Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicine/Classification Systems

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. There is consensus below that this page currently presents a classification system that is unclear and relies on original research. As such, it should not be given the impression of authority that is sometimes carried by the "Wikipedia" space. Userfication for improvement will be done upon request. Xoloz (talk) 15:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicine/Classification Systems

This is a proposed classification system for alt med articles written by Mr-Natural-Health (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), now John Gohde (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), which, judging by the lack of links, is not used by anyone other than himself. He has mistakenly cited it as a source for an article [1], which is the only time I've ever actually seen it referenced. As far as I can tell this has no substantive edits from anyone other than John, whose views on complementary and alternative medicine are... idiosyncratic, at best. I would say this is a page which unnecessarily confuses an already confusing subject, to no obvious encyclopaedic benefit. Guy (Help!) 13:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Page does not reflect actual policy. -Nard 16:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - I wrote much of this project page. Every class of article can be classified in a number of different ways. And, this page does nothing more or anything different than article classifications displayed in any number of templates / info boxes on Wikipedia. One example would be that all forms of alternative medicine can be classified as either being Western or Oriental in origin. Homeopathy would thus be classified as Western while Traditional Chinese medicine would classified as Chinese or Oriental.

Any editor who participates in a Wikiproject knows what a sub-topic of a Wikiprojed is. This project page is part of the Wikiproject on Alternative Medicine -- John Gohde (talk) 21:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• Neutral: The page itself has, I suppose, the potential to be useful if the associated WikiProject becomes more active. However, this usage of the page as a source in article-space by the page's main contributor (a highly experienced editor) is concerning. It's hard to recommend deleting a page simply because it's been badly misused. On the other hand, it's hard to see much benefit from an exhaustive WikiProject-specific classification system when the associated project has only 2 or 3 active editors, so maybe the potential for misuse outweighs any benefit. MastCell ^Talk 22:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Wikipedia needs to reflect what is based on V & RS, not on one editor's opinion and manner of organization of a subject he holds dear. I can understand the idea behind such a system of organization (and it would be fine on his own website where it is obviously his own POV that should prevail), but it happens to include ideas not based on the changing realities we find in V & RS, and thus this classification system is partially one editors private system being pressed down over Wikipedia, binding us to fit every edit into that private system. Even though most of it is pretty good, we mustn't be bound. We can't base Wikipedia, especially so large, interesting, and fluid a topic as alternative medicine, on one man's ideas. By adopting one man's system, we will tend to lock future editing of several articles to his way of seeing things, and that mustn't happen. We need to be flexible and allow editing to flow with the sources, letting them lead us anywhere they happen to take us. The potential for misuse is not just a future potential. The basic flaws in part of it have already become the subject of the creator's attempts at ownership, leading to personal attacks against any editor who challenges the accuracy of his system. Therefore this system happens to be a ticking bomb under any discussion where this editor's theories and beliefs are questioned. Other than that a lot of admirable work has been put into it and it would be fine on his website. There NPOV doesn't reign (nor should it), and other editor's diverging opinions need not be considered (regardlessly of how well-sourced they are), which is perfectly proper on a private website. We just need to get as far away from ownership issues as possible.

This system is just as vulnerable to the ownership problems mentioned in Wikipedia's "Law of Unintended Consequences" as any other subject here:

This applies to all articles and to any subject, including classification systems, pet ideas or favorite singer, regardless of who started the article or system. So attempts to promote something with as far reaching consequences as a classification system that will tend to lock us into a controlled way of thinking and that dictates future editing should be discouraged. The inaccuracies it includes also happen to be related to the creator's advocacy and promotion of alternative medicine/CAM, IOW using his basic framework to subtly place CAM subjects in a favorable and non-NPOV light that actually advocates them, and we can't have that either. I don't think this is a malicious matter, just something that has happened. He has an unquestioned right to do that off-wiki (which I totally respect), but not on-wiki. We all tend to see things from our own POV, and this is no exception. Therefore we shouldn't be locked into something created by one person's POV. Individual edits don't dictate other's actions while editing, but a classification system does. -- Fyslee / talk 19:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of "Unintended Consequences", I believe that editors should only edit stuff of which they know something about. Otherwise, not knowing what they are looking at can have some very serious "Unintended Consequences" when they make an obvious mistake while editing. -- John Gohde (talk) 19:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if this is another incidence of incivility (the not so subtle insult: "should only edit stuff of which they know something about"), or an actual threat ("can have some very serious "Unintended Consequences""). Hmmm... Whatever. BTW, if I have made "an obvious mistake while editing," I will be happy to correct it. Just point it out. If, OTOH, you are referring to some difference of opinion, that wouldn't necessarily be "an obvious mistake." Differences of opinion are expected and honorable and can be dealt with by discussing them in a civil manner. -- Fyslee / talk 19:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. per WP:V and WP:NOR. There's no way to verify classification of any particular therapy into the various categories on this page because references don't address them in this way. It's even difficult, or might be impossible, to separate modalities into the simpler classification of the three top level articles on alternative medicine, complementary medicine, or Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), because of the continual changes in the way the modalities are used relative to conventional medicine. (There is further discussion on that question at the RfC in progress about merging those three articles). The relevance to this AfD is that there are no sources to support a complex system of organizing the related topics, therefore the organization system is original research. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia namespace pages (or any pages) should not be used as sources on other articles. This page is a source of original research for one user and his own opinion. --Coredesat 06:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep or Userfy (but fix) This is a working page of a project, it has the tone of a policy or guideline and that needs to be removed and the archived discussion looks like it's been archived to hide it, but these flaws are fixable. If the Project isn't active enough or doesn't want this concept, it could be userfied (it still should put forth the air of a policy) but this sort of organizing of topics or at least discussing the best organization, minus the mandate, is exactly what projects should be doing.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 03:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.