User:PeterStJohn/CaseReErdos
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page is for the case (regarding deletion of the Erdos Number categories), as I develop it, as opposed to my haphazard notes, at User:PeterStJohn/ErdosNumberControversy. Pete St.John 21:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Outline of the Case
[edit] Terminology
To avoid repeating such sentences as "sustaining the closure which deleted the several Erdos Number categories", I define some broad terms, and intend to be more specific in context as needed.
- By pro I mean generally in favor of keeping all or some of the Erdos Number categories, or opposing the deletion of the categories as it was effected. I mean to elaborate, in context, as needed. I don't mean to imply that anyone agrees with me on every point.
- By con I mean those in favor of deleting all of the categories, or who sustained the closures leaving the categories deleted. See pro.
[edit] Bringing the third CfD was incorrect
After two CfD were closed for lack of consensus, a third was brought.
- There is a policy against repetition without new evidence.
- ToDo: find the policy named something like "Oh no not again!".
- There is precedent for rejecting repetition when the people proposing the deletion are substantially the same.
- ToDo: find the policy. Also, count the number of distinct votes con vs distinct votes pro in the preceding two CfDs.
[edit] Closing the third CfD was incorrect
The consensus was clearly in favor of "keep", so while the claim that the consensus was "delete" is deniable it is not plausibly deniable.
[edit] The explanation that the arguement favored deletion, is incorrect
The arguements for deletion were all rebutted, mostly by mathematicians, who are professionally concerned with deductive logic. Abstracting the debates with "As per the excellent reasons given by so-and-so" is not plausible in the face of clear majorities of trained logicians. I keep mentioning the vote counts (ranging from 2-1, up to about 3-1 pro) not to prove a pro consensus but to make the arguement that the countervailing con consensus is implausible, or at least, that it is not obvious to the majority of contributors.
[edit] The arguements con were generally illogical and repetitious
I'll just give an example: (paraphrasing) "an emminent mathematician who is also a wiki editor said it was a joke that has taken in mathematicians".
- appeal to authority other mathematicians meeting the same criterion are as good authorities, and dispute it.
- generalizing from an example The implication that all mathematicians feel as one does. The categories are not theorems of mathematics, per se; mathematicians are not monolithic about their applicability, as they would mostly be about the correctness of a proof of a theorem, e.g. "An upper bound for the length of the path from node Carlitz to the highest degree node (Erdos) in the connected component containing Erdos in the graph of peer-reviewed-math coauthorship, is 2". We are talking about consensus, not universality.
- overextending the word "joke" to mean "trivia". There is whimsy value in the categories; an apt comparison was made to Bourbaki, a prolific mathematician who did not exist (as a single human) but who is much cited.
The most important thing about this example is not that is bad logic, but that it was repeated after it was rebutted. It continues to be a reason for deleting the category without the rebuttals being answered.
- ToDo: compile a list of the essentially distinct "reasons" given. Invite the opposition to correct of expand the list, in a more or less public forum. We need a single place to point to the rebuttals of everything they repeat, or force them to stop repeating themselves.
- ToDo: it may be helpful to go through the items in fallacy and find an example of each one among the con material.
[edit] Wikilegalism
- The opposition was legalistic, e.g. "Asserting that the technical interpretation of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines should override the principles they express", where closures clearly contrary to consensus were made on putative technical grounds.
- ToDo: go through the examples from that to find precedent pertaining to this case.
[edit] Railroading
- I brought the Deletion Review to object to the last CfD closure, and noted expressions of the feeling that "we were being railroaded" at the math project talk page.
- I then campaigned energetically. Oddly, at the time I thought only admins could "vote" on the Deletion Review.
- I was notified that wiki policies constrain campaigning.
- I responded, and modified my campaigning to meet the constraints.
- I learned that nonadmins could "vote" so I did.
- I was threatened with banning. I use the term "threat" because I had already been "notified".
- An ANI was brought against me because of the campaigning.
- I rebutted the ANI.
- A new section of the ANI was created, which at first I misconstrued as a new ANI parallel with the pending one, which I had felt I had satisfactorily addressed.
- The ANI was archived (I don't know how or by whom; it may merely have been moved to an "archive" intermediate category, 323 I think? on account of volume.
- An admin closed the Deletion Review and detemined the consensus "restore the category" (that is, overturn the previous deletion).
- An editor objected on the grounds of my campaigning.
- The same admin, without reference to the ANI (of which he may not have been aware), reversed himself and closed the Deletion Review in favor of creating a new one (relisting). He did not mention or answer the admins who had commented in favor of letting time rectify any objection to the pending review.
- All this happened within the space of four days' less than the minimum time to keep a review open.
- This has gone on but that specific 4 day period is where the time factor substantiates the railroading claim. The new Review, replacing the old one, also got a 3-1 majority pro without my campaigning (although my linking the new item on the math project page was deleted, promptly I might add, and I conceded my mistake in not being able to find the link in the preceeding material).
[edit] Background Material
[edit] Erdos Numbers
The Erdos Number categories are not easy to satisfactorily explain to nonmathematicians. Confusions here are entirely understandable and should be answered.
- There are two ojbects: an object of mathematics, and an object of mathematicians
- The process of measuring bounds for paths in graphs is mathematical and we generally can present a monolithic face to the public on the truth of theorems.
- The application of that process to the graph of scientists related by coauthorship, particularly relative to the author with the most coauthorship, is social and political and not in itself mathematical. There have been papers about it, however, as it is a useful instance of a mathematical process which itself can be studied further.
[edit] Opposing philosophies
[edit] credo
- 1. Wiki Policies and Guidelines serve the encyclopedia.
- 2. The encyclopedia serves the content.
- 3. The content serves the Truth.
- 4. Truth serves Humanity.
The list can be expanded at both ends. My assessment is that editors, working predominantly in editting, sometimes put the Policies ahead of the Content. Mathematicians, working predominantly with the content, put the Content ahead of the Policies.
I believe there is a general social conflict, between moralists, who put Law ahead of Justice, and ethicists, who put Justice ahead of Law. Laws can logically precede justice in the case of accepting law from Authority, as in the case of Revelation, as in theocracies. Justice can precede laws, as in the example of deriving laws from social effects, in secular governments.
Obviously we all intend Policy to make for good content. But particularly, the opposition is willing to be hypocritical, spammy, insinnuating, etc, in any way that they believe is unactionable in Wiki Policy, to subvert consensus in favor of their preferred policy. On a matter that can't possibly matter at all to any of them, but only to users of the category. This is not humane.
[edit] BHG's enunciation of the opposing philosophy
BHG has, since the Erdos categories deletion, posted two items for consideration as additions to wiki guidelines, in response to requests for clarification of the opposition's editorial philosophy.
[edit] Defining "defining characteristic" for categories
She wrote WT:CFD#Defining_attribute which has moved to Wikipedia_talk:Categorization#Defining_attribute
[edit] "Wiki is Not A Database"
She wrote Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Not_a_structured_database.
