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 Phorce » Sat Apr 06, 2013 1:33 pm

Well that's patently untrue. There's something further up in this thread about an editor "on the other team" getting banned, or I can certainly provide other examples.
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 » Tue Apr 09, 2013 6:41 am

Here's an example of the sort of thing which Wikipedia excels at which turned up at a tutoring thing last night:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_cosines#Proofs

Providing that sort of answer is a valuable public service. Again, in my view, Wiki should stick to things like that an leave controversies alone.
tholden
 
Posts: 899
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 6:02 pm

Re: Joshua Schroeder on pseudoscience on Wikipedia

Unread postby Phorce » Tue Apr 09, 2013 9:01 am

(Caps for emphasis). Yes, I understand what you are saying. The page you give defines something that is agreed upon by most people. But can you understand that its possible to DOCUMENT the situation/history SURROUNDING a controversy itself AND LEAVE THE DETAILS ALONE. This does NOT entail defining any of the actual science or arguments entailed in the controversy, although they may be referred to. It's a SOCIOLOGICAL article, as well as a HISTORICAL type of article.

It may not get out onto wikipedia what EU advocates would like to see, but at least it would inform new comers to what all the "controversy" is about. Surely that would be a good thing ?
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 Abd » Wed Oct 04, 2017 7:15 pm

I thought carefully about whether or not to announce this. Joshua P. Schroeder has taken extraordinary measures to attempt to make it difficult to research his activities, claiming harassment. He was a visiting professor, and his university profile had the office phone numbers removed, very unusual. He has also changed his real-life name and has now published a journal article with the new name. Sites have had articles about him taken down because of claims of privacy and copyright violations.

However, he is still active on Wikipedia in a similar manner as before, and he has never taken responsibility for the messes he created. His Wikipedia faction simply found ways to enable him, in spite of blatant and obvious violations of Wikipedia policy. Further, science depends very much on personal reputations, that is behind the standard trust in scientist probity -- which he attacked. Scientists make mistakes, it's common. But if they lie, fake data, or use grossly misleading arguments, that could be their career, over just like that. He has attacked professional scientists because they state opinions contrary to his, not just their alleged errors. So here goes.

He currently signs his posts "jps," hiding his monstrously complex user name, and belying the claim he makes that he does not want to be judged by his user name, (since "jps" is broadly recognized as him), See his current user page at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:9SGjOSfyHJaQVsEmy9NS. He has an incomplete list of account names at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:9SGjOSfyHJaQVsEmy9NS/Previous_Account_Names

It is incomplete because it does not include his identified sock puppets. I'm going to track his "legit" accounts back. I am not giving the sock puppet account names because they are largely moot, but the claims in his Wikipedia unblock discussion that he had not socked for two years were false, and known to be false by some at the time.

The tool (for recent name changes): https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php? ... aQVsEmy9NS

18:53, 9 January 2017 K6ka globally renamed WoKrKmFK3lwz8BKvaB94 to 9SGjOSfyHJaQVsEmy9NS
15:56, 29 August 2016 Avraham globally renamed I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc to WoKrKmFK3lwz8BKvaB94
21:01, 5 January 2015 DerHexer globally renamed QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV to I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc

before this, renaming was local to Wikipedia, and the old logs are more primitive. Finding the change requires knowing the old user name. So there is another way, looking for Talk edits of the user with signatures. The current contributions log and page history will show the current user name, and signatures show what was current at the time. So this takes me back to
Previously ScienceApologist
Vanished User 314159 from his user page list, no edits. Missing from user rename log. Probably hidden
ScienceApologist
Joshua P. Schroeder is missing from the user rename log. Probably hidden.
ScienceApologist
Joshuaschroeder ... is also missing from the user rename log. Probably hidden.

more to be added.
Abd
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2017 12:36 pm

Re: Joshua Schroeder on pseudoscience on Wikipedia

Unread postby Abd » Wed Oct 04, 2017 8:15 pm

http://outreach.astro.columbia.edu/aboutus/index.html still has jps at Columbia in New York. That is a red herring.
He obtained his PhD in 2014 and was a visiting professor at St. Lawrence University for about a year. He is currently "living and working in Santiago, Chile at the Instituto de Astrofísica — Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile." http://www.astro.puc.cl/~jschroed/, the page is titled "Joshua Tan (né Schroeder)". Another page on that institution site gives his name as Joshua P. Schroeder, and the credentials match.

All this information (and more) is available in public documents. Schroeder is one pseudoskepic out of many, why has he aroused such outrage? It's easy to see in his Wikipedia interactions. He did not just argue for following Wikipedia policy, he argued massively and at length, over many years, against neutrality policy, and he clearly violated policies to oppose other users, especially civility policy. He stirred up conflict, often trolling others into reacting and then being blocked or banned, thus warping the consensus process by which Wikipedia hopes to achieve neutrality, and I know of an example where the damage was truly enormous, with a possible lost opportunity cost from delay in recognizing old errors could be a trillion dollars per year. Or maybe not. Those are questions that are being resolved in time, and how important Wikipedia is in this is questionable.

In the mainstream peer-reviewed journals, setting aside a few exceptions (journals that reject articles without review), it's over. What jps considers fringe pseudoscience is accepted, papers are being published, etc., including secondary source reviews that theoretically would be golden as reliable source for Wikipedia. But the "information cascade" on cold fusion remains for many and the Wikipedia article is over ten years out of data, repeating "facts" that were true at one time, but that became untrue more than two decades ago.

Meanwhile we are each responsible for our own actions, and hiding does not change that. Actually cleaning up the mess can help. Science does not function in the shadows.
Abd
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2017 12:36 pm

Previous

Return to Electric Universe - Net Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron