other side's POV. Wikipedia should include more information than other encyclopedias, not less.

One must:

• Present the facts about each side's POV.
• Not sell each side's POV as facts.

IOW, just tell the story without taking sides.

When editing articles, it is improper to fight for one's own POV at the expense of another POV. One should simply ensure that both POV are presented (not preached) accurately.

One should:

• Present the facts (objective & documented) about the POV.
• Not sell the truth (subjective & personal) about the subject.

This may well include documenting what each side thinks of the other side's POV.

NB: The reason that I have just labeled "truth" as "subjective & personal," is not because I don't believe some truths are objective facts, but because in controversial issues, both sides believe that their opinion is based on objectively true facts. Since "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth," and Wikipedia must not be used as a soapbox to "sell" various POV, then editors must stick to telling the "facts about both POV." Let the reader take sides after reading all viewpoints on the subject. In the end, readers will end up making their own decision as to what is the "truth" of the matter, and just like editors from various POV, those opinions will likely be at odds with each other.

The following comment has been allowed to remain on my talk page because I think it's good:

Personally I like the principle of "writing for the enemy", in the sense of trying to argue the strongest case that's possible for something you may not believe. If you don't face up squarely and honestly to facts that are uncomfortable, you're not engaging in an argument but avoiding it. Wish we could lighten some of these controversies with more of a sense of fun though. Maybe I'll try that somewhere, and see how it sits. Being relentlessly NPOV can get horribly worthy.Gleng 11:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The good doctor brings up a good point, because editors who are unwilling to "write for the enemy" are not capable of understanding or abiding by Wikipedia's NPOV policy. As such they will always cause problems. Writing for the enemy is an important mark of a good editor.

There is no reason why an editor cannot contribute in a NPOV fashion just because they have a POV in real life. And everyone has a POV, now don’t they? But just as

• "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." – Aristotle

• It is also the mark of a good Wikipedia editor, to be able to understand and present various POV, including those he finds distasteful.

My goal here (especially regarding chiropractic) is to contribute to the best article about chiropractic ever written. Most articles suffer from being one-sided. Skeptical articles write only from the skeptical viewpoint, and articles written by most chiropractors and associations naturally write from a promotional viewpoint. There is nothing wrong with that, but Wikipedia deserves and requires much more. There is much to write about this fascinating subject, and readers should feel that they have been well-informed by the finished product.

Wikipedia editors should consider it scandalous if a reader, after reading an article here, discovers totally new or unfamiliar significant information on the subject outside of Wikipedia. They should become so familiar with the subject here that they will not be surprised by, unprepared for, or unfamiliar with any issues or information outside of Wikipedia. They should be able to respond with "Duh! Didn't you know that already? I knew that because I always read Wikipedia first!"

Another editor has commented:

"It is known by psychologists, public-relations consultants, marketing directors, political spin-doctors and propagandists that a collection of "objective and documented" facts can be sculpted and molded to support just about any conclusion at all. In our society, such sculpting is pervasive. I hold Wikipedia to a higher standard, that of attempting to tell the truth. There may be special cases where the truth is so hard to come by that one must resort to documenting points-of-view; but this should be the exception, not the norm. Please note that the WP policy WP:V is the setting of a bar for inclusion, and not a guideline for general article structure." [4]

Which inspired me to reply:

"I see we basically agree, except for the part about general article structure. I too expect Wikipedia to tell the truth, but unfortunately(?) (or not....others with greater wisdom have seen fit to make the rules) the NPOV policy requires that all significant POV be presented, which automatically means that what one person considers to be the truth will be presented, and what that same person believes to be error, will also be presented. Naturally the other side sees it exactly the same way, but from their POV. This policy ensures that a subject is covered from all angles, and that readers not only hear "the truth,", but also learn about dissenting viewpoints. That's what makes this an encyclopedia, rather than a sales brochure. As you may have noted, I still think it's fine to write from one POV outside of Wikipedia. There is certainly a place for that." [5]

What can we conclude from all this? That the NPOV policy is not about preserving or protecting my POV, but about presenting all significant POV, which is what's required for making a great encyclopedia!

Criticism and undue weight

An interesting discussion found here:

There is alot of debate in talk pages about handling a criticism section. I feel it is important to address this issue specifficaly. I think there needs to be a policy on how you address sections like this. --Zonerocks 20:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Isn't that WP:NPOV? Specifically the "Undue weight" section. I've seen articles where criticism makes up 80% of the word count of the article. Obviously 80% is too high, but there's no magic number, how much criticism really can or should be included will vary from article to article. A criticism policy would probably be redundant to NPOV, but there's an essay at Wikipedia:Criticism. It doesn't appear very active, but I suppose a guideline on this topic could be explored. --W.marsh 20:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why valid critical arguments must be deleted because they're overwhelming. Come up with more information to balance them out, don't delete valid information. Ed Ropple - Blacken - (Talk) 21:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Blacken's sentiment. While too much criticism makes my eyes squint while reading any article, I could not be crass enough to go and edit 30% of it out just to balance the article. In this case building up arguments in favor rather than demolishing down negative arguments is a good solution to the problem.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 21:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

This form of "undue weight" is an inevitable result of the "notability" policy for inclusion. Some people and subjects are notable because they are notorious. This automatically results in a large amount of negative information, since most of the verifiable information from reliable sources is negative. Other information would be original research or from unacceptable sources. That's life. As long as the information is properly sourced and worded in an NPOV manner (simply presenting the POV, without advocating or attacking it), then there's no problem.

For controversial subjects, with editors on both sides of the issue, this can still end up with an unbalanced article. In scientific and medical matters this is because the scientists usually have better sources and are better at presenting their arguments than the quacks, pseudoscientists, and true believers, who don't have very good sources (just anecdotes or hate sites), and whose arguments are often filled with logical fallacies.

The way forward in such cases is as suggested -- to build up what's lacking, not to exercise bad faith towards other editors by deleting their hard work. Bad people or subjects should not be whitewashed by deleting valid and well-sourced information. Suppression of opposing POV is a very unwikipedian thing to do.

Wikipedia's NPOV policy must not be misused so it becomes synonymous with revisionism, censorship, whitewashing, or political correctness. One must allow presentation of both sides of any controversy. To leave out or suppress one side amounts to promoting the other side's POV. Wikipedia should include more information than other encyclopedias, not less. -- Fyslee

Wikipedia:Five pillars

All of Wikipedia's official policies and guidelines can be reduced to these five pillars that define Wikipedia's character:

	Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs. All articles must follow our no original research policy and strive for accuracy; Wikipedia is not the place to insert personal opinions, experiences, or arguments. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Wikipedia is not a trivia collection, a soapbox, a vanity publisher, an experiment in anarchy or democracy, or a web directory. Nor is Wikipedia a dictionary, a newspaper, or a collection of source documents; these kinds of content should be contributed to the sister projects, Wiktionary, Wikinews, and Wikisource, respectively.
	Wikipedia has a neutral point of view, which means we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view; presenting each point of view accurately; providing context for any given point of view, so that readers understand whose view the point represents; and presenting no one point of view as "the truth" or "the best view". It means citing verifiable, authoritative sources whenever possible, especially on controversial topics. When a conflict arises as to which version is the most neutral, declare a cool-down period and tag the article as disputed; hammer out details on the talk page and follow dispute resolution.
	Wikipedia is free content that anyone may edit. All text is available under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and may be distributed or linked accordingly. Recognize that articles can be changed by anyone and no individual controls any specific article; therefore, any writing you contribute can be mercilessly edited and redistributed at will by the community. Do not submit copyright infringements or works licensed in a way incompatible with the GFDL.
	Wikipedia has a code of conduct: Respect your fellow Wikipedians even when you may not agree with them. Be civil. Avoid making personal attacks or sweeping generalizations. Stay cool when the editing gets hot; avoid edit wars by following the three-revert rule; remember that there are 2,412,351 articles on the English Wikipedia to work on and discuss. Act in good faith, never disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, and assume good faith on the part of others. Be open and welcoming.
	Wikipedia does not have firm rules besides the five general principles elucidated here. Be bold in editing, moving, and modifying articles, because the joy of editing is that although it should be aimed for, perfection isn't required. And don't worry about messing up. All prior versions of articles are kept, so there is no way that you can accidentally damage Wikipedia or irretrievably destroy content. But remember — whatever you write here will be preserved for posterity.

Note

This page describes Wikipedia's fundamental principles. These principles predate the creation of this page. It is sometimes said that all or most policy is based upon this page, but most policy also predates the creation of this page.

Wikipedia's principles

How to: Help, Cite sources, Manual of Style, Style and How-to Directory, Wiki Markup, TeX, Utilities, Picture tutorial, Extended image syntax, Tables, Table help.

Policies and guidelines: Policies and guidelines, verifiability, Neutral point of view, No original research, Assume good faith, What Wikipedia is not, Banning policy, Three revert rule..