This page contains an archived discussion among the participants of the moderated interview. Please do not modify this page. Further comments should go here.
Hi Zvika, another user just sent me this, which I think is probably correct (haven't had time to read this yet). Anyway, I thought I'd pass it on since it deals with fundamentals:
- "In the first line of Zvika’s write up of the interview he says “Subjects or ideas which claim to have scientific basis, but which are rejected by mainstream science, are referred to as fringe theories.” This is one of the fundamental points and should be changed. A far more neutral intro would say:
""""“Subjects which lie outside of mainstream science are referred to as fringe…” or something of the sort. [although SPOV advocates often refer even to things such as Creationism as "fringe"]
- He also clarifies your point about SPOV by saying “SPOV was a proposal […] for writing science articles from the POV of mainstream science”. When in fact SPOV [as I use the word and as it is defined by SPOV advocates in fringe articles means] writing everything from the POV of mainstream science (irrespective of whether there was any mainstream science to be had)...
This is Martinphi: One of the questions reflected the fact that mainstream science often says nothing at all about a fringe subject, thus the need for OR if one uses the SPOV viewpoint. What you seem to have done is take the definition of pseudoscience "which claim to have scientific basis, but which are rejected by mainstream science" and apply it to fringe subjects, most of which don't even claim to be science.
Complex terms, because things have been totally twisted, and words are being used in several ways. However, I was using "SPOV" as defined in the current debate, not necessarily as they used to talk of it. I'll read this as soon as I can, have to go now... —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- First of all, this page (as is clearly marked) is a draft and is not intended (yet) for general discussion.
- However, since you brought the subject up: My definition is based on the text from fringe science which states: "Fringe science is a phrase used to describe scientific inquiry in an established field of study that departs significantly from mainstream or orthodox theories." I am willing to rephrase the definition I used if you think it's biased. But the definition you proposed (or whoever it is -- I have a pretty good guess) doesn't really say anything, it only says what fringe is not (it is not mainstream science). Literature, for example, also lies "outside of mainstream science." The difference is that literature does not claim to have implications on how the material world works, whereas ESP or EVP have far-reaching implications, which are not accepted by mainstream science. If you have a different definition, I am willing to reconsider.
- As for SPOV, you provided a link to WP:SPOV and I summarized in one sentence what the link says so that readers won't have to click through. If you would like to replace that link with a (very brief) explanation of what you meant, as long as it's not a major change in the text, I'd be willing to do that. -- Zvika ( talk) 10:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- P.S. Thinking about the lead some more, I changed the wording a bit. If you still think this is problematic, let me know. -- Zvika ( talk) 13:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- The first sentence is good now. You might make more clear that the word "fringe" has a very special use here in that it does not mean that something is not mainstream: Creationism is the ultimate in mainstream, for instance. Rather it is fringe only by relation to mainstream science, and that is purely a Wikipedianism, WP jargon. You could point this out. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- It seems to me that both your note and SA's objection can be dealt with by replacing "mainstream science" with "scientific consensus", so that's what I'll do. -- Zvika ( talk) 07:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
First of all, I'd like to thank Zvika for his work on this matter.
However, I have a problem with the first sentence:
- Ideas about how the world works, which are not accepted by mainstream science, are collectively referred to as fringe theories.
This isn't, in point of fact, correct and there are some stylistic issues with the sentence. I propose an alternative:
- In Wikipedia articles, ideas that contain presuppositions and claims that run counter to scientific consensus are subject to rules for handling fringe theories.
This at least is accurate, if maybe not necessarily a good lead-in for the interview.
The problem with the first sentence is that there are ideas about the way the world works which are not accepted by science that are not fringe theories. For example, Greek mythology is an idea about how the world works, but it is not a fringe theory. Secondly, the adjective "mainstream" confuses people. There is no "mainstream" science anymore than there is "mainstream" history or "mainstream" English. There is only science. The term "mainstream" is used by fringe-advocates and some skeptics overly-involved with debunking to distinguish between the "in-unverse" idiocy of pseudoscience advocates and actual science. So as to not get bogged down in the No True Scotsman fallacy, I think it's at minimum important that the adjective "mainstream" be excised from a neutral introduction of the interview.
Also, there are fringe theories which are not strictly pseudoscientific. For example, there are fringe theories related to pseudohistory that are arguably not in opposition to the paradigms, theories, and observations of science but are instead simply denialism (for example Holocaust denial). We should not indicate to uninitiated readers that all fringe theories are pseudoscience, as this first sentence seems to imply.
ScienceApologist ( talk) 14:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- What is the definition of a fringe theory? Is there some RS defining it? Or some definition that the two of you can agree on?
- As to your other points, I am willing to change "mainstream science" to "scientific consensus". Will have to think about the other points. -- Zvika ( talk) 15:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- There is no set definition for what constitutes a fringe theory. In general, however, I'm uncomfortable with the definition you offer. ScienceApologist ( talk) 17:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- For a compromise we could say,
- Ideas about how the world works, which are not accepted by scientific consensus, are considered to be fringe theories.
- This removes the insinuation that there is an equivalence. If we made a Venn diagram of (A) fringe theories and (B) the ideas not accepted by scientific consensus, [A] intersect [not B] would be an empty set while [B] intersect [not A] would not be an empty set.
- ScienceApologist ( talk) 17:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- For a compromise we could say,
- Let's not get into too fine a point here. But wouldn't you say that if someone today endorsed Greek mythology as truth, it would be considered fringe, just as Flat Earth is today considered fringe? Also, Holocaust denial says something about the world (there was no genocide) which clearly runs counter to the scientific consensus (not to mention the facts of the matter). So I don't see that you have refuted my proposed definition.
- I propose the following: Ideas about how the world works, which are not accepted by scientific consensus, are referred to as fringe theories.
- Zvika ( talk) 07:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well.... I dunno. It's just that for a general reader it would be kind of strange that the majority of people believe in fringe theories, like God, miracles, divine creation of humans, and that the sun goes around the earth etc. etc. etc. Speaking internationally to some extent. But it's Wikipediaspeak to call it fringe, and most of your readers won't know that. Just explain:
- Ideas about how the world works, which are not accepted by scientific consensus, are referred to as fringe theories in Wikipedia jargon. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 07:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- Surely you're not saying that the term "fringe theory" is Wikipedia jargon? See for example [1].
- As for religion, the existence of God is not a scientific question and hence not a fringe view. If people think that science has discredited the existence of God, then this is a misunderstanding of what science is (or of what God is). See science and religion. -- Zvika ( talk) 08:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I think I read somewhere that only ScienceApologist and Martinphi (and presumably Zvika) should edit this page. So I'm reporting 2 spelling errors in MartinPhi's answer to the second to the last question. At the end of the first paragraph, "priviledges" should be "privileges". At the end of the second paragraph, "lead" should be "led". Art LaPella ( talk) 18:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. Fixed. -- Zvika ( talk) 06:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Zvika, I love what you've done with it, I think both of us got our main ideas out for people to see. I have a couple comments:
First, there is a major error: you have my answer which starts out "Admins only enforce NPOV and RS if they are abusing their tools. NPOV and RS are content issues which even the arbitration committee doesn't usually rule on." As a response to a question you put only to SA. My answer is to a different question and obviously doesn't follow from the question in the interview as it now stands. You've got to put in the original question, or I'll have to re-write my response, which might not be as interesting. Also, when answering this question, I think it seems more as if I am advocating that enforcing CIV is a good idea when "something needs to be done", which is definitely not what I'm saying.
- I thought that your answer flows perfectly from the end of SA's response: SA says admins don't enforce content issues enough, and then you say that that's the way it should be. I meant my "what do you think about this" to refer to SA's response and not to the question I asked him.
- However, if you think this detracts from your answer then I guess you have the right to have your answer together with the actual question that prompted it, so I will put it back in.
- Zvika ( talk) 07:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- I've put the question back in, but I urge you to reconsider. In my opinion the question just repeats the last sentence in SA's response, making the text awkward. -- Zvika ( talk) 07:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
These ones aren't pressing:
"Both have proposed fundamental changes in Wikipedia's policies and bureaucratic structure."
- If anyone asked, I might disappoint: I think WP is pretty much fine as it is, and only needs to clean up its politics so current policy and ArbComs can be carried out.
When I say that they make pseudoscientific statements when they debunk, you took out the links. Instead of links, you might include "such as flat statements that no evidence or can exist." One cannot find sources for such statements, because science doesn't deal in negative evidence.
Thanks, Zvika (: —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- Concerning whether you have proposed fundamental changes: I think this sentence is justified, for two reasons. First, on your user page, you talk about people with "powerful friends" getting special protection; this is a serious accusation about the structure of the WP bureaucracy. Second, in the interview, you talk about the need to re-open the debate about SPOV, which is a major change to one of the three core policies of WP.
- As for the links: I'd be willing to consider this but the addition you proposed doesn't make grammatical sense. Did you mean "such as flat statements that no evidence exists"?
- Zvika ( talk) 07:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Right, I guess I do say those things.
Rephrase "Sometimes, pseudoscientific unsourced assertions are made, such as flat statements that no evidence does or can exist." Anyone who wants to ask me about that can get the longer explanation.
You fixed the major problem, thanks (: —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- Done. I hope the opening sentence is OK with everybody now? -- Zvika ( talk) 07:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Since there are no more comments, I presume you're both happy with the version as it is. (Whew—I managed to get you to agree on something!) I will send this to Ral315, the editor of the Signpost, and I hope he will publish it, even though it is substantially longer than most of the Signpost's articles. It has been lots of fun working with the two of you—thanks! -- Zvika ( talk) 09:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you Zvika, great job (: —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
It seems that Ral315 has decided not to publish this interview in the Signpost as he sees it as a soapbox (see User talk:Zvika). I disagree, but anyway, I'd like to publicize this in some other way. I thought of posting a notice in the Community Portal. Does that sound reasonable to you? Any other ideas? -- Zvika ( talk) 07:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- I really can't envision having any objections to any publicity. Light is what this situation needs, after all (-; —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
This page contains an archived discussion among the participants of the moderated interview. Please do not modify this page. Further comments should go here.
Hi Zvika, another user just sent me this, which I think is probably correct (haven't had time to read this yet). Anyway, I thought I'd pass it on since it deals with fundamentals:
- "In the first line of Zvika’s write up of the interview he says “Subjects or ideas which claim to have scientific basis, but which are rejected by mainstream science, are referred to as fringe theories.” This is one of the fundamental points and should be changed. A far more neutral intro would say:
""""“Subjects which lie outside of mainstream science are referred to as fringe…” or something of the sort. [although SPOV advocates often refer even to things such as Creationism as "fringe"]
- He also clarifies your point about SPOV by saying “SPOV was a proposal […] for writing science articles from the POV of mainstream science”. When in fact SPOV [as I use the word and as it is defined by SPOV advocates in fringe articles means] writing everything from the POV of mainstream science (irrespective of whether there was any mainstream science to be had)...
This is Martinphi: One of the questions reflected the fact that mainstream science often says nothing at all about a fringe subject, thus the need for OR if one uses the SPOV viewpoint. What you seem to have done is take the definition of pseudoscience "which claim to have scientific basis, but which are rejected by mainstream science" and apply it to fringe subjects, most of which don't even claim to be science.
Complex terms, because things have been totally twisted, and words are being used in several ways. However, I was using "SPOV" as defined in the current debate, not necessarily as they used to talk of it. I'll read this as soon as I can, have to go now... —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- First of all, this page (as is clearly marked) is a draft and is not intended (yet) for general discussion.
- However, since you brought the subject up: My definition is based on the text from fringe science which states: "Fringe science is a phrase used to describe scientific inquiry in an established field of study that departs significantly from mainstream or orthodox theories." I am willing to rephrase the definition I used if you think it's biased. But the definition you proposed (or whoever it is -- I have a pretty good guess) doesn't really say anything, it only says what fringe is not (it is not mainstream science). Literature, for example, also lies "outside of mainstream science." The difference is that literature does not claim to have implications on how the material world works, whereas ESP or EVP have far-reaching implications, which are not accepted by mainstream science. If you have a different definition, I am willing to reconsider.
- As for SPOV, you provided a link to WP:SPOV and I summarized in one sentence what the link says so that readers won't have to click through. If you would like to replace that link with a (very brief) explanation of what you meant, as long as it's not a major change in the text, I'd be willing to do that. -- Zvika ( talk) 10:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- P.S. Thinking about the lead some more, I changed the wording a bit. If you still think this is problematic, let me know. -- Zvika ( talk) 13:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- The first sentence is good now. You might make more clear that the word "fringe" has a very special use here in that it does not mean that something is not mainstream: Creationism is the ultimate in mainstream, for instance. Rather it is fringe only by relation to mainstream science, and that is purely a Wikipedianism, WP jargon. You could point this out. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- It seems to me that both your note and SA's objection can be dealt with by replacing "mainstream science" with "scientific consensus", so that's what I'll do. -- Zvika ( talk) 07:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
First of all, I'd like to thank Zvika for his work on this matter.
However, I have a problem with the first sentence:
- Ideas about how the world works, which are not accepted by mainstream science, are collectively referred to as fringe theories.
This isn't, in point of fact, correct and there are some stylistic issues with the sentence. I propose an alternative:
- In Wikipedia articles, ideas that contain presuppositions and claims that run counter to scientific consensus are subject to rules for handling fringe theories.
This at least is accurate, if maybe not necessarily a good lead-in for the interview.
The problem with the first sentence is that there are ideas about the way the world works which are not accepted by science that are not fringe theories. For example, Greek mythology is an idea about how the world works, but it is not a fringe theory. Secondly, the adjective "mainstream" confuses people. There is no "mainstream" science anymore than there is "mainstream" history or "mainstream" English. There is only science. The term "mainstream" is used by fringe-advocates and some skeptics overly-involved with debunking to distinguish between the "in-unverse" idiocy of pseudoscience advocates and actual science. So as to not get bogged down in the No True Scotsman fallacy, I think it's at minimum important that the adjective "mainstream" be excised from a neutral introduction of the interview.
Also, there are fringe theories which are not strictly pseudoscientific. For example, there are fringe theories related to pseudohistory that are arguably not in opposition to the paradigms, theories, and observations of science but are instead simply denialism (for example Holocaust denial). We should not indicate to uninitiated readers that all fringe theories are pseudoscience, as this first sentence seems to imply.
ScienceApologist ( talk) 14:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- What is the definition of a fringe theory? Is there some RS defining it? Or some definition that the two of you can agree on?
- As to your other points, I am willing to change "mainstream science" to "scientific consensus". Will have to think about the other points. -- Zvika ( talk) 15:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- There is no set definition for what constitutes a fringe theory. In general, however, I'm uncomfortable with the definition you offer. ScienceApologist ( talk) 17:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- For a compromise we could say,
- Ideas about how the world works, which are not accepted by scientific consensus, are considered to be fringe theories.
- This removes the insinuation that there is an equivalence. If we made a Venn diagram of (A) fringe theories and (B) the ideas not accepted by scientific consensus, [A] intersect [not B] would be an empty set while [B] intersect [not A] would not be an empty set.
- ScienceApologist ( talk) 17:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- For a compromise we could say,
- Let's not get into too fine a point here. But wouldn't you say that if someone today endorsed Greek mythology as truth, it would be considered fringe, just as Flat Earth is today considered fringe? Also, Holocaust denial says something about the world (there was no genocide) which clearly runs counter to the scientific consensus (not to mention the facts of the matter). So I don't see that you have refuted my proposed definition.
- I propose the following: Ideas about how the world works, which are not accepted by scientific consensus, are referred to as fringe theories.
- Zvika ( talk) 07:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well.... I dunno. It's just that for a general reader it would be kind of strange that the majority of people believe in fringe theories, like God, miracles, divine creation of humans, and that the sun goes around the earth etc. etc. etc. Speaking internationally to some extent. But it's Wikipediaspeak to call it fringe, and most of your readers won't know that. Just explain:
- Ideas about how the world works, which are not accepted by scientific consensus, are referred to as fringe theories in Wikipedia jargon. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 07:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- Surely you're not saying that the term "fringe theory" is Wikipedia jargon? See for example [1].
- As for religion, the existence of God is not a scientific question and hence not a fringe view. If people think that science has discredited the existence of God, then this is a misunderstanding of what science is (or of what God is). See science and religion. -- Zvika ( talk) 08:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I think I read somewhere that only ScienceApologist and Martinphi (and presumably Zvika) should edit this page. So I'm reporting 2 spelling errors in MartinPhi's answer to the second to the last question. At the end of the first paragraph, "priviledges" should be "privileges". At the end of the second paragraph, "lead" should be "led". Art LaPella ( talk) 18:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. Fixed. -- Zvika ( talk) 06:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Zvika, I love what you've done with it, I think both of us got our main ideas out for people to see. I have a couple comments:
First, there is a major error: you have my answer which starts out "Admins only enforce NPOV and RS if they are abusing their tools. NPOV and RS are content issues which even the arbitration committee doesn't usually rule on." As a response to a question you put only to SA. My answer is to a different question and obviously doesn't follow from the question in the interview as it now stands. You've got to put in the original question, or I'll have to re-write my response, which might not be as interesting. Also, when answering this question, I think it seems more as if I am advocating that enforcing CIV is a good idea when "something needs to be done", which is definitely not what I'm saying.
- I thought that your answer flows perfectly from the end of SA's response: SA says admins don't enforce content issues enough, and then you say that that's the way it should be. I meant my "what do you think about this" to refer to SA's response and not to the question I asked him.
- However, if you think this detracts from your answer then I guess you have the right to have your answer together with the actual question that prompted it, so I will put it back in.
- Zvika ( talk) 07:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- I've put the question back in, but I urge you to reconsider. In my opinion the question just repeats the last sentence in SA's response, making the text awkward. -- Zvika ( talk) 07:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
These ones aren't pressing:
"Both have proposed fundamental changes in Wikipedia's policies and bureaucratic structure."
- If anyone asked, I might disappoint: I think WP is pretty much fine as it is, and only needs to clean up its politics so current policy and ArbComs can be carried out.
When I say that they make pseudoscientific statements when they debunk, you took out the links. Instead of links, you might include "such as flat statements that no evidence or can exist." One cannot find sources for such statements, because science doesn't deal in negative evidence.
Thanks, Zvika (: —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- Concerning whether you have proposed fundamental changes: I think this sentence is justified, for two reasons. First, on your user page, you talk about people with "powerful friends" getting special protection; this is a serious accusation about the structure of the WP bureaucracy. Second, in the interview, you talk about the need to re-open the debate about SPOV, which is a major change to one of the three core policies of WP.
- As for the links: I'd be willing to consider this but the addition you proposed doesn't make grammatical sense. Did you mean "such as flat statements that no evidence exists"?
- Zvika ( talk) 07:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Right, I guess I do say those things.
Rephrase "Sometimes, pseudoscientific unsourced assertions are made, such as flat statements that no evidence does or can exist." Anyone who wants to ask me about that can get the longer explanation.
You fixed the major problem, thanks (: —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- Done. I hope the opening sentence is OK with everybody now? -- Zvika ( talk) 07:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Since there are no more comments, I presume you're both happy with the version as it is. (Whew—I managed to get you to agree on something!) I will send this to Ral315, the editor of the Signpost, and I hope he will publish it, even though it is substantially longer than most of the Signpost's articles. It has been lots of fun working with the two of you—thanks! -- Zvika ( talk) 09:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you Zvika, great job (: —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
It seems that Ral315 has decided not to publish this interview in the Signpost as he sees it as a soapbox (see User talk:Zvika). I disagree, but anyway, I'd like to publicize this in some other way. I thought of posting a notice in the Community Portal. Does that sound reasonable to you? Any other ideas? -- Zvika ( talk) 07:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- I really can't envision having any objections to any publicity. Light is what this situation needs, after all (-; —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)