Jump to content

User talk:Jimbo Wales

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 194.189.32.65 (talk) at 16:07, 2 January 2009 (→Santa hat: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

appeal of ArbComm decision

Jimbo, in a recent post, you said : "I will be strongly inclined to overturn on appeal any decision of the ArbCom that did not include a public discussion and vote."[1]

So, I make an appeal to overturn this recent ArbComm decision: "Encyclopedias are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with current mainstream scientific thought."[2] This ruling was not discussed publicly, and not publicly voted upon (there was however a limited discussion, and rejection, of WP:MAINSTREAM). I consider this ruling a violation of WP:NPOV, a core policy of Wikipedia, and I see "mainstream" as an example of WP:Weasel word. History has shown that no statement, even from what was considered "mainstream" science, is the ultimate truth; no statement should thus be presented as the truth on wikipedia. (Note: this ruling was instrumental in the decision to ban me.)

Thanks in advance for your consideration. Pcarbonn (talk) 20:36, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They voted on it in public...? And Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion/Proposed decision is where it gets discussed. rootology (C)(T) 20:44, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If that's what Jim meant by a "public discussion and vote", I don't see what his comment on appeal means: how could one make an appeal on a hidden, private decision ? I understood that he wanted the ArbComm ruling to involve some kind of community discussion. It has not happen on this particular ruling. Pcarbonn (talk) 20:56, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There have been cases where ArbCom handled a case completely privately, voting and discussing on mailing lists, and only announcing the end result publicly. That's what Jimbo is referring to - "public discussion and vote" means "the arbitrators discussed the finding in public and voted on it in public". As pointed out above that's what happened in the cold fusion case. Hut 8.5 11:06, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See generally Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion/Proposed decision; see also extensive discussion and arbitrators' comments at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion/Workshop; for my own general approach to the subject, see my comments at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion/Proposed decision#Undue weight. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:51, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I fully accept the WP:DUE concept. The ArbComm found it necessary to make an additional ruling. That's the one I dispute for lack of community consensus. Pcarbonn (talk) 21:18, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In articles on fringe topics such as cold fusion, one cannot discuss the subject only "in line with current mainstream scientific thought" as this ruling seems to indicate. That would be to take the point of view of mainstream science. This is new policy creation by the Arbitration Committee, so perhaps should be overturned on those grounds alone.

However, I actually interpret this statement as the final decision of Wikipedia that on fringe topics it has chosen to write from the perspective of mainstream science WP:SPOV. This would only be a reflection of general community consensus, that NPOV does not apply in these areas. From this perspective, it does not constitute new policy creation. ——Martinphi Ψ~Φ—— 21:06, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SPOV is not an active policy, so there is no community consensus that it applies (see its talk page). This is further evidence that the ArbComm decision is contrary to the community decision. Pcarbonn (talk) 21:18, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The principle adopted in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion was obviously intended to address the problem of people falsely asserting that because a fringe view existed the writing of an article on a scientific subject must give prominence to that fringe view, which is a misreading of the neutral point of view policy. Newyorkbrad's comment on proposed principle 4 (undue weight) is worth reading for context. --TS 21:37, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, not obvious at all, but rather the contrary is obvious. If the ArbCom were not about Cold fusion then perhaps we could interpret it to read "Encyclopedias are generally expected to provide overviews of mainstream scientific topics that are in line with current mainstream scientific thought." However, as it is it can only be interpreted as an injunction to write fringe articles from the POV of mainstream science. Mainstream science deprecates fringe science. Pcarbonn, the general consensus of editors of fringe articles is that they are to be written from SPOV. If anyone wishes to write fringe articles from the position of mainstream science, they can point to this ArbCom, (and they will, with good reason), and say that anyone wishing to write in a neutral tone is POV pushing. I know as a longtime editor in this area that I could do this, and it would work. ——Martinphi Ψ~Φ—— 00:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't make sense of that. Science is science, facts are facts. Fleischman and Pons conducted a scientific experiment which was published. Attempts to replicate the experiment have failed, and problems have been found with the design of the experiment and the interpretation of the results. This is what happened. It isn't a mainstream view of what happened. It isn't a fringe view of what happened. It's what happened.
During the arbitration case it emerged that pcarbonn had written an article in an advocacy journal saying:
"I'm pleased to report that the revised page, resulting from the mediation process, presents the topic as a continuing controversy, not as an example of pathological science."
Presenting failed scientific experiments as "a continuing controversy" is very poor writing and incompatible with the neutral point of view policy. You're entitled to your own point of view, but not to your own facts.
Without going into this matter in depth I've reviewed the lead section of the article as it stands at present, and it seems to be in keeping with our neutral point of view policy. To describe a neutral presentation of the known facts as "scientific point of view" is not necessarily helpful. Our governing policies here are enough to dictate and support this kind of presentation. --TS 03:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A failed experiment is not an example of pathological science. However, the continuing experiments are often regarded -generally regarded, probably- as pathological science, by mainstream scientists. This is the point of view from which we now write the article- the SPOV view, that is to say "in line with current mainstream scientific thought." That's not NPOV, because any time you write an article in line with any stream of though at all, you automatically don't write it from the NPOV. That is true by definition. The specific stream of thought advocated for all science articles by the Arbitration Committee is mainstream science, that is to say, SPOV.
FloNight explained "To be an useful reference tool Wikipedia needs present information on science topics as presented in the current prevailing textbooks and review journals." That is again to say, that WP writes from the POV of mainstream science.
Sam Blacketer goes on to make it even clearer "The role of an encyclopaedia is to principally represent the mainstream view, and then to describe the challenges as such, and not as 'alternatives'."
That is, WP represents the mainstream POV, whereas it describes the alternatives.
Wikipedia is SPOV, and has rejected NPOV in science articles. We can now write the articles in a scornful manner- that's the mainstream POV "Enthusiasm turned to skepticism and ultimately scorn as a long series of failed replication attempts were weighed in view of several theoretical reasons cold fusion should not be possible,..."
Because it's a fact: the mainstream POV is often scornful of the fringe. And now we "principally represent" rather than merely "present" mainstream science. And that's even in articles on fringe topics. ——Martinphi Ψ~Φ—— 05:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a conflict between neutral point of view and the practice of representing mainstream views as such, and fringe views as such. In fact, I would say that the neutral point of view dictates that we should do so, and not misrepresent the non-mainstream views as in any meaningful way an equal alternative to the mainstream view.
On the science, it's obviously failed science. Absence of replication alone would be enough to establish that. Attempts to misrepresent the facts are necessarily pathological. There are endless opportunities here to muddy the waters, but a failed experiment is a failed experiment.
The notion that there are topics in science that are "fringe" and by virtue of that we can act as if contrafactual and unsupported views were as valid as those supported by evidence, is extremely toxic to Wikipedia's concept of the Neutral point of view. NPOV does not mean that falsehoods and speculation are the equals of facts and evidence. In that sense, there is no fringe. We don't relax the neutral point of view in favor of fringe views, ever. --TS 14:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After all these postings, I still don't see any evidence that there was a significant discussion on a policy to present mainstream science at the expense of significant scientific minorities, let alone a consensus. WP:NPOV says that neutral point of view "is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors." and that "The principles upon which these policies are based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus.". An exception for science is thus not acceptable. Wikipedia is a NPOV encyclopedia, not a mainstream one. I thus maintain my appeal of the ArbComm decision. (As a side point, many reputable sources, such as the DOE, present cold fusion as an ongoing controversy, despite what "most scientists" and TS think). Pcarbonn (talk) 11:21, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The NPOV vs Mainstream debate

It looks like we could not prevent us from starting the debate, although this is not the place. However, it does illustrate some of the key points of the debate
So, what exactly is the alternative? We put non-science and fringe-science on the exact same footing as well-accepted science, and become the laughingstock of the encyclopedia world? This is hardly the first time Arbcom have passed such resolutions, and every time, we get the usual Martinphi leaving Wikipedia in protest (Never sticks) and all sorts of whining - then next time such things are passed, we get the whole damn thing again. What we ought to do is agree on the principle and make it stick, not overturn a case because a couple fringe theorists cry out "Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!" Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:07, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In any society, there are rules to protect minorities. NPOV is such a rule on wikipedia. It does require the majority and minority to be presented as such, and as I said, I fully accept that. The latest ruling of ArbComm has been driven by a majority who, yes, under the mantle of "mainstream" science, feels authorized to suppress minorities. Since its passing, many well-sourced arguments in favor of cold fusion have been removed from the cold fusion article. This is a disservice to our readers, who "should be allowed to form their own opinions", as NPOV says. Pcarbonn (talk) 13:47, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We've been here before with the holocaust deniers, the creationists, and whatnot. It isn't a new argument. Falsely giving the impression of an ongoing, live debate on this subject would be a misrepresentation. --TS 15:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A Mainstream policy is a killer of all minorities, even the significant ones. Unlike for the holocaust deniers or creationists controversies, there are plenty of reliable sources saying that the cold fusion controversy is not resolved scientifically (see here for examples) It's normal human nature that "most scientists" like to dismiss it (see cognitive dissonance). We should not fall into that trap. Pcarbonn (talk) 18:39, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as Pcarbonn says, we have chosen to be a mainstream encyclopedia instead of a NPOV one. The mainstream does not treat the fringe in an NPOV fashion. Shoemaker says we do not put fringe on the "same level" as mainstream, and he's right. But that's preference, not NPOV. I agree with Shoemaker, "What we ought to do is agree on the principle and make it stick, not overturn a case because a couple fringe theorists cry out "Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!" Wikipedia is lying when it says it is NPOV. This is our opportunity to stop lying and say we are SPOV. The ArbCom has confirmed it. That is where WP is till otherwise noted by the ArbCom. Pcarbonn, we are not in society. WP specifically rejects civil rights. What we need to do is stop lying about NPOV, not try to fight the majority of editors who are SPOV. However, you are right about there being an ongoing debate with Cold fusion. TS, for NPOV there is no reason to give the impression of an ongoing significant debate where there isn't one. That's not what anyone is saying. For SPOV, we eliminate much of the other side of the argument as not worth coverage. ——Martinphi Ψ~Φ—— 20:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you considered that we do not put mainstream on the "same level" as fringe because it isn't on the same level? Neutrality demands that points of view be represented according to their respective prominence. If something is marginal, then it will have marginal coverage. If something is widely accepted, then it will have the bulk of coverage. NPOV doesn't mean that all points of view are equal, it means that none should be given unwarranted coverage. — Coren (talk) 20:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're getting mixed up between articles on mainstream subjects, where fringe is marginal, and articles on fringe, where fringe is central. I have no opinion- the cases are individual. Obviously, fringe would never be proven right if it were not sometimes on a higher level than mainstream. Usually, it is lower. However, you opinion is my point: we are SPOV, not NPOV. If we put it on a higher level because it is more true, rather than merely reporting the sources which express the opinion it is more true (per WEIGHT), then we are SPOV. The ArbCom decision, since it's about Cold fusion, is about the way we write articles on fringe subjects: we cover it from a particular perspective, the mainstream's perspective. What you say would be NPOV for articles on mainstream science. What the ArbCom said would be SPOV for all articles- it takes a POV regardless of the weight of sources on the article's subject. It gives the greatest weight/space to the mainstream even when the subject is fringe to make it "in line with current mainstream scientific thought." ——Martinphi Ψ~Φ—— 21:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fringe is not central, anywhere on Wikipedia. That's what "fringe" means. If I write an article about flying saucers I'm writing about a fringe subject, but it would not be neutral to represent the fringe viewpoint (that they're vehicles from another world, or whatever) as anything other than a fringe viewpoint.
You say that the arbitration committee is asking that on scientific subjects we "[take] a POV regardless of the weight of sources on the article's subject." That is a false statement. The weight of sources is what defines "mainstream" and "fringe". The views of cold fusion advocates on the subject are the fringe. The fact that they support the notion does not give their views more weight. --TS 03:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I followed the Pcarbonn/Cold fusion process the entire time. I was mightily impressed with the ArbComm process. Everything was done out in the open where it had to withstand the sanitizing light of public scrutiny. The process should serve as a paradigm for other organizations to model theirs after. The ArbComm findings of fact were correct and their decisions were wise and sound. Pcarbonn has been the beneficiary of more man-hours of Wikipedian time than I ever imagined might be devoted to just one of millions of users. It is time for Pcarbonn to accept the will of the community with grace and dignity. Greg L (talk) 03:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fringe as it is used on Wikipedia is not used in reference to Wikipedia at all, but to "describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study." Those ideas then may become Wikipedia articles if notable enough. Martinphi and Coren are right: "You're getting mixed up between articles on mainstream subjects, where fringe is marginal, and articles on fringe, where fringe is central." and "If something is marginal, then it will have marginal coverage. If something is widely accepted, then it will have the bulk of coverage. NPOV doesn't mean that all points of view are equal, it means that none should be given unwarranted coverage."(olive (talk) 04:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]

"Fringe is not central, anywhere on Wikipedia. That's what "fringe" means." That's my point here: SPOV is the consensus of Wikipedia, confirmed by the Arbitration Committee. A fringe view doesn't even get to be central in its own article. And that's what SPOV means: seeing a view held by a majority as a minority view because it is a minority view of.... reasonable people? Skeptics of flying saucers? Well, in whatever group it's a minority, that's the group where WP edits from.

That's again my point, that you believe that we edit from a POV. We don't, under NPOV. We do under SPOV. Under NPOV we would write the UFO article not as a "majority view" or "minority view" but as a view held by "X number of group Y[source]." That's NPOV. Under SPOV, we write about it as a "minority view" held by those who don't know what they are talking about, whereas the Majority view is.....

Nope, I'm not a believer there, either.

On Cold fusion, Pcarbonn says sources have been censored because of their POV. Under NPOV that would be appropriate in an article on fusion (per WEIGHT), but not in the cold fusion article (also per WEIGHT). Rather the cold fusion article is the place to fully describe the views of cold fusion proponents, as well as any notable mainstream views. Mainstream views gain their prominence per sources, not because they are mainstream. Under SPOV, censorship comes in, mainstream gains its prominence from the fact that it is mainstream, and the article's tone is POV.

As I said before- you're right that we don't present a fringe viewpoint as other than a fringe viewpoint. But neither do we write from a mainstream POV- unless we are an SPOV encyclopedia. SPOV advocates sometimes don't get this, and sometimes just disagree. Whatever the case, the general consensus is SPOV, and the ArbCom has confirmed it, and it is policy. There is no more argument. I've been deeply involved for years, I know the topic of fringe versus mainstream very well, and I know what it is to "represent the mainstream" as opposed to "describe the mainstream." ——Martinphi Ψ~Φ—— 05:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Under SPOV, this is a minority fringe view. ——Martinphi Ψ~Φ—— 06:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not. It's an excellent source to support the assertion that more than half of Americans believe in guardian angels. Note the subtle but critical distinction here: this is most assuredly not a source supporting that guardian angels exist, only that the majority of one particular population of the world, according to a statistical sample, believe that they do. — Coren (talk) 06:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Look Coren, I'm talking about facts on the ground here. There seems to be a basic disconnect on the order of the ideals of religion versus their practice between you and me. I'm talking about what Wikipedia IS, you're talking about what it's supposed to be. I do not think we have any disagreement on what it is supposed to be. I'm telling you: 1) Wikipedia is SPOV 2) that SPOV is the consensus of editors on non-scientific or pseudoscientific subjects 3) the ArbCom has just confirmed this, as I explain above 4) because of these things, Wikipedia is being dishonest. That's what I really hate, that it's being dishonest about where it is coming from.
From the position of SPOV, the above kind of thing about angels is a "minority view" and is to be treated as such in terms of WEIGHT etc. Also, you don't seem to notice that SPOV editors look at things in terms of reality. If a majority of scientists believe something they represent that, rather than present it. Under NPOV, the belief should be presented, in the same way that the belief in angels should be presented. SPOV editors don't get that such a neutral description is more convincing anyway.
You're talking about the ideals of NPOV. I'm telling you that unless you and others do something really major, that what you are telling me is wrong is going to continue to be the fact of Wikipedia. ——Martinphi Ψ~Φ—— 19:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Martinphi that there is a lot of doublethinking on wikipedia, like "WP:MAINSTREAM is NPOV", or "WP:SPOV is NPOV", and I wish that to stop. On the other hand, the cold fusion controversy is a purely scientific controversy, not a controversy between science and non-science. Pcarbonn (talk) 20:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Coren, here is an example of the hateful SPOV pushing debunker atmosphere which recently made me leave all article editing:

  1. Keep. An interesting read. He seems to be concluding that it shouldn't be difficult to include facts about proven reality, and it should be difficult to include fringe POV as if they were reality, which makes sense. If fringe POV pushers want to edit here, they should have a hard row to hoe, and shouldn't be allowed to make life difficult for pushers of reality. "Advocacy" of nonsense is forbidden here, while advocacy of reality isn't forbidden. The push may look the same, but it's allowable to push for reality, but not allowable to push for nonsense. That type of "advocacy" is forbidden. "Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. No one is entitled to their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan. We don't allow OR here, and opinions need to be sourced and attributed, but undeniable facts don't. Those who are so far out in left field as to not understand reality or to consider nonsense to be reality should have a hard time here. -- Fyslee (talk) 18:56, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
  2. Keep This essay is a crystal clear message that fringe POV-pushers are not welcome, and should not be welcome, on Wikipedia. Martin, thank you for reminding us why you will not be missed. Skinwalker (talk) 13:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

From here. ——Martinphi Ψ~Φ—— 00:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV is non-negotiable

The debate above shows that the NPOV vs Mainstream issue is about the protection of significant minorities on wikipedia. A community discussion of the topic may pit the majority against the significant minorities, and the significant minorities may lose. ArbComm may be tempted to follow the majority, especially during a re-election. I'm becoming convinced that only Jimbo can protect these minorities by reasserting the non-negotiability of NPOV, if he so wishes. Pcarbonn (talk) 09:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be mistaking WP:NPOV for some kind of "equal opportunities" scheme for fringe viewpoints – see NPOV: Giving "equal validity". NPOV means giving due weight to majority expert views, and applies to all articles, including those specifically devoted to a subject held dear by minorities. . . dave souza, talk
No, I'm not mistaking WP:NPOV for equal opportunity. On the other hand, you seem to be mistaking NPOV for WP:MAINSTREAM. Pcarbonn (talk) 11:30, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let me clarify. There is a large overlap between WP:NPOV and WP:MAINSTREAM, and WP:MAINSTREAM has many statements about NPOV with which I fully agree. My issue is with every statement that use the "mainstream" word, a weasel word describing non-verifiable and/or non-reliable sources. Such "mainstream" sources have a simplistic, black-and-white view of a controversy, dismissing significant minority views. See here for more details. Pcarbonn (talk) 17:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So. Good discussion. I have been mulling this over. NPOV is non-negotiable, yes. But NPOV requires us to take a thoughtful and nuanced approach to determining questions of how and when to include extreme minority viewpoints. A random crackpot web page seriously claiming that the moon is made of cheese is not worthy of mention in an article about the moon, not even in a section about cultural myths and stories about the moon, etc. On the other hand, a legitimate scientific controversy is a different matter, of course. I have not seen any overall trend towards the suppression of minority viewpoints in Wikipedia, nor have a seen any overall trend towards the kind of extreme relativism that would have us treat all views as if they are equally plausible, regardless of the source and manner in which they are promoted. We strike a balance, and a pretty good one for the most part.
My answer then, may not be very satisfying in the short run, but in the long run I think it is the only answer that can satisfy us all in a deep way: we need to continue to have serious and respectful dialog, as this one has been, feeling our way forward thoughtfully towards boundaries that make sense, and acknowledging that we may not get our way in every single case.
The argument that ArbCom may be inclined to follow the majority doesn't quite persuade me in this particular case, although I do think there is value in the ArbCom being - to a degree - insulated from the WikiPolitics of the moment, whatever those may be. The reason I am not persuaded in this particular case is that my sense of it is that the majority of Wikipedians prefers a degree of protection and kindness towards minority views, even those views which the majority of us might find to be silly. I've seen no broad tendency towards people wanting to exclude minority viewpoints, even quite odd ones. WP:TIGERS and all that.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:42, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What we're actually talking about here is just a few articles- you're right, there probably is no broad tendency, and you're right that the majority of Wikipedians are not into debunking fringe views. I've been trying to call people's attention to a group of perhaps 50 to 150 articles on alternative medicine and the paranormal which give rise to sentiments like I just posted in the section above "The push may look the same, but it's allowable to push for reality, but not allowable to push for nonsense." That sums it up well, POV pushing is OK if it's true. I assure you this is the opinion of a LOT of the editors in this small problem area. ——Martinphi Ψ~Φ—— 01:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
@Jimbo, not sure if you're following this newly accepted RfArb case or not but it seems relevant to this discussion. Cheers. Ronnotel (talk) 06:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I support Ronnotel's point. I don't think that banning someone who has not done any serious offense, a ban in response to a request of ScienceApologist who has explicitly stated that he wants to ban everybody he disagrees with[3], is a good example of "kindness and protection towards minority view points". Pcarbonn (talk) 09:13, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How can I "continue to have serious and respectful dialog, as this one has been", when I am banned ? Even my critics call me a civil POV pusher,[4][5] and I've never been formally warned, let alone banned, before. I encourage Jimbo to look at the latest Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science, as Ronnotel suggested. Pcarbonn (talk) 10:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You aren't banned, though. You are topic banned from one topic, and I haven't reviewed your edit history there to see if I agree with that or not (though, even if I disagreed, I would not overturn the ban, because I view my role in terms of review to be about "constitutional" matters more than detailed review of particular judgments by arbitrators). Your original appeal was about the question of public discussion, and public voting, and I conclude per Newyorkbrad's comments above that there's no problem in that regard. My advice to you is to wait out the topic ban, and work on some topic that is a bit more fun for you rather than near and dear to your heart.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jimbo,
You wrote, "I view my role in terms of review to be about 'constitutional' matters more than detailed review of particular judgments by arbitrators."
I do not know whether the Wikipedia system has constitutional flaws, but the culture that has evolved from the present constitution appears to have at least one philosophical flaw.
First, the system permits and encourages aggressive, anti-social behavior among editors. For example, let's say, hypothetically, that an editor has an agenda (even openly) to destroy the work of others that he or she does not agree with. How many other editors would volunteer their time, patience and energy to deal with and contribute in such a hostile environment and community? Mature and successful people have better things to do with their time.
The cultural permissiveness of anonymity and the constitutionally encouraged destruction allow people with anti-social tendencies to dominate edit wars and be protected artificially. I say artificially because, if editors behaved like this in the real world, they would be beaten to a pulp, arrested, or sued. This nearly came to pass in one case in which an editor was visited by the police for issuing death threats to other Wikipedia editors that he was at war with.
The second problem is that the Wikipedia culture and constitution do not provide an effective process for the recognition of and incorporation of progress in controversial science. This likely will result in print encyclopedias - despite their long production time - being more current than Wikipedia in these areas.
If you combine the following factors - 1) cultural permissiveness of anonymity 2) constitutionally encouraged destruction of Wikipedia content and 3) the deficiency of the Wikipedia culture and constitution in recognizing progress in science - you have a perfect environment for an editor who may want to protect the integrity of science, but does so at the expense of nonrecogntion - and even censorship - of the progress of science as represented in Wikipedia.
Science is ever-changing, growing and messy. Those who do not recognize this will find themselves buying technology from overseas, reading about the achievements of others rather than their own, and being among the last to realize, for example, that the idea that the sun revolves around the earth is yesterday's news.
There is also a spin-off problem (not constitutionally, but culturally) with Wikipedia's handling of science progress. On many Wiki pages, the subject matter is kept up to date, sometimes up to the minute. The election of Barack Obama was an example. But on controversial pages, in at least one case I know of, the page at any given time can be 20 years out of date.
Consequently, there is a great variation in the timeliness among Wikipedia pages. This is a problem for editors because they can be confused about what is expected of them. Second, the variation in timeliness causes confusion for, and misinformation to, the public.
StevenBKrivit (talk) 07:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The belief in guardian angels is a good example of a fringe view--it doesn't matter how many Americans believe in them, the belief is based on superstition.

Cold fusion isn't quite like that. So far arguments for cold fusion are based largely on experiments that are intended to be replicated, where repeated well documented attempts to replicate them have failed. We should have no problem with the notion that there may be many more committed believers in cold fusion than there are scientists who have examined the data and been unable to conclude that cold fusion took place. This is why weighting is so important. But of course we don't dismiss cold fusion in quite the same way that we dismiss guardian angels. But we do not present it as if it were a mainstream view, because it isn't.

Weighting doesn't change so much from article to article so as to make it acceptable to present a fringe view as mainstream. Far from it. If we write an article about flat earth theory, we still do not write it as if the notion of a flat earth were not a fringe theory. If we write an article about cold fusion, we do not write it as if the views of proponents of cold fusion had more value than they actually do. --TS 15:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weighting should be based on notable, reliable secondary sources. The 2004 DOE review is such a source. Here is what it said :
  • "Evaluations by the reviewers ranged from: 1) evidence for excess power is compelling, to 2) there is no convincing evidence that excess power is produced when integrated over the life of an experiment. The reviewers were split approximately evenly on this topic."
  • "Two-thirds of the reviewers ... did not feel the evidence was conclusive for low energy nuclear reactions, one found the evidence convincing, and the remainder indicated they were somewhat convinced."
That's plenty of evidence that the minority of "believers" is significant, and deserve representation on Wikipedia. Saying otherwise is to defend a black-and-white view of the controversy, and is contrary to NPOV. Pcarbonn (talk) 15:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly wouldn't disagree that there is a significant minority view, and the article cold fusion should not be regarded as any nearer completion than any other article on a controversial field in science. However it does seem to reflect the status of the subject. The minority views are presented in the context of the significant problems with replication and with mechanism. --TS 00:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo, thank you for taking the time to consider this issue. I understand you decision to trust the Arbitration Committee.

You said you are concerned with constitutional issues. May I suggest one : who enforces the core policies of NPOV ? ArbComm says that they can't deal with such content issues, so it's left to the community. The community deals with NPOV dispute through dispute resolution, but it does not work all the time: what can be done then ? How can significant minorities get the place they deserve per NPOV if the majority wants to silent them ? What makes you think that the majority is benevolent with minorities, when there are strong evidence that they aren't ? We have been through all sorts of dispute resolution mechanism, and I've always readily participated in them, and with civility. The DOE report is the most notable secondary review of Cold Fusion, as shown by his prominent place in our article : how come it is still horribly misrepresented ?

The real-world History is full of examples of the sorry fate of unprotected minorities : why would it be different on Wikipedia ? What's the point of "NPOV is non-negotiable" if NPOV is not enforced ? Pcarbonn (talk) 09:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Model for editors

You've said, I know not where, that WP is largely edited by college students or graduates. That would be all to the point if we could be sure that those people would establish a commitment to this project. Unfortunately, some don't, and dealing with their disruption is a complete waste of resources. I have spent my time here working on two fronts: creating good content, and resisting those whose aims are anathema to that. But I am now too tired to do both. I quit. --Rodhullandemu 23:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've long being saying this myself. Rod, I'm working on a new, rival project, with another person, that I intend to launch in early January. Some notable attributes will be:
  • users will be required to log in before being permitted to edit;
  • no tolerance will be shown for those people whose intention is to cause disruption or damage;
  • there will be a strict requirement for civil and polite conduct;
  • people in positions of authority will be required to use their real names as their account names, with few exceptions; and
  • the project will place a high emphasis on developing and maintaining content according to established scholarly standards.
You might be interested. – Thomas H. Larsen 02:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please, Rod, don't leave - you've done great things for Wikipedia's coverage of The Beatles, and you're a 'model for editors'. Now, Citizendium need your help (they're convinced The Beatles released an album called 'With'), and that might be just what you want to edit, but that doesn't mean you should leave Wikipedia altogether - please. Dendodge TalkContribs 13:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe not yet. Times are hard, and I have no mercy for those who seek to make them harder. But sometimes, it's easy to get the feeling that it isn't worth it. --Rodhullandemu 14:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the subject of rival sites, it's worth remembering that the total number of articles on Citizendium (9001 at the time of writing), which is the best-organised and most advance of our rivals, is still less than the number of assessed quality content (FA+FL+GA) alone on Wikipedia (51634). Sometimes when you're staring at the torrent of spam and vanity pages, it's easy to lose sight of how far advanced we really are. (Just clicking Citizendium's random article button a few times – and remember, these are written by an "expert editing elite" with multiple layers of vetting and peer review – drives home just how hard this kind of project is to get right.) – iridescent 16:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
@Iridescent: While I think that Citizendium suffers from a number of serious flaws (different from Wikipedia's, though), I feel the urge to point out that CZ's articles are not written by an "expert editing elite with multiple layers of vetting and peer review". CZ is a collaborative wiki; anybody can get on board if they agree to use their real name as their account name and commit to comply with CZ's Statement of Fundamental Principles, and any participant can contribute to articles. However, "editors" (= experts) are given the authority to guide the development of articles and to resolve disputes regarding them. An editor (= expert) can also "approve" an article if they feel that it meets CZ's standards for excellent content; contributors thereafter contribute to a draft version of the article. I hope this clarifies.
Wikipedia is deeply flawed; that's why I'm creating an alternative. Citizendium is also flawed—but its lack of public adoption does not imply that another type of project will never work.
Best and friendly regards, – Thomas H. Larsen 04:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is some evidence that much of our content comes from very occasional editors (some of them just hit-and-runs). Asking for "a commitment to the project" would negate Wikipedia's principal strength: anyone can edit. --TS 18:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frohes neues Jahr!!!

Hoffe, Sie haben ein glückliches 2009!!! --Miagirljmw14 Miagirljmw~talk 18:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Jimbo Wales was inducted into The Hall of The Greats

On December 31, 2008, User:Jimbo Wales was inducted into

The Hall of The Greats

This portrait of Madonna was dedicated in his honor.
David Shankbone.

Happy New Year. The other night User:Peteforsyth was telling me that he thought this was his favorite shot of mine, and I think it might be one of my better ones, as well. Certainly the most famous subject. Without you, it would not exist. Thus, I dedicate it in your honor. The inscription is in the description. I wish you a happy, healthy and successful 2009, Jim. --David Shankbone 20:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:) Thank you, David. That's really nice.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I get tired of reverting vandalism to your userpage

Please put your administrator right to use and permanantly protect your user page. It gets annoying having to revert the countless times that change the target of the links on your page. So please, your user page is nearly as important and visible as the main page and ought to be protected as such.--Ipatrol (talk) 22:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you haven't read the page you are protecting... ;~) You must be fast, because I rarely get to undo vandalism there when I see it - there is a queue of "quick guns" usually to revert vandalism. Anyhow, thanks for your efforts (from just another editor, though) and don't worry about anyone picking up the slack; there will be someone around, you can be certain of that. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The userpage gets 7-9000 views a month. Whilst this is very high for a user page, by the standards of articles it isn't spectacular. It's certainly nowhere near the main page (200 million views a month). --Hut 8.5 11:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, if you're tired of making reverts on Jimbo's page, you can always just... not revert. A strange concept, to be sure, this "don't take the weight of the world on your shoulders" idea, but it is possible. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year

Dear Jimbo Wales,
I just wanted to wish you and your family a happy new year, however you're celebrating it. Whether 2008 was a good year for you, or if it wasn't the greatest year, hopefully 2009 will be better. Cheers, and happy editing in 2009 :-),

 Ashbey  Ӝ  00:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year

Hope 2009 is a great year for you!--MONGO 15:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A New Mirror Site

Hey Jimbo, I found a new mirror site. -> http://www.top40-charts.com/pedia.php?title=User:DJ_WikiBob (my userpage on the site) P.S. I Rock Wikipedia! (talk) 16:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)DJ WikiBob[reply]

Hog Jowls and Black-eyed peas

Dear Kindest Sir, please do not forget to eat your hog jowls and black-eyed peas today. Just in case they don't have hog jowls in your neck of the woods, here's wishing you a very lucky new year! 63.3.15.130 (talk) 21:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

Dear Jimbo Wales,

Wishing you a happy new year, and very best wishes for 2009. Whether we were friends or not in the past year, I hope 2009 will be better for us both.

Kind regards,

Majorly talk 21:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year

Ring out the old,
and Ring in the new.
Happy New Year!
From FloNight

Obnoxious Page Protection

Hi Jimbo,

I have a complaint. Administrator Ryulong's talk page is protected, and has been for some while, so IPs like me can't leave messages on it. I know this because I received a vandalism warning a while back and checked back now to see if I could communicate with Ryulong about it, but I am still unable to! Don't you think that this is a tad obnoxious?

Aside from this minor complaint, let me congratulate you on this project and I hope you can do something useful with my £50 :)

Best Regards

Ben L. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.225.71 (talk) 14:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Santa hat

I am glad the original image has been restored to your userpage, the one with the Santa hat was revolting! 194.189.32.65 (talk) 16:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&oldid=261470023"