User talk:Zvika/Archive3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Expert Withdrawal

Hi, Zvika. I noticed you posted on Filll's talk page about Expert Withdrawal. If I were you, I would start with talking to Raymond Arritt - they are his sub-pages. They started during the time when the MH ArbCom case was winding down, and prior to the loss of a very valuable editor. The issues, in my view, can be boiled down to just two:

  1. how to deal with the relentlessly civil but tendentious POV-pushing editors - these editors have helped to make many pseudoscience articles uneditable
  2. in contentious areas, we have admins who will enforce WP:CIVIL and WP:3RR but not other policies such as WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:WEIGHT, WP:TE, WP:GAME, WP:FRINGE, ... - this relucatance is understandable in that civility and 3rr are easy to enforce, and many of the others require some understanding of the topic under discussion (often leading to disqualification of an admin as they aren't 'uninvolved') but the results are not to the benefit of WP, especially as some of the editors in the point 1 category are skilled at getting opponents blocked by gaming WP:CIVIL

If you want to see what I mean about gaming, have a look at WP:AE and the complaints in the last week about ScienceApologist. Best, Jay*Jay (talk) 10:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointers. --Zvika (talk) 11:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Could you specify which "very valuable editor" has left, and what is the MH ArbCom case you are referring to? Thanks, --Zvika (talk) 13:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The "very valuable editor" who left was an administrator who used his right to vanish, and has tried to remove his name from anyplace on Wikipedia. For a while he was editing under Vanished User, trying to remove his name. The Arbcomm case was about User: Matthew Hoffman (hence the MH). It was a very ugly "test case" where an administrator acted somewhat irresponsibly and voting started within 12 hours, before there was any evidence. There were two RfCs (or even three RfCs, depending on how you count) involved as well (one of which was deleted, so you have to get it undeleted to read it).--Filll (talk) 16:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

There is much more to this MH case, and I have a lot of opinions on the MH case, but I am not sure they are of interest to you. You can read the MH case and decide how much you want to know.
And yes, the Expert Withdrawal page I believe grew out of the Matthew Hoffman case. I am not sure who started it, but I believe it was User: Raymond arritt. I was an early contributor, but I did not start it.
I agree pretty much with the characterization above. The page originated from the general feeling that WP:CIVIL and maybe WP:BITE are viewed as more important than any other WP policy including WP:TE and WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV, particularly in pseudoscience areas and alternative medicine areas (obviously, it is easier to enforce WP:CIVIL than the others, so this might be a big part of the reason).
I wonder if we are not overemphasizing WP:CIVIL at the cost of productivity, potentially. Unproductive SPAs who are civil, or who are gaming the system by charging everyone else with civility violations, even for disagreeing with them, are running the show in many areas. Previously they might have been sanctioned, but I gather that the current zeitgeist is that unproductive SPAs are to be allowed to do whatever they want since we want to grow the number of editors here and do not want to chase anyone new or trollish off, at all costs, even at the costs of disruption or driving off experts and experienced productive editors (who are clearly viewed as not worth as much as unproductive SPAs and trolls by many now). Friends who are on both sides of the pseudoscience divide (pro science and pro pseudoscience) but who are productive have ran into this WP:CIVIL trouble, and it has given me pause to see very productive members be discouraged while we encourage unproductive editors.
You can see many opinions on the Expert Withdrawal pages. Many are from MDs and PhDs and other experts, particularly in the sciences expressing dismay at the situation. Many suggestions are there for dealing with the problem. The first impulse many have is to stage a strike or walkout action.
I have stated repeatedly that a strike might be good for getting someone's attention, but then what do you do when you have their attention? I have been trying to encourage editors to come up with creative ideas on how to reform WP policies and culture to help with the perceived problems and frustrations. I want us to come up with a list of potential measures to try, and to put them in a document. Then when we get the attention of the senior levels of Wikipedia and alert them to the problem, we have constructive input to offer and a list of suggestions on how to make things better. You can see all of this in far more detail on the Expert Withdrawal pages.
Feel free to ask me if you have more questions or want more information.--Filll (talk) 17:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Contact me for the other side of the story. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Ooooh, do' share the state secret, 'do. •Jim62sch•dissera! 22:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Zivka. I have no opinion one way or the other about whether this should be in the Signpost. Jay*Jay accurately describes the origin of the frustrations in the two points he notes at the top of this thread. I started the subpage because there were discussions like this scattered around on various article talk pages. The subpage is a central place for thoughts on the underlying issues, and has the added benefit of improving the signal-to-noise ratio on article talk pages. I should note (as I have previously) that "expert" was a poor choice of words on my part. Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

As you see just above with the minor example provided by Jim62sch, one issue which could be covered is whether or not those perceived to have fringe views deserve to be treated with civility and kindness on Wikipedia (see also the Expert Withdrawal page). Other issues include interpretations of policy. But I'm not a reader of the Signpost, so I may have it all wrong. Certainly, it is a very complicated situation, with strong feelings and a very long history involving at least three very complicated ArbComs. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Martin, I would very much like to hear your side of the story, but please try to phrase it in a way that I can understand. For example, what exactly are you referring to as "interpretations of policy"? Also, I am not quite sure how to understand your comment on civility: obviously many editors have civility problems; are you saying that there are more civility problems on the "mainstream science" side? Finally, is there any discussion page where you and other like-minded people are discussing the issues that bother them and what they think should be done about it? --Zvika (talk) 05:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Martinphi and like-minded editors are indeed on the opposite side of the issue from the pro-science editors, and interpret WP policies (particularly NPOV) differently than the pro-science editors and editors trying to include material representing mainstream views in pseudoscience and alternative medicine articles. I do not know if they have a central location where they share views; one can find these views scattered on a number of talk pages, and many of them are arguing vehemently that pro-science editors interpret NPOV incorrectly. I would be glad to give you some examples if you are interested.--Filll (talk) 05:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks but I'd rather give Martinphi a chance to respond in person. --Zvika (talk) 05:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I give up

Filll (and whoever else might be watching): As far as I can see from having read most of the very long discussion you held, it seems that talk of a strike or boycott pretty much fizzled out, and you are left with various suggestions for modifications of the way Wikipedia works. That's not much of a news item in my opinion. Might I suggest you finish writing the essay you started working on; seems to me that that's a more appropriate way of letting people know of your suggestions. It took me a whole day to read the discussion, and I am a fairly fast reader. I don't think many other people would have bothered, even if the subject matter interests them. --Zvika (talk) 13:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Probably for the best.--Filll (talk) 13:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it does tend to go on and on and on and on. And on. And on again. I admire your patience. Let me know if you have any questions and I'll attempt a concise response. Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Ray, it would appear that it's time to start editing that particular page back to what it started out as. Currently it's turning into more of the Homeopathy wars with the decent of the POV-pushers on the page(s).
Zvika, FWIW, there is no organised campaign. But you can see the informal results as a lot of pro-science types have left the various contentious articles. Sure, some are still there but most are sticking to more rational subjects, withdrawn to just ce'ing, or just withdrawn in general. But you are correct, it's not really newsworthy per say. Shot info (talk) 02:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it's pretty newsworthy that a bunch of purportedly unorganized editors are dominating a bunch of articles in opposition to the out-numbered editors who wish to make them sound neutral instead of making them into debunking articles (if a lot have withdrawn, a whole lot remain). They are doing this avowedly in the name of WP:SPOV, a deprecated principle. I thought it was very perceptive of Zvika to see that what you want is not really NPOV, or WEIGHT as written, or even FRINGE as written, but a revamp of the current structure which would even allow you to do OR to debunk. Zvika, there was even a vote on allowing OR in the Bleep article. They thought it would be fine. I think Jimbo, for one, would be interested that a group of SPOV editors tried to take over the ArbCom, and then when that failed are brainstorming on how to change WP, at the same time they are, avowedly, pushing SPOV on fringe articles. They even say directly that SPOV and NPOV are the same thing, directly opposing the consensus on the community on this matter. If it isn't newsworthy, it's sure worthy of something. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Uh huh. Well you have your Martinphi response.--Filll (talk) 04:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Wow, Martin is that what's happening? Well Zvika, I guess you do have a story there... Heroes, Villians, Underdogs, and even a maiden in distress :-) Shot info (talk) 05:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
It's just that I see this primarily as an argument, not something that actually happened. Had there actually been a strike with any noticeable effect, that would have been a story to cover. The Signpost does stories on things that happened, like interesting ArbCom decisions and such. It seems to me that what you've got here is more appropriate for a kind of editorial or opinion piece, which the Signpost doesn't really carry. This is not to say that it's less important or less interesting -- personally I found it extremely interesting. Perhaps you could go on Wikipedia Weekly, they are always looking for discussions like these. --Zvika (talk) 07:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

A good choice, I think. Ral315 (talk) 08:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The real story

This discussion is continued on User talk:Zvika/Interview.
Please add any further comments on that page.

The real story is what has happened, is happening, and continues to happen with Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I am finding it hard to understand what "the story" is. People disagreeing on what an article should look like is nothing new. Anyway, as I said, this is not the sort of thing the Signpost usually covers. --Zvika (talk) 12:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
It's a bit more protracted than this. This spans hundreds of articles. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I stand corrected. Look, it's a very interesting debate. Many other people might be interested in it. Have you considered posting a notice in the community portal? Writing an essay? Having a panel discussion on Wikipedia Weekly? These are all appropriate ways to get more people involved in your discussion. The Signpost just doesn't seem like the correct venue. Of course, that's just my opinion. Feel free to discuss it with Ral315 (the editor). --Zvika (talk) 18:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Things would be a lot easier if SA and friends didn't have a good point. That they do have a good point -there is fringe POV pushing- tends to overshadow other points which are also legitimate. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
FYI Zvika - dude - right here on your talk page you happen to have THE two editors who are considered by many to represent the ne plus ultra of polar opposite POV's in this protracted drama. Also, these two happen to be well-known central characters in the ongoing "story". Why not do an "interview" with Martinphi and ScienceApologist? Submit it to Wikipedia Weekly or just post it as an essay. It could rival The Rolling Stone Interview with Lennon ;-) 66.30.77.62 (talk)
Thanks, dude, whoever you are. It brings me no end of wonder that I do seem to be considered this way. What Have I done right that people think I'm such a powerhouse? What have they done wrong to not know what my POV is? ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, Wikipedia Weekly is a podcast, so they'd have to do the interview themselves with whatever software they use (mostly Skype, I think). I for one would love to hear the interview if it does happen. --Zvika (talk) 17:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I also would love to hear that. These two are like polar opposites. Actually, although I am closer to SA's position, I find them both a bit extreme on some issues. But it would be extremely entertaining to hear them in a debate or discussion or interview I think. --Filll (talk) 17:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Totally agree! Any suggestions on who would be a good moderator? We need the equivalent of Jim Lehrer. 66.30.77.62 (talk) 18:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
You would find out something, indeed....... ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Oops, didn't realize that it was a podcast. Well. Realistically, an audio interview with these two just ain't gonna happen. But a print interview (especially using a wiki based format) is very doable. I'd love to see them face off with directed questions from an uninvolved moderator in a neutral setting with no interference (or help) from their cadre of boosters and detractors. 66.30.77.62 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Well I am not sure how that can be set up. But it is worth thinking about maybe.--Filll (talk) 18:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Could be done easily. First is to get them both to agree to do an interview. It should not be positioned as a grudge match or debate as much as a discussion. Second is to lay down the ground rules, for example, anything posted during the interview cannot be used by either party in an Arbcom or AN/I report. Both parties are advised to be polite and civil, but petty tattling and bitching ("he called me a name!") would be verboten. Third is to pick a moderator. Fourth is to open a page on someone's userspace for Wikipedians to submit questions for the moderator to choose from. The actual 'interview' could last a day, or a week - as it would be held on a specially created userspace page. Format: moderator submits a question, both SA and MP reply. Moderator submits followup, both SA and MP reply. etc. etc. Moderator determines when interview concludes, archives the resulting page, and voila, you have The Martinphi-ScienceApologist Interview. I have a feeling that readers would come away seeing that bitter rivals are often "two sides of the same coin". Or not. It would be extremely illuminating either way! 66.30.77.62 (talk)
Nice. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Why would an audio interview not work? It seems to me that it would be more spontaneous. Martinphi and ScienceApologist, if you are still listening, what do you think? --Zvika (talk) 19:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Lots of people write well but are uncomfortable speaking. Most scientists are introverts and are notoriously poor interviewees. Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
No audio interview. For both personal and technical reasons. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm willing to do either/both a print and an audio interview/debate. I already have some materials on this subject scattered throughout the internet including my user page, a video from a recent Wikipedia meetup, a copy of my pseudoscience presentation from said meeting, and a podcast interview with an online radio show. Anything more in any format anyone wants to use for getting the word out about this issue I will gladly participate in. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Very good material. I think SA is onto something. WP is a massive venue for promoting science, or pseudoscience, and the mainstream community should wake up to this situation.--Filll (talk) 18:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Martinphi-ScienceApologist Interview

Wow. Surprised and impressed by response from both SA and MP. From the examples provided, SA apparently has no shyness about doing audio interviews or appearing under his real identity. Martin, I think it's time to step out of obscurity and into the public eye. Your destiny is calling. If your web connection is lacking, I think the podcast producers could set up a conventional (landline) telephone conference call. It would be a fantastic opportunity. Think about it. 66.30.77.62 (talk) 15:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

If Martinphi is shy, we could arrange to electronically alter his voice so he is unrecognizable. Or possibly he could submit his component in written form and someone could read his responses for him. That would be much more tedious, but still would result in an accessible and interesting product after some editing.--Filll (talk) 15:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. I think there are issues other than privacy here. For example, maybe English is not Martinphi's native language, in which case a real-time interview would put him at a disadvantage. If he so desires, I think we should respect his wishes and conduct the interview in text format. --Zvika (talk) 18:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd consider asking Levine, he's well-spoken and able to engage SA without (excessive) rancor but maybe he's insufficiently pro-alt. Pete St.John (talk) 19:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I still prefer the MP/SA matchup. For whatever reason, they have become iconic of the current dispute. Both feel an acute sense of disenfranchisement, and both have leagues of sympathizers. I'd like the moderator to probe their emotionally-similar yet opposing-in-ideology POV's within a high-level Charlie Rose type discussion format. 66.30.77.62 (talk)
Any format is fine with me from a formal debate with a chance for rebuttals to a side-by-side questionnaire. I can suggest some general ideas:
  • What is pseudoscience?
  • How should Wikipedia report on pseudoscience?
  • What is the main cause of the pseudoscience wars on Wikipedia?
  • What is the role of civility at Wikipedia and in the pseudoscience wars?
  • What makes a source reliable and verifiable when dealing with extraordinary claims?
  • What does NPOV mean when describing beliefs that run counter to scientific explanations of reality?
ScienceApologist (talk) 21:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't even have a landline which would work. I am also not used to speaking, and would not do well if I needed to improvise. So audio is out unless people actually want to have written text read. I also want plenty of time for responses. I would rather have the form of a debate, but I notice that SA tends to put in a lot more words than I do, and I think he might need to keep down the word count if he is expecting people to read stuff.

I think we should discuss issues which effect WP- civility is one, NPOV and WEIGHT. I would want to discuss actual attitudes, because I happen to know that people don't know my actual POV, and I also know -because I've been around him for a long time and paid attention- that people don't really know SA's personal POV. I think you have to do the human interest side as well, though I don't want to give much, if any, personal-life background (the human interest would come in the WP perception versus reality). For example, a question on the role of science in producing authoritative knowledge? Why do you think you have been effective on WP? I want to heavily cover the basic arguments with reference to the Raymond Arritt page, which is to say the debate concerning the role of SPOV on Wikipedia. I want to give enough background information that someone who doesn't know of the debate can come in and get a good idea of basically what is going on. I will use quotations from various editors- another reason to keep it in writing. I want to use wiki formatting, or else be able to do my own source code HTML. I don't want to cover civility more than a little bit. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

"I will use quotations from various editors". Ugh. No Quote mining please. 66.30.77.62 (talk) 14:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Please also remember that we will need to keep this reasonably short, or it will not be read at all. The Arritt pages are a case in point. --Zvika (talk) 05:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah.... what is reasonable? There is a lot to cover.... topic sections might help. Very hard to cover this in a few paragraphs. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I think about 1500 words per interviewee would be more than enough. This would mean maybe 6-7 questions, each answered in one or two paragraphs. By comparison, the recent Signpost interview of Michael Snow was only 750 words (though perhaps there were not as many topics to discuss). --Zvika (talk) 05:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
That could probably work. It would be nice to continue it in a debate which people could go to if they wished. If the interviewer wanted to go into detail. The community has discussed the issues before, but they keep simmering. But how would you frame the whole thing? ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I would do it the same way Signpost interviews are done: with questions submitted to the participants (say on a user subpage), who agree to limit their responses to a reasonable length. The interview might then be edited for clarity and length, and posted somewhere (maybe the Signpost, or maybe just a link from the community portal) as a completed work. Afterwards, discussion could continue on the talk page, but the article itself should remain unchanged, otherwise it will most certainly grow into another endless edit war. --Zvika (talk) 07:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Zvika, I nominate you to test-drive this experimental interview. You are the perfect uninvolved party. And you understand the need to limit the "he said/she said" chaos these two are capable of generating. So open a user sub page for questions already, then post a notice at Wiki Project Rational Skepticism, Wiki Project Paranormal, NPOV policy Talk, etc. Thanks for your efforts! 66.30.77.62 (talk) 12:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Zvika's proposal sounds good to me. I can abide by any word-count limits you impose. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I have created the page User:Zvika/Interview for coordinating this interview. I wrote down a summary of the rules we discussed above. If there are any comments, let me know, otherwise I would be glad if SA and MP can indicate their acceptance of the proposed interview so that we can continue the process.

Regarding advertising this in the appropriate WikiProjects, I really don't know enough about which projects might be relevant, but I think enough people are listening in on this conversation to inform WikiProjects they know about, or just to notify their friends. Proposed questions can be posted here. --Zvika (talk) 17:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Full disclosure: Once upon a time I was involved in some edits on phrenology. I believe the only major change I made was this. Just so you know that I'm almost, but not quite, a "perfect uninvolved party." --Zvika (talk) 17:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Is this a good idea?

Much as I love a good steel cage match, is this really a good idea? It would be nice to move away from the idea that Wikipedia is a battlefield, but pitting two forcefully opposed editors against each other to debate, or whatever, seems to endorse the battlefield trope. I think this is a step in the wrong direction. At the very least, it would be more interesting to see Martinphi explain the usefulness of mainstream scientific opinion in what aspires to be a respectable reference work, while ScienceApologist explains how a consensus-driven system can fairly cover minoritarian or "fringe" views. Instead, it sounds like we're more likely to see a repetition or distillation of the same largely interpersonal conflict that's been raging for months and through 2 ArbComs. MastCell Talk 19:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I for one would be happy to see a distillation or summary of the points raised by both sides. My interest in this story grew out of the horrendously long discussion on Arritt's user pages, which takes days to read through. (I did not get the impression that the arguments there were interpersonal.) By taking two people to succinctly represent the opinions of the two sides here, I think we would be doing the community a service. What do the others think? --Zvika (talk) 19:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
It's good. It's the equivalent of Midnight basketball. It gets the two warriors and their gangs off the "streets" (AN/I, Talk Pages, Arbcoms) and into a structured, adult-supervised alternative. 66.30.77.62 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I want to address the issue of SPOV in Wikipedia. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not so sure this is a great idea either. People may get the impression that SA speaks for all editors in the reality-based community and Martin speaks for all editors in the pseudoscience/fringe community, when that's not the case in either instance. Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be interesting to crystallize this debate, but choosing Martinphi and ScienceApologist may not be the most productive way to do so for a number of reasons, foremost among them the fact that their names appear side-by-side in a recent ArbCom case. MastCell Talk 22:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I had high hopes for a coherent discussion until I saw this. Oh well. 66.30.77.62 (talk) 00:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Please continue this discussion on User talk:Zvika/Interview. Thanks. --Zvika (talk) 05:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is continued on User talk:Zvika/Interview.
Please add any further comments on that page.

[edit] Correct

Yes, the state of scientific education is a social ill. But it is not Wikipedia's mission to try and correct that. In a properly framed article, if the reader can understand the words used then the reader will understand that mainstream science does or does not accept the subject of the article. We don't adjust the content of articles based on our editorial concept of what the reader ought to have listened to, and didn't, in high school science class, or ought to have seen on the Discovery Channel, or ought not to have been told by their parents. Look at the lead of the article Cannabis (drug). You'll notice that it doesn't do a bunch of finger shaking. Conversely, the SPOV view is that when an article touches on fringe topics there should be all sorts of finger shaking lest the reader come away with a wrong idea. Further, they want to do finger shaking in articles like Psychic, when the situation is about the same as Cannabis in that any reader who is not abysmally stupid ought to know the general status of the idea in mainstream science by now. One of the themes of the Paranormal ArbCom was that the reader should not be treated as an idiot. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, that's what I thought. But then what do you mean by "(there should be such an area, IMO)" ? --Zvika (talk) 10:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, I've changed that sentence somewhat since I think it was not clear. Let me know if you approve. --Zvika (talk) 11:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Great, I'll read it as soon as I can, which should be in 2 or 3 hours. I mean that I think there should be a myth-busting science vs. pseudoscience area on Wikipedia. WP generally needs to keep expanding or die anyway... ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fringe science

I'll be honest -- I have reservations about this article. I'm not familiar with the situation, but a cursory glance at the arbitration pages shows me that this is essentially a debate between two users who were the subject of an arbitration case that strongly admonished them both, and in a less central role in a few other arbitration cases. I guess I don't see why their views on fringe science are anything more than their views, and wonder whether giving only those two users a soapbox to promote their personal views is a good idea. Ral315 (talk) 06:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I have reservations about this article as well, and I will accept whatever decision you make. However, I ask that you take a look at the article itself, and not only the history of these two editors (which has indeed been shady). I think they discuss the issue in a matter-of-fact way and that real problems with WP's dispute resolution process are demonstrated. So I think this is a subject that should receive community attention, and perhaps even lead to a policy change. I am less sure of whether the Signpost is the correct venue for this discussion; that is a decision for you to make. However, I am convinced that both editors really do want to improve the way WP works. --Zvika (talk) 07:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
You can be sure that it isn't just between the two of us, nor are our views very far outside the views of those on our sides, though you would get a full range of perspectives. That can be understood by reading the fringe noticeboard and the "Expert withdrawal" page. If you want further views from the other side, you'd do well to interview ....um..... send me an email. But anyway, it is not essentially between me and SA, and if the two of us left the debate would go right on, in much the same terms but on a lower policy-knowledge level. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't think your views are outside the mainstream, but I question whether a debate is really within the Signpost's scope. At this point, I don't think it fits with the Signpost; sorry. Ral315 (talk) 07:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


What Martinphi and ScienceApologist represent are two poles of this debate. Extreme poles it is true, but valuable exemplars nonetheless. Several have expressed considerable interest in this. An abbreviated form of this I think would be interesting to readers, and highlight a problem on Wikipedia that I think needs to be addressed.--Filll (talk) 13:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Given that Ral315 does not find it appropriate to put this in the Signpost, what do you suggest we do? --Zvika (talk) 18:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure. I asked Raymond Arritt to give his input here but I guess he has not. I also advertised it last night on Wikipedia:NotTheWikipediaWeekly/Episode 04, before I realized that there was a potential problem. I still think people might be interested. Maybe just a link to the page? I am not sure how to handle this in this situation.--Filll (talk) 19:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Zvika/Interview/Integrated

I took the liberty of editing the introductory paragraph. In particular, I changed the four wikilinked sequential words into more clearly delineated links (so readers don't have to move the cursor on top of the each word to see what it really goes to) and I removed a sentence about how important the issue is (on the grounds that Wikipedia is about showing things to readers, not telling readers that they should know something). I apologize in advance if I've changed something so as to introduce an error. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 12:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Good edits (: ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)