Joshua Schroeder on pseudoscience on Wikipedia

Many Internet forums have carried discussion of the Electric Universe hypothesis. Much of that discussion has added more confusion than clarity, due to common misunderstandings of the electrical principles. Here we invite participants to discuss their experiences and to summarize questions that have yet to be answered.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: Joshua Schroeder on pseudoscience on Wikipedia

Unread postby davesmith_au » Thu Dec 30, 2010 2:59 am

For those who have not got the stomach to go to Wikipedia, here's what has happened so far:

First, on Christmas day, Schroeder attempts to have my page "speedy deleted" on the (false) grounds that it is an 'attack page'.

Worth noting here that, when considering pages in an editor's userspace (the "pigwrestling" page is in my userspace) if another editor feels either the content or the name of the page is inappropriate, the first thing they should do is open dialogue with the editor concerned. This did not happen. Secondly, the admin who then nominated my page for MfD (Miscellany for Deletion) should have done likewise, BEFORE taking the MfD action. This did not happen.

Admin Beeblebrox denies the speedy delete, but then nominates the page for MfD using the most pathetic argument I have yet seen, and not identifying any policy breach. Here's what's happened with that so far.

The nomination by user 'Beeblebrox':

Some sort of collection of "evidence" that does not seem to have ever led to any action. User who created it went inactive 8 months ago. See their userpage for the meaning of "pig wrestling." Beeblebrox (talk) 18:48, 25 December 2010 (UTC)


My (first) response:

Strong Keep There appears to be no breach of any rule or guideline, and none is cited in the nomination to delete. The fact that I have not edited for some time does not mean I have left or have lost all interest in editing Wikipedia. Unless the nominator can provide reasons for the deletion, I suggest they use their time on Wikipedia more constructively and seek to delete pages which break some rule. Davesmith au (talk) 10:01, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


Beeblebrox responds to me:

I explained my reasons quite clearly in the nomination. If you'd like to see a policy WP:UP#POLEMIC will do quite nicely. Your right of course, I should have mentioned that in the nomination. For the sake of transparency, I came across this only because another user nominated it for speedy deletion as an attack page, which I declined to do, opting instead for a full deletion debate. Since you have suddenly returned from your prolonged retirement perhaps you would care to explain what this is supposed to be, assuming it is still your contention that it violates no policy now that I have provided information on what policy I believe it violates. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:31, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


User 'Collect' adds a 'keep' statement:

Keep If the argument is that it is an attack page - it does not seem to actually attack anyone in any sort of organized manner. If the argument is that it is useless - that is not actually an argument for deletion in userspace. And for an inactive user to appear here implies they are not quite as inactive as was thought - making that argument moot. Absent any strong argument to delete - the default is keep. Collect (talk) 20:48, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


Beeblebrox responds to Collect:

You seemed to have missed the link in my last remark. For convenience sake I will quote the relevant section here to avoid further misunderstandings of the nomination reasoning:
"Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws. The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner. Users should generally not maintain in public view negative information related to others without very good reason. Negative evidence, laundry lists of wrongs, collations of diffs and criticisms related to problems, etc., should be removed, blanked, or kept privately (i.e., not on the wiki) if they will not be imminently used, and the same once no longer needed."
(emphasis added) I thinks it's pretty clear that this would apply to this page. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:59, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


Collect responds to Beeblebrox:

Which would apply if the author made noises that it was evidence to be used because otherwise the material might be seen to be attacking someone. Where no one is attacked, that section does not apply, and there is no requiremnet that all userspace pages which mention other editors be used as "evidence" anywhere. Collect (talk) 21:07, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


Beeblebrox then takes what is clearly a tongue-in-cheek metaphor, and attempts to make it literal:

From Dave's user page, here is an explanation of what this is supposed to be:

Before coming here, I was offered some really good advice -

"Don't wrestle with a pig - you'll both get covered in crap but the pig will enjoy it".

My hope is that I will actually be able to engage the pigs in civil and constructive dialogue. I am a pathological optimist.

Having said that, if the dialogue attempt fails, you plant both your feet firmly on the solid foundations of integrity and truth, and give their gonads a firm but fair squeeze. They'll usually run off, squeeling as they go, flinging more crap on themselves than anyone else - it's often a thankless task, but hey, somebody has to do it.


So, his own words establish that he is using this page to identify users that he feels are pigs covered in their own excrement, who enjoy being covered in their own excrement, and whose testicles should be injured. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:25, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


Collect pulls him up on it:

Which means you are using both OR and SYNTH on a userspace page of all things! Alas - I look at what is on the page to be deleted and I do not research anything beyond what is physically present. Which is not sufficient to call for deletion. Actually what happens is now more people will see the page than ever would have otherwise. Seems a bit of a downer, that? Collect (talk) 21:33, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


Beeblebrox now says he has "demonstrated" what I mean, but seems to get caught up in his own explanation. I still cannot understand what he means by the statement below:

That's completely specious logic. I'll grant that at first the definition of "pig wrestling" being used was not obvious, but now that I have demonstrated what this user means the term to mean you try to wiki-lawyer that point with a content policy that is intended for articles not user pages. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:03, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


I felt it was about time I chimed in again:

"I explained my reasons quite clearly in the nomination." No you did not. I see no reasoning whatever in the nomination.
"If you'd like to see a policy [as breaching policy is the only valid reason for deleting pages, that should have been a given] WP:UP#POLEMIC will do quite nicely. Your [sic] right of course, I should have mentioned that in the nomination." Yes I am right and yes you should have referred to it in the nomination, but in fact it appears to be an ad hoc addition with your own words "will do quite nicely" indicating that perhaps it was not until asked for policy that you went and found some which you thought would suffice.
"Since you have suddenly returned from your prolonged retirement ..." ' I never "retired" from Wikipedia which I made quite clear in my "Strong Keep" statement. Your continued assertion does not make it so.
"... perhaps you would care to explain what this is supposed to be, ..." It is mostly a chronological history of edits affecting or relating to the biography of David Talbott, as stated clearly on the page.
"... assuming it is still your contention that it violates no policy now that I have provided information on what policy I believe it violates." It does not violate that policy as explained below.
"You seemed to have missed the link in my last remark. [I missed nothing, I just don't see anything of relevance] "For convenience sake I will quote the relevant section here to avoid further misunderstandings of the nomination reasoning:" You are taking the passages out of context. They are preceded by TWO headings: "Excessive unrelated content" and "Very divisive or offensive material not related to encyclopedia editing ". The material concerned is definitely encyclopedia related. Furthermore, I have not attacked any editor. Your further remarks which Collect has established the inappropriateness of, I find fallacious and mischievous. I'll thank you not to take my words and make up your own mind as to what they mean. Any issue with the title of the page could and should have been taken up on my talk page or the page's talk page, as per my request there.
I find this whole episode (Joshua P. Schroeder (jps) first attempting a speedy delete, followed by Beeblebrox nominating my personal notes for deletion without displaying any policy breach), to be distasteful and a waste of administrative time as the page concerned is neither an attack page nor does it violate any policy.Davesmith au (talk) 01:54, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


Beeblebrox then has another go at taking a metaphor literally:

If that is the case I'm sure a consensus will be reached to keep it. I find the concept of identifying other users as pigs covered in shit who need to have their genitals damaged rather offensive and decidedly unhelpful, but if the community disagrees with me your "personal notes" will be kept. (I still find it interesting that you suddenly returned from an eight month hiatus the day after this was nominated, but I guess that's neither here nor there for purposes of this conversation) Beeblebrox (talk) 02:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


Me again:

As I have demonstrated that you failed to identify any policy violation in your nomination, and since failed to "find" a policy which my page violates, the MfD is invalid, so a "Keep" decision is the only responsible outcome.
"(I still find it interesting that you suddenly returned from an eight month hiatus the day after this was nominated, but I guess that's neither here nor there for purposes of this conversation)" As your nomination states that I "went inactive about 8 months ago", it is relevant to the conversation. However I have already shown that I am not "retired" so that point is moot, not to mention irrelevant to the issue of whether a page should be deleted.
I find it interesting that Schroeder chose Christmas day to attempt a speedy deletion, perhaps hoping it would be done before I noticed it.
I find it interesting that he chose to call it an "attack page" without showing where any such attack has occurred.
I find it interesting that you also used the "attack page" excuse without showing any attack, and that now that that has failed miserably you seem to be arguing about about me allegedly "identifying other users as pigs covered in shit who need to have their genitals damaged" which I have not done. You will notice I refer to myself on the said page, along with other contributors who I would not categorize in the way you seem to be. I have simply collated ALL (at the time) talk page comments related to the biography of David Talbott, without singling out any individuals. The material is clearly encyclopedia related, and does not violate any policies. Should you take issue with the naming of the page, I have already mentioned such issues should be discussed on my talk page or on the page's talk page, which as an admin you should already be aware.Davesmith au (talk) 03:44, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


Schroeder then adds in his two cents worth, violating several of Wikipedia's policies as he does so:

Declining the speedy was a bad move. Dave Smith is a perfectly awful character who revels in attacking Wikipedians on and off site. He uses this page as a reference point for his attacks. But, now you've given him a forum and we'll go round-and-round discussing this allowing him to continue to spew his filth. Congrats. jps (talk) 03:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


Note that he links to my post near the top of this forum page with the words "He uses this page as a reference point for his attacks."

I respond:

Declining the speedy was the only acceptable move, as there has not been an attack of any kind identified. Nominating the page for MfD was the bad move, as the page violates no policies and as such the nomination is a waste of everyone's time. I am not a "perfectly awful character". I do not "revel in attacking Wikipedians" either on or off the site. Show me an instance of an on-site attack, and where I have reveled in same. As for what's off-site, I am within my rights to post whatever I please (within the forum's rules) on the Thunderbolts forum which those here would likely never have seen save your own linking to it (congrats!). It is not an attack but a factual account of the past and was not linked FROM Wikipedia until your actions above. Please show me where I have "spewed" my "filth" (on Wikipedia) and I'll gladly wipe up the mess... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davesmith au (talk • contribs) 04:10, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


Beeblebrox then says Schroeder and I have been fighting off-site, yet Schroeder has not contributed to the thread concerned, nor to our forum for what seems like a good year or two (but I'm too lazy to go look it up). He then invokes another policy which again does not pertain to this situation!

I see I am not the only one one who neglected to thoroughly explain themselves from the outset. You two have been fighting off-site and now that conflict has come onto Wikipedia. Delightful. And we now see that you are in fct using this page for purposes not related to Wikipedia, you are using it as a reference page for your off-wiki fighting. Therefore you can add WP:NOTHOST, which is policy, to the argument to delete this page. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:23, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


I respond:

If you keep grasping at straws, all you'll end up with is a hand full of straw. My page has been in place for over a year. The link Schroeder posted here has been on the Thunderbolts forum for one month. The page is, as I have already explained, mostly a chronological history of edits affecting or relating to the biography of David Talbott. As I have an ongoing interest in the said biography, I am entitled to keep any notes relating to it in my user space. I have a medical condition which affects my ability to recall information I may need at a later date, and so I have opted to post it to my user page. As it all relates to the encyclopedia, I am within my rights.
"You two have been fighting off-site and now that conflict has come onto Wikipedia." Please provide proof of this claim or retract it.
"And we now see that you are in fact using this page for purposes not related to Wikipedia, you are using it as a reference page for your off-wiki fighting." As already stated, and as is obvious by the page's content, it is clearly "related to Wikipedia". That I have found reason to link to it from off-site is of no consequence in the argument of whether or not to delete the page. Please desist from your attempts to obfuscate the issue. Schroeder's attempt at speedy deletion failed, and now you seem to be making up the argument as you go along, instead of having made a clear and concise statement in your nomination. The material in question does not take the form of a "blog, webspace provider or social networking site" and as such your claim that it somehow violates WP:NOTHOST is again, erroneous.Davesmith au (talk) 07:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


Then another editor chimes in, invoking the same policy I have already refuted!

Delete per WP:UP#POLEMIC and per the forum link provided by jps. This page does not need to be hosted on Wikipedia. Cunard (talk) 04:52, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


I respond yet again *yawn*:

At the risk of repeating myself, the argument that it somehow violates WP:UP#POLEMIC is invalid, when the policy quoted clearly states that it relates to material not related to the encyclopedia. As to the forum link provided by jps, that is totally irrelevant. No-one here would have been aware of it had he not drawn attention to it himself. If you suggested "Delete" and quoted some policy I have violated, that would be different. Simply reiterating invalid material does not a sound argument make.Davesmith au (talk) 05:13, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


Seems the zealots don't have to abide by the very policies they expect others to follow! And people think somehow a concerted effort is going to make things better. Who has the time? Who could be bothered?

I NEED coffee...

Cheers, Dave.
User avatar
davesmith_au
Site Admin
 
Posts: 828
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 7:29 pm
Location: Adelaide, the great land of Oz

Re: Joshua Schroeder on pseudoscience on Wikipedia

Unread postby Phorce » Thu Dec 30, 2010 5:24 am

I still think ... why bother ? These bullies are very well skilled at pulling people into unproductive power conflicts for years. Why not ignore them. Go around them. They thrive on exposure.
Exploration and discovery without honest investigation of "extraordinary" results leads to a Double Bind (Bateson, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_bind ) that creates loss of hope and depression. No more Double Binds !
User avatar
Phorce
 
Posts: 220
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 1:54 am
Location: The Phorce

Re: Joshua Schroeder on pseudoscience on Wikipedia

Unread postby Siggy_G » Wed Sep 26, 2012 10:53 am

I found the following under the Talk page of the Plasma Cosmology article on Wikipedia. Is this really the case? What about other previous acts of him?


I have therefore reverted the edits. I also think 50.74.135.246 and 209.2.217.151 are sock puppets for ScienceApologist and have reported them as such, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ScienceApologist. Aarghdvaark (talk) 06:44, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

From what I can see ScienceApologist is not a blocked user and the SPI appears to have concluded similarly. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

ScienceApologist aka Joshua P. Schroeder aka VanishedUser314159 is indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia. The IPs 50.74.135.246 and 209.2.217.151 were found to be sock puppets for ScienceApologist and have been blocked for a year. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Log of blocks and bans for a log of all ScienceApologist's blocks and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ScienceApologist for details of this case. Aarghdvaark (talk) 06:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

User avatar
Siggy_G
Moderator
 
Posts: 478
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 11:05 am
Location: Norway

Re: Joshua Schroeder on pseudoscience on Wikipedia

Unread postby Phorce » Sat Sep 29, 2012 8:39 am

Ya know, bans, page deletions, and on and on ? So what ? If you want to edit for Wikipedia then you people are really going to have to drop this "we must get the truth in Wikipedia" stance. It is simply not what it is set up to do. In fact if it were easy to edit in "the Truth" then Wikipedia would have died years ago.

Yes, its difficult. I fall for all the same tricks myself. I get worked up and on my high horse. But at the end of the day calm editing of Wikipedia without personal attacks (and without the "I am a victim" attitude I might add) can be very enlightening and eventually leads to the compromise that is the case with many of the better articles on WP.

The classic core at the heart of all of this is this ...

In content disputes, a common baiting strategy involves badgering the opposition—while carefully remaining superficially civil—until someone lashes out. They then complain to an administrator. Time-pressed administrators may look only at specific edits without delving into the background that led up to the incident, resulting in a warning or block for the targeted editor. Most discouraging of all, this tactic is nearly risk-free. There rarely are negative consequences for those who use it, in part because a pattern of ongoing provocation can't easily be explained following the usual "diffs please" request. Sometimes these are after one particular individual and sometimes they're just after anyone who will take the bait. Don't take the bait.


See the full Wikipedia essay here.

This is quoted in my Wikiproject Proposal. And I'll say it again. I am not proposing this group to make sure the "truth" of Electric Universe is edited into WP ! It is simply intended potentially as a guide to the wonderful and wacky world of WP through mutual support for interested editors. Editors SOURCING the rich world of EU scientific citations IN ORDER to improve WP articles IN GENERAL.

If EU "believers" exclusively intend to use WP to PROMOTE their point of view then I will gladly retract my WP Project because I will not support such shameless promotional tactics.

So is anyone going to get this or were you all struck by lightning ?
Exploration and discovery without honest investigation of "extraordinary" results leads to a Double Bind (Bateson, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_bind ) that creates loss of hope and depression. No more Double Binds !
User avatar
Phorce
 
Posts: 220
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 1:54 am
Location: The Phorce

Re: Joshua Schroeder on pseudoscience on Wikipedia

Unread postby Siggy_G » Sun Sep 30, 2012 4:10 pm

The thing specifically with ScienceApologist is that he apparently and rather clearly had an agenda against PC/EU views in general; fighting such edits. If he now is banned from WP, then that is curious - i.e. what does that say about his numerous edits and reverts at WP?

Page deletions and reverts can't possible be viewed as a non-issue. It means that calm Wikipedia editing isn't taking place, because your edits are being erased in a click of someone else. However, making sure reliable sources are being used, and objective and relevant phrasing of the subject is taking place, is playing by the rules. Then others won't have "WP:xxxx" grounds to revert or edit away what is written.
User avatar
Siggy_G
Moderator
 
Posts: 478
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 11:05 am
Location: Norway

Re: Joshua Schroeder on pseudoscience on Wikipedia

Unread postby Phorce » Tue Oct 02, 2012 7:48 am

Yes, but however, I think you possibly miss the point of WP. There are essentially no rules as anyone can hit the edit button and add or change text if they are registered or not ("anonymous" with IP trace). Therefore it is almost impossible to track who has an agenda or any kind. In fact many editors edit things in by working from a point of view that they actually may completely disagree with (it's called "editing for the enemy" and I recommend trying it). WP is a strange beast. Allowing it to work the way it does simply should not work. This is why such endeavours were rarely tried before the development of Wiki Wiki software. But, it does work. However "work" in this case seems to produce a reflection of what is going on in society. If certain "fringe" or "psuedoscience" research is not widely accepted in society (I would say this depends on the Zeitgeist of the times) then however many edits are put in with rock solid references and citations they will STILL get edited out. However there are many ways of compromising with many editors - especially the ones who "watch" pages or consider a page "their" page. But this involves having to get involved in the CULTURE of Wikipedia itself.
Exploration and discovery without honest investigation of "extraordinary" results leads to a Double Bind (Bateson, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_bind ) that creates loss of hope and depression. No more Double Binds !
User avatar
Phorce
 
Posts: 220
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 1:54 am
Location: The Phorce

Re: Joshua Schroeder on pseudoscience on Wikipedia

Unread postby botoxic » Fri Feb 01, 2013 6:38 pm

Schroeder (then writing as Scienceapologist, and now called "Previously ScienceApologist"), has stated his agenda:


  1. He states that he has "an agenda to decrease the visibility of plasma cosmology in relation to its marginalization in the outside world (ref)

  2. He added pseudoscience category tags to the Plasma Cosmology article twice (ref-1) (ref-2) (a) without citations (b) without consensus (c) without explanation

  3. Deleted the whole article, and replaced it with his own version.(ref)
botoxic
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2011 8:10 am

Re: Joshua Schroeder on pseudoscience on Wikipedia

Unread postby Phorce » Sat Feb 02, 2013 6:03 am

So the editing in of the entire wealth of Electric Universe / Plasma Cosmology / Space Weather / EM Fields / Cosmology / Astronomy / Latest and historical Scientific research is being blocked by a single person ?

What's wrong with this picture.
Exploration and discovery without honest investigation of "extraordinary" results leads to a Double Bind (Bateson, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_bind ) that creates loss of hope and depression. No more Double Binds !
User avatar
Phorce
 
Posts: 220
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 1:54 am
Location: The Phorce

Re: Joshua Schroeder on pseudoscience on Wikipedia

Unread postby tholden » Wed Apr 03, 2013 10:00 pm

What's wrong with this picture....


Lack of leverage. You need something meaningful to threaten Wikipedia with.
tholden
 
Posts: 899
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 6:02 pm

Re: Joshua Schroeder on pseudoscience on Wikipedia

Unread postby Phorce » Thu Apr 04, 2013 5:53 am

So, at risk of repeating myself, this is why I started an editing group to organise editing of Plasma Cosmology articles for Wikipedia editors (not just EU people). However, so far I have had zero responses from EU people, or anyone else for that matter. If my approach is embarrassingly misguided than no one has pointed out to me what the problem might be (I am quite willing to listen). So far what I have seen on the most part is a mus-understanding of how Wikipedia works and what it does. There's a natural health group out there that makes the same mistake. They insist that because "the truth" about natural health therapies is not in the page edits of various articles then that "proves" that "wikipedia is being run by a cabal of evil editors" ...

... this is simply not the case.

By its very nature Wikipedia will only reflect what is going on in society, because anyone can hit that edit button, even anonymous editors. So, verily, the nature of understanding of EU science in society at the current time will be reflected in various Wikipedia page edits as they currently stand. There is a good reason why this process works (even if it upsets some editors who "know" what certain pages should say). It works because edits often only stand by being supported by solid references widely accepted as valid by society. If EU science is still regarded by the majority of editors and society as relatively unknown or unrecognised then that is what the WP pages will reflect. This is not necessarily a bad thing.

Its sad that more "EU advocates" don't understand this. If they did then there might be more quality WP page edits to various Plasma Cosmology pages that stand - based on references to knowledge that is often best known by EU people, Plasma Cosmology experts, interested astronomers and cosmologists. Until people stop throwing up their hands and squealing "censorship!", and take the time to understand how WP works, there will never be quality (well sourced) edits put into WP pages.
Exploration and discovery without honest investigation of "extraordinary" results leads to a Double Bind (Bateson, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_bind ) that creates loss of hope and depression. No more Double Binds !
User avatar
Phorce
 
Posts: 220
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 1:54 am
Location: The Phorce

Re: Joshua Schroeder on pseudoscience on Wikipedia

Unread postby tholden » Thu Apr 04, 2013 2:51 pm

Phorce wrote:Until people stop throwing up their hands and squealing "censorship!", and take the time to understand how WP works, there will never be quality (well sourced) edits put into WP pages.


The basic reality of Wikipedia is simple enough. Wikipedia is a colossally valuable resource for any sort of a topic for which no controversy could plausibly exist. For anything else, Wikipedia is worthless.

The kinds of topics for which Wiki is useful include 'how does a 2-stroke engine work', 'how does a steam engine work', 'how does a sewing machine work', 'what is a vector dot product', 'where is the city of Gdansk and how many people live there', and that sort of thing.
tholden
 
Posts: 899
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 6:02 pm

Re: Joshua Schroeder on pseudoscience on Wikipedia

Unread postby Phorce » Fri Apr 05, 2013 8:48 am

Maybe you should take some time to look at Wikipedia some more ?

WP is quite capable of documenting controversial subjects ...

All pages with titles containing "Controversy": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Se ... ontroversy

Controversy
Controversy is a state of prolonged public dispute or debate, usually concerning a matter of conflicting opinion or point of view. ...
14 KB (1,945 words) - 23:02, 7 March 2013
Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy
Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen described the controversy as Denmark's worst international relations incident since the ...
107 KB (15,639 words) - 17:38, 24 March 2013
Creation–evolution controversy
The creation–evolution controversy (also termed the creation vs. evolution debate or the origins debate) is a recurring cultural, ...
136 KB (19,131 words) - 14:25, 30 March 2013
Video game controversies
Controversies over video games center on debates around video game content and the potential for it to negatively impact player attitude ...
96 KB (14,529 words) - 23:06, 2 April 2013
Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy
The dismissal of U.S. Attorneys controversy was initiated by the unprecedented midterm dismissal of seven United States Attorney s on ...
124 KB (17,359 words) - 07:33, 31 March 2013
Controversy (song)
"Controversy" is a song by Prince , the lead single and title track to his 1981 album One of his most respected classic funk songs, " ...
6 KB (717 words) - 17:05, 21 March 2013
Teach the Controversy
The scientific community and science education organizations have replied that there is no scientific controversy regarding the validity of ...
66 KB (9,601 words) - 09:59, 18 February 2013
Vaccine controversies
A vaccine controversy is a dispute over the morality, ethics, effectiveness, or safety of vaccination s. Medical and scientific evidence ...
70 KB (9,922 words) - 22:22, 4 April 2013
Climatic Research Unit email controversy
In an editorial, the New York Times described the coverage as a "manufactured controversy," and expressed hope that the investigations ...
120 KB (16,885 words) - 23:34, 29 March 2013
Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show controversy
Other controversies : date July 2012 Commercials: Prior to the broadcast, CBS rejected the MoveOn.org Super Bowl ad Bush in 30 Seconds ...
59 KB (8,456 words) - 03:17, 3 March 2013
Easter controversy
The Easter controversy is a series of controversies about the proper date to celebrate the Christian holiday of Easter . To date, there ...
11 KB (1,647 words) - 06:09, 17 March 2013
Chinese Rites controversy (section Controversy)
The Chinese Rites controversy was a 17th–18th-century dispute among Roman Catholic missionaries, first originated in China, about whether ...
32 KB (4,500 words) - 20:43, 15 March 2013
The Satanic Verses controversy
The Satanic Verses controversy, also known as the Rushdie Affair, was the heated and frequently violent reaction of some Muslims to the ...
80 KB (11,940 words) - 17:18, 4 April 2013
Stem cell controversy
The stem cell controversy is the ethical debate primarily concerning the creation, treatment, and destruction of human embryos incident to ...
42 KB (6,223 words) - 09:13, 1 April 2013


... and MANY more pages such as this.

What editors could get in there is a page titled something like the "Plasma Cosmology Controversy", or "Controversy in Astronomical Study of Space Plasma's", and so forth. There is certainly plenty of material out there. Conferences. Online exchanges. Books. Journal articles. This kind of article would then be there to inform newcomers to this area so they can make up their own minds.
Exploration and discovery without honest investigation of "extraordinary" results leads to a Double Bind (Bateson, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_bind ) that creates loss of hope and depression. No more Double Binds !
User avatar
Phorce
 
Posts: 220
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 1:54 am
Location: The Phorce

Re: Joshua Schroeder on pseudoscience on Wikipedia

Unread postby tholden » Fri Apr 05, 2013 6:50 pm

Most high school teachers would flunk anything a kid turned in citing wiki on any sort of a controversial topic, I mean this is a known thing by now and it's not just the EU. Consider for instance what people involve in EVP have to say about wiki...

http://www.aetherometry.com/Electronic_ ... index.html

Image

Then there are the various/numerous "little wikis", which exist because people involved in controversies get tired of seeing wiki pages which present one side of a controversy as if no other side existed, e.g.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page

http://creationwiki.org/Main_Page

http://paranormalactivity.wikia.com/wik ... ivity_Wiki

Or consider William Connelley, the so-called man with the poor-man's time machine... A time machine is supposed to be something to let you change hisory, how better to do that than to get yourself ensconced as a wiki admin and remove all mention of the medieval climate optimum from 6000+ wiki articles...

Best thing Wiki could do is drop all pretense to being able to deal with controversial topics and simply use the following line in such cases:

"This topic is controversial and thus outside the scope of Wikipedia's mission: Seek information elsewhere."
tholden
 
Posts: 899
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 6:02 pm

Re: Joshua Schroeder on pseudoscience on Wikipedia

Unread postby Phorce » Sat Apr 06, 2013 6:35 am

WP does have some good pages about certain controversies (such as the Vaccine controversies). Other pages seem to be missing. For example there is no page titled "Cold Fusion controversies" that I can find.

However I still think that what we are seeing is a reflection of what is going on in society on a conscious level. WP may appear to be a "cult of ignorance" when it comes to certain matters but that merely reflects the lack of awareness in some quarters of society. WP will always reflect these sociological trends because anyone can hit the edit button. Just like any technology it is not evil in and of itself.

The problem, as I see it, with coverage of "controversial subject areas" is that enthusiasts in those areas come to WP and don't take the time to understand the WP community and how it works.

Have you, or anyone else for that matter who is reading here, tried editing articles in a way that WOULD SUPPORT Big Bang cosmology ? What about the internal Nuclear model of the Sun. Try editing in edits that actually SUPPORT that point of view or science.

I think you might learn something.
Exploration and discovery without honest investigation of "extraordinary" results leads to a Double Bind (Bateson, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_bind ) that creates loss of hope and depression. No more Double Binds !
User avatar
Phorce
 
Posts: 220
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 1:54 am
Location: The Phorce

Re: Joshua Schroeder on pseudoscience on Wikipedia

Unread postby tholden » Sat Apr 06, 2013 12:22 pm

The inevitable result of any of us ever trying to add anything to wiki is edit wars and us getting banned. The other side never gets banned, funny thing....
tholden
 
Posts: 899
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 6:02 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe - Net Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron