SkipCaptcha
48
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 40:
Line 40: + + + + + + +
→Cold Fusion.: thanks, Wschact. I looked at the page you mention. I'm not eager to dive in.
:I wrote some of my changes without providing sources, but everything I wrote can be backed with citations to strong sources. I have still not received any assurance that my work here would receive proper and fair protection as needed from pseudoskeptics, so I've, so far, not been willing to invest the work to improve the article beyond the brief edits I made. I made a lot of effort on Wikipedia, was harassed by a dominant faction there, took an administrator from that faction to the Arbitration Committee, won the case, he lost his administrative privileges, yet I was banned for my trouble. I had no conflict of interest (then) and only cared about the quality of the article. I didn't edit it except seeking consensus, what was disliked was that I discussed the changes. They didn't like people who challenged administrators, even if it was done completely within due process and civilly. I don't want to repeat that, wasting my time. I don't have anything to gain personally by "promoting" cold fusion. I just happen to know a lot about it, I have the training in physics (from Richard P. Feynman) and I know the researchers and can ask them about anything. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] 02:36, 5 August 2012 (EDT)
:I wrote some of my changes without providing sources, but everything I wrote can be backed with citations to strong sources. I have still not received any assurance that my work here would receive proper and fair protection as needed from pseudoskeptics, so I've, so far, not been willing to invest the work to improve the article beyond the brief edits I made. I made a lot of effort on Wikipedia, was harassed by a dominant faction there, took an administrator from that faction to the Arbitration Committee, won the case, he lost his administrative privileges, yet I was banned for my trouble. I had no conflict of interest (then) and only cared about the quality of the article. I didn't edit it except seeking consensus, what was disliked was that I discussed the changes. They didn't like people who challenged administrators, even if it was done completely within due process and civilly. I don't want to repeat that, wasting my time. I don't have anything to gain personally by "promoting" cold fusion. I just happen to know a lot about it, I have the training in physics (from Richard P. Feynman) and I know the researchers and can ask them about anything. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] 02:36, 5 August 2012 (EDT)
::Welcome, Abd. You are correct about Wikipedia and I am sorry that you had an unfortunate experience there. Perhaps you can add it to the [[Bias in Wikipedia]] pages. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 03:45, 5 August 2012 (EDT)
::Welcome, Abd. You are correct about Wikipedia and I am sorry that you had an unfortunate experience there. Perhaps you can add it to the [[Bias in Wikipedia]] pages. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 03:45, 5 August 2012 (EDT)
:::Thank you Wschact. While I'd be happy to relate my experience at Wikipedia, I'm not eager to dive into interwiki politics. I took a look at that page, and specifically at the section [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia&oldid=995462#Structural_problems_with_Wikipedia Structural problems with Wikipedia (current version)], because the Wikipedia problem is indeed a structural problem, and it's generic to wikis.
:::Different wikis propose different solutions. The problem with Wikipedia is that it presents itself as unbiased, and processes have been set up that purport to be -- and sometimes are -- unbiased, but processes are only as effective as the people who run them and use them, and Wikipedia has never set up structures that would compensate for what has been called MPOV-pushing, i.e., majority point-of-view pushing. Wikipedia assumes that the majority will be unbiased, effectively. Again, that assumption is contrary to policy, but if one looks at how decisions are actually made, they are made by the majority of those who show up to participate. In theory, decisions are made by argument, not votes, but the actual practice is such that only very highly-placed administrators can get away with making a decision contrary to a substantial majority. It's rare. More often those with high privilege just go with the flow, so a motivated faction can exert substantial control. There would be ways to compensate for this, but the Wikipedia structure became highly resistant to change. That's normal! It would take something extraordinary to avoid it.
:::Other models used include control by the founder, or sometimes almost total chaos. There are other possible governance models, but little work has been done. Control by founder or founder successor is a very common model for organizational governance, and this shades into control by a board (often self-appointed, but sometimes self-appointed implementing election results). Truly democratic organizational control is rare and has mostly not been attempted, even in organizations dedicated to advancing democracy. I could show examples. Basically, most activists don't trust the demos, the people, not when push comes to shove. I'm not saying this is right or wrong, it's just what's so.
:::The example in the section cited, however, "Netball and the Olympic Movement," is itself biased presentation of fact, not merely in how it's been presented, but how fact has clearly been misrepresented. When we are looking for something wrong, we will often find it, or imagine it, and think that what we imagine is "true."
:::The article version cited does not claim that "Netball is an ''Olympic sport,''" as stated in the critique. Rather, it states that "Netball is an ''Olympic-recognized sport.''" The article makes the difference clear. While some editor may have pointed to the legislative speech, that would not ordinarily be considered a reliable source. After all, politicians say what they please. I'm not bothering to research this further, I do know Laura Hale, she's a sports academic from Australia, and is not likely to be blatantly wrong on something like this. Her alleged "radical feminism" would be completely irrelevant to this issue. That her alleged political position is considered important is an example of ad-hominem argument. Netball is Olympic-recognized or not. It's just a fact, and the fact can easily be verified or refuted. For an idea, see [http://www.olympic.org/content/the-ioc/recognised-sport-federations/federation20/]. Wikipediots might get their panties in a twist over whether or not a primary source like that can be used. However, "Verification, not truth" is an abstract principle, the majority of editors -- unless they are personally involved in a situation -- tend to go with truth, even if it comes from a primary source, if there is no reasonable controversy over the fact.
:::The Malawi photo objection is just silly, fluff. Both ways. Laura Hale may or may not know if this is really a netball team. Obviously, it would be the team plus some family members. Given her position, though, good chance she does know.
:::The ''real'' standard on Wikipedia is "editorial consensus," and that breaks down when factions prevent consensus formation, and especially if there are administrators among them, and they ban one side of a dispute, ipso facto. That happened with cold fusion; many editors knowledgeable about cold fusion were blocked and banned ''because of support -- in discussion! -- for a point of view''. It started happening long before I was involved, and simply continued, including after I was myself banned. The faction involved is the "anti-pseudoscience" faction, which generally advocates against NPOV ("Neutral point of view"), claiming that SPOV should rule. ("Scientific point of view," which is actually an oxymoron.) These people are generally pseudoskeptics. Cold fusion was, for them, a minor skirmish, they were much more concerned about global warming, homeopathy, and all forms of "superstition." If you want to find out how they define "superstition," the real meaning, in practice, is "what I and my friends believe is false." Cold fusion was a beautiful test case, because the science has actually moved on, after 2004, but these people refused to read the sources. After all, why should they read nonsense? And then they made up excuse after excuse as to why the balance of publication has radically shifted toward peer-reviewed articles that assume cold fusion is real, including the most comprehensive review of the field ever published under peer review, I've linked it from [[Cold fusion]]. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] 13:29, 5 August 2012 (EDT)