I believe there are major communication problems with the homeopathy discussions.
Good communication is important in any discussion. However, because this topic is highly polarized, and has such a history of dispute and ill will, clear communication is especially important in homeopathy.
I would say, and this is an opinion only, that the quality of the communication typically ranges from mediocre to bad.
This would not be as bad if it was a linear discussion. No such luck. It was in some cases parallel discussions of different versions of the lead. During the course of this discussion, suggestions for bringing some order were made by editors Smith Jones, Arion 3x3, Filll, and myself, without effect, as near as I could tell. Filll created a subpage Talk:Homeopathy/LEADdiscussion in an attempt to take the discussion to one location. However, discussion continued scattered over multiple sections of the talk page. In other words, independent discussions of the same thing. In short, near chaos.
Bad communication and unstructured discussion are not the entire problem in homeopathy by any means. However, these greatly aggravate other problems. Wanderer57 ( talk) 08:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Specifically about communication I would say a big problem is circularity: endless tail-chasing because folks just can't be bothered (?) to read the page or the archives to 'gen up' on issues previously discussed ad nauseam. So, same topics keep coming up over and over which means very little progress is ever made. Also, as you say disjointed scattering of the same topic in several different paragraphs. How do you propose to deal with these issues? thanks Peter morrell 21:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks to all for your comments. As several people point out, within the homeopathy discussion there are well-known problems of wide differences in opinions and styles of discussion, etc.
I'm concerned that perhaps people are missing the point I'm trying to raise here, namely that there is ALSO a general problem with the way the discussion is structured. Complaints about particular editors or groups of editors do not address the concern I'm raising.
I think that the chaos and ineffectiveness of having the same topic (the article lead) discussed in fourteen different sections would concern editors. The main problem in that case was NOT the actions of one or another editor. The discussion, now in archive 30, was relatively amicable and positive in tone, but it was bloody near impossible to follow. Can we get any broader recognition that there is a problem in this regard? Thanks. Wanderer57 ( talk) 18:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I believe there are major communication problems with the homeopathy discussions.
Good communication is important in any discussion. However, because this topic is highly polarized, and has such a history of dispute and ill will, clear communication is especially important in homeopathy.
I would say, and this is an opinion only, that the quality of the communication typically ranges from mediocre to bad.
This would not be as bad if it was a linear discussion. No such luck. It was in some cases parallel discussions of different versions of the lead. During the course of this discussion, suggestions for bringing some order were made by editors Smith Jones, Arion 3x3, Filll, and myself, without effect, as near as I could tell. Filll created a subpage Talk:Homeopathy/LEADdiscussion in an attempt to take the discussion to one location. However, discussion continued scattered over multiple sections of the talk page. In other words, independent discussions of the same thing. In short, near chaos.
Bad communication and unstructured discussion are not the entire problem in homeopathy by any means. However, these greatly aggravate other problems. Wanderer57 ( talk) 08:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Specifically about communication I would say a big problem is circularity: endless tail-chasing because folks just can't be bothered (?) to read the page or the archives to 'gen up' on issues previously discussed ad nauseam. So, same topics keep coming up over and over which means very little progress is ever made. Also, as you say disjointed scattering of the same topic in several different paragraphs. How do you propose to deal with these issues? thanks Peter morrell 21:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks to all for your comments. As several people point out, within the homeopathy discussion there are well-known problems of wide differences in opinions and styles of discussion, etc.
I'm concerned that perhaps people are missing the point I'm trying to raise here, namely that there is ALSO a general problem with the way the discussion is structured. Complaints about particular editors or groups of editors do not address the concern I'm raising.
I think that the chaos and ineffectiveness of having the same topic (the article lead) discussed in fourteen different sections would concern editors. The main problem in that case was NOT the actions of one or another editor. The discussion, now in archive 30, was relatively amicable and positive in tone, but it was bloody near impossible to follow. Can we get any broader recognition that there is a problem in this regard? Thanks. Wanderer57 ( talk) 18:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)