Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Statement by KrishnaVindaloo 08:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC) 2 Statement of concerned User:Rednblu 3 Statement of semi-involved User:Pjacobi 4 Statement of Uncle Ed 5 Statement by Guettarda 6 Statement by Jonathanischoice 7 Statement of Bubba73, not directly involved 8 Statement of Joke137, happily uninvolved 9 Statement by Anville, not directly involved 10 Statement of Harald88, partly involved 11 Statement by Art LaPella, sort of involved 12 Statement by Art Carlson, involved on another front 13 Comment by entirely uninvolved user Adam Cuerden talk 14 Comment by mostly uninvolved user Ansell 15 Comment by Linas, anti-pseudoscientist 16 Comment by "semi-involved" User Asmodeus 17 Comment by User:Iamthebob, semi-involved (in a sense) 17.1 Background Information 17.2 Pseudoscience is not well defined 17.3 Policy on WP:NPOV is not specific 17.4 Extremeists are all the same 18 Comment by mostly-uninvolved user ObsidianOrder 19 Comment by Arbustoo 20 Comment by uninvolved user Lambiam 20.1 Misunderstanding about "objective wording" 21 Comment by MichaelMaggs 21.1 Pseudoscience 21.2 Minority Scientific Viewpoints 22 Comment by Metamagician3000 23 Question from Joke137 24 Comment by Cedars 25 Thank you, arbitrators 26 Verification

[edit] Statement by KrishnaVindaloo 08:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Pseudoscience is a key issue in the phil of science, and it is becoming an increasingly important area in other areas e.g.[1]as information becomes more widespread and as fringe groups and PS applications multiply. There have been many improvements lately, to the application of the NPOV policy on pseudoscience to Wikipedia articles. There have been quite a few editors who have contributed to these improvements, including FeloniousMonk mentioned above. They have largely centered on clarity, and specific explanations for views on pseudoscience. For example, the pseudoscience category has undergone quite a lot of improvement towards clarity, and its description has been improved in order to help the reader browse articles that pertain to pseudoscience. These more specific explanations have, however, been resisted very strongly by certain proponents of various pseudoscientific followings. The resistence strategies include; wikilawyering by restricting to pubmed articles for example, yet using OR with those articles; repeat badgering for explanations in order to cause conflict (a kind of vexatious litigation); groups of proponents using social pressure on single editors and making unfounded accusations; trying to gain votes from a proponent group in order to remove an editor from an article; and trying to use consensus to trump NPOV policy. In reply to Gleng above, Wikipedia policy on verifiability and reliability does not state that only pubmed articles are allowed. Professionals and other experts are perfectly reliable, as are other professional peer reviewed sources. However, taking pubmed articles and squeezing blatant OR out of them is unacceptable. Some articles are locked, and there are cliques on both "sides". But working with the non-proponents is really very easy. Some reluctance to change is due to the intensely unconstructive behaviour of some proponents. Non-proponents are quite easy to work with, but compromising with proponents has led to proponents making personal attacks and persistent accusations of "pathalogical liar" etc without them even trying to access the peer reviewed literature that I presented. Now that editors have certain facts established (eg, alternave medicines being PS in practice or theory), there is still resistence to explaining exactly why those subjects (or parts of them) are considered pseudoscientific. Pseudoscientific arguments are often placed in articles, and the scientific views concerning those arguments are often removed or altered by proponents. Pseudoscientific explanations and excuses are intrinsically confusing and just grossly misleading. The enormous resistance to explaining why certain subjects are considered PS, and the persistent addition of PS arguments to articles often makes the going tough. Pseudoskepticism hardly gets even a look in. Editors are simply making legitimate explanations for why a subject is considered PS. The complaints about pseudoskepticism specifically are unwarranted in my view. Editors are perfectly constructive when taking a PS view (which they do) and explaining it from the scientific viewpoint. I'm not advocating the removal of PS explanations, but they should be presented from the science view. If a PS view is fringe then it should not be part of the article. One of the worst things that can happen to an article is a PS view being explained from the view of pseudoscience. Fringe is not what WP is about and "Grossly misleading" is not what we want articles to end up with. OK having had a look at the difs presented, I can say that any un-adminish behaviour is the exception rather than the rule. In the heat of discussion some facts can be dismissed and I would be forgiving, especially when the dismisser is being attacked by hardened proponents. Certainly pseudoskeptic is a ridiculous slur, especially when coming from those with an obvious and proven personal agenda. Solution: If there is a reliable and verifiable source that states a specific view is pseudoskeptical, then it can be mentioned in the article. KrishnaVindaloo 08:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement of concerned User:Rednblu

Let us not forget that Wikipedia has made the most progress ever made in history toward giving NPOV access to human knowledge. But within that epic canvas of Wikipedia success and achievement, User:Iantresman brings to our attention two well-meaning destroyers of NPOV.

Many of us careful neutral editors have spent long hours trying to see exactly as much as possible through, for example, Newton's eyes--what was it that Newton saw in alchemy? -- and what is actually in all the superstitions that Newton, Newt Gingrich, and George Bush dream up, take dictation from, and pray to asking for their salvation from--global warming? There are plenty of scholars who have written brilliant and useful analyses of the powerful superstitious forces that govern American politics. But it is a waste of time to report carefully and accurately the WP:V of WP:RS of what actually moves George Bush and the Republican Party--because these two well-meaning destroyers of NPOV that User:Iantresman brings to our attention rip NPOV from the page with Edit summaries that blast the pseudoscience in the significant WP:V of WP:RS of the significant scholars that these two well-meaning destroyers of NPOV cannot stand.

And this problem is all the fault of the murky and self-contradictory text of, for example, the WP:NPOV page. Both of these well-meaning destroyers of NPOV that User:Iantresman brings to our attention follow the irrational part of the policy text of WP:NPOV that wrongly states that NPOV is determined by the consensus of the reasonable editors. Of course, the well-meaning destroyers of NPOV that User:Iantresman brings to our attention are wrong about NPOV--for NPOV is determined by the significant movements in history, whether clear-headed or superstitious. And what needs to be fixed is the murky and self-contradictory text of WP:NPOV to actually support the grand mission of "representing significant views fairly and without bias" against the POV in the WP:V of WP:RS of the significant views.

For all of the above reasons, we should close this futile RfAr and reconvene at a Wikipedia ProjectPage to fix the murky and self-contradictory policy text of the WP:NPOV page so that Wikipedia policy is logical and actually supports rather than destroys the grand mission of "representing significant views fairly and without bias." What do you think? --Rednblu 09:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement of semi-involved User:Pjacobi

If this case gets opened, I beg to be included. I'm a member of pseudoscience watchers' cabal. And if any article about a topic of astronomy isn't written from a typical mainstream astronomy point of view I'd be happy to correct this. If didn't revert User:Iantresman often enough to be listed by him, I humply apologize. It wasn't on purpose. Note that I'm all for following WP:BLP and wouldn't tolerate turning a biography into a character assassination, even and especially for notable proponents of pseudoscientific theories -- compare the recent cleanup at Myron Evans. --Pjacobi 12:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement of Uncle Ed

I agree with the claim that FeloniousMonk and ScienceApologist have pushed their POV. They have misused the "undue weight" provision to justify this.

They are making a whole series of Wikipedia endorse their point of view on the Theory of Evolution and related topics. Instead of allowing articles to report what mainstream scientists think, they insist that the mainstream is correct and force each article to endorse the mainstream.

The remedy I seek is that articles on Evolution and other scientific controversies not be written from the POV that the mainstream view is true (or correct or right), but rather conform to NPOV policy and report that the mainstream asserts these viewpoints to be true.

This is a slight, but significant change. These articles need to "step back" and stop saying the mainstream view *IS* true; rather the articles should report that mainstream *SAYS THAT* certain theories, ideas, hypotheses, etc. are true.

It's the difference between "saying something is so" and "saying that X says Y is so".

The Intelligent design article is, in effect, locked up by FeloniousMonk and his clique. They allow no changes, however slight, unless the clique agrees to it; they also show prejudice against non-clique members, even on minor formatting changes.

They insist that nearly 90% of the article be dedicated to a proof that ID is pseudoscience. They will not permit the addition of any material that advances an argument or example presented by a pro-ID author (such as Michael Behe's views on blood coagulation).

I agree with the description of FeloniousMonk's behavior as uncivil and in general misusing his admin privileges. He has run a relentless campaign against anyone "new" to "his" articles, running them off with misdirection and specious wikilawyering arguments. He has even claimed that *I* (who am arguably the foremost exponent of Wikipedia after Jimbo himself) have "POV pushed" or made "POV forks" - but without giving a single reason why any edit or spin-off I've made violates NPOV. Then he misuses the bad reputation he has given me as "further proof" of "additional wrongs" - but the terrible irony is that he never gave initial proof, because he and his clique simply voted without giving any reasons or evidence. He is disrupting Wikipedia by this, and tearing down the sanctity of NPOV policy.

There are dozens of contributors who have tried to neutralize articles but have been thwarted and discouraged by the FeloniousMonk clique. It's time for this to stop, and for alternative points of view to be permitted in articles on controversial aspects of science.

Wikipedia should not endorse the scientific mainstream but remain neutral in all controversies. This is (supposed to be) non-negotiable. --Uncle Ed 20:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Guettarda

Acting in conjunction with Ian Tresman, violation of the blocking policy, User:Shell Kinney blocked ScienceApologist in order to maintain her favoured version of an article. Prior to being de-sysop'd by the arbcomm, Ed Poor also blocked ScienceApologist despite being in conflict with him (as a result SA changed usernames and resigned from the project for several months). In both cases, the block came from an admin acting to maintain a pro-Pseudoscience POV in an article that SA was trying to NPOV. Wikipedia has a real problem with pro-pseudoscience editors like Ian Tresman, Krishna Vindaloo, Ed Poor and Shelly Kinney. Their continued POV-pushing hurts the credibiity of the project. Guettarda 13:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

1. I apologized to Joshua (ScienceApologist) for wrongfully blocking him, and he accepted my apology.
2. I do not favor pseudoscience. I just don't like pro-mainstream Wikipedians using the bully pulpit of Wikipedia to champion their POVs against marginal ideas. Let the articles say, in each case, that "the scientific mainstream rejects this idea" or that "all but a few scientists regard this idea as pseudoscience". That's all I ask.
3. Please do not misrepresent my view as asking Wikipedia to elevate pseudoscience to "fact". I want Wikipedia to remain neutral, not to take sides. The article should say X regards Y to be pseudoscience. --Uncle Ed 14:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Jonathanischoice

In his statement above, ScienceApologist contends that he is an expert in this field. He most certainly is not. Having a BA and a job as a community college level physics instructor does not constitute being an expert in anything. Neither Ian Tresman, nor Joshua Schroeder, nor I have published, peer-reviewed work in cosmology, therefore none of us is an expert in it. However Fred Hoyle, Hannes Alfven, Anthony Perrat, Eric Lerner and others are/were experts, though they hold or held non-consensus views. This does not make them pseudoscientists. This should not be in dispute, yet ScienceApologist consistently reduces debate about controversial scientific views (especially views he can't argue against conclusively) into pissing contests about who is the more qualified or who has more published work.

Now don't get me wrong:

• I have sufficient scientific qualifications to understand the relevant material,
• one does not need to be an expert in a subject in order to write effectively about it,
• I do not necessarily disagree with most of ScienceApologist's sentiments.

However, the problem here is one of dogmatism - a myopic, pseudo-religious insistence that the current scientific consensus is the only lens through which to view a subject. There is a difference between on the one hand crackpot theories trying to explain (or worse, dismiss and marginalise) huge bodies of observational evidence by invoking untestable, unobservable or imaginary constructs (eg. God, dark energy), and scientists on the other hand who believe that the current consensus is flawed or flat out wrong, and are working on alternative theories that try different starting assumptions (and by their very nature are incomplete and less well-developed). One is science, one is not. The history of science is littered with the remains of previously unassailable, consensus scientific explanations.

There is/was a similar debate in evolution between Gould's punctuated equilibria and the more traditional gradualists. Nobody except the most rabid and opinionated of adherents would seriously maintain that the other party weren't true scientists, and only Creationists saw the existence of any such debate at all as evidence that evolution itself was therefore fundamentally wrong.

Some of SA's tactics are quite simply outrageous, make frequent recourse to various logical fallacies, and border on desperate. For example (sorry, I don't have time to find sources for these, and some of this is long standing back to early 2004):

• Blunt refusal to even read some of the important papers in question (WMAP discrepancies),
• Blatant and obvious misunderstanding of the papers when he finally did get round to reading (or claiming to have read) them,
• Constant recourse to ad-populum,
• Complete and categorical dismissal of entire discussions as irrelevant (especially when errors in his logic are pointed out to him),
• Trying to claim that Creationist ideas qualify in the same category as other non-standard cosmologies (obviously trying to tar non-consensus scientific work with the same brush as Christian fundamentalism),
• Reverting edits without discussion,
• Constantly editing and reverting until basically everyone else gives up in frustration and disgust,
• Ad-hominem attacks on Eric Lerner's person, reputation, qualifications, status as a legitimate scientist, and so on,
• A protracted futile and silly argument last year about an illustration of plasma filaments in space, sourced from peer-reviewed material. It was at about this point when I realised what a serious pain in the arse wikitrolls are, and pretty much gave up after that.

In other words, this editor is a wikitroll. Jon 13:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement of Bubba73, not directly involved

I haven't had a chance to read all of this yet, but I want to point out two passages from NPOV

• Wikipedia:NPOV (Comparison of views in science) A statement should only be stated as fact if it is viewed as fact by an overwhelming majority of the scientific community. That is, if an overwhelming majority of scientists consider something to be a fact, it can be stated as a fact, with no weasel "mainstream scientists believe...". Bubba73 (talk), 17:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:NPOV#Pseudoscience represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. Bubba73 (talk), 16:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Why is this labeled "pseudoscience versus pseudoskepticism"? It is pseudoscience versus science. Bubba73 (talk), 20:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I also want to add that I've seen a lot of edits by ScienceApologist, and I firmly believe that he/she is doing a huge amount of work toward improving Wikipedia. Bubba73 (talk), 19:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement of Joke137, happily uninvolved

This seems to be a clear content dispute.

Pseudoscience vs. Pseudoskepticism

Wikipedia already has a much more information about alternatives to the mainstream scientific views than an encyclopedia such as Britannica. This is as it should be: Wikipedia aspires to greater comprehensiveness and tolerance for minority views. What Eric Lerner, Iantresman, Jon and the others disagree with people like ScienceApologist and myself about are the meaning of the undue weight clause and in the NPOV policy, how sympathetically minority views are treated, and whether it is the responsibility of Wikipedia to correct the perceived bias of the scientific élites. This is a content and policy issue, and much as I would like to see clarification of this, I can't see that it is ArbCom's mandate to decide this. However, if it is, I would like to be involved.

Eric Lerner

Eric Lerner has been systematically trying, on Wikipedia and outside, to make his plasma cosmology seem as though it is a serious competitor to the big bang theory. Regardless of its scientific merits, few professional cosmologists have heard of it (beyond, probably, the refutation of Hannes Alfvén's work in Peebles' book and elsewhere) and fewer still have devoted any kind of study to it. He may is correct that his work is not pseudoscience, but it would not be entirely fair to label it a "minority" viewpoint, as we would label adherents to MOND. The ugly edit war on this page is between an effort by Eric Lerner to make himself look like a comfortable, respected member of the scientific community and ScienceApologist to discredit these efforts and make him look more like a kook without credibility. The truth, as with most of these things, is probably somewhere near the middle. Some comments above seek to make this seem like a personal vendetta or worse; to me, it seems part of the normal give and take of Wikipedia, although startlingly brusque.

Redshift

Iantresman summarises the dispute much better than I could: "The article on Redshift is written from a typical mainstream astronomy point of view. But like some other mainstream articles, it nearly totally excludes some minority scientific views, to a point I [Iantresman] consider pseudosceptical, and consequently contravene policy." This is another long edit war, which has actually produced quite a good article, but one with which I have largely been happily uninvolved. This goes right back to the Pseudoscience vs. Pseudoskepticism point I considered above.

Creationism

Thank God I never edit this page.

Frankly, ScienceApologist is a seemingly tireless editor who does more than any other to stymie editors who are systematically trying to insert pseudoscientific and extremely marginal scientific viewpoints in Wikipedia articles. This work is extremely helpful to keep Wikipedia reliable and establish its credibility. He can occasionally seem abrupt or pigheaded in these efforts, but frankly I don't blame him. If anything, I think that he deserves commendation. –Joke 19:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

As a relative newcomer and an uninvolved observer, I have to agree completely with Joke on this. Iantresman is continually on the attack, throwing around accusations that do nothing to help bridge the gap between the two sides, and it is clear that he is a POV-warrior for this sort of thing. 'Psuedoskepticism' is a term used by ideologues to attack those that dare to be steadfast in their devotion to verifiable truths. Elerner, who is the subject of his own article, is another POV-warrior who is constantly, in conjunction with Ian, making biased edits to many subjects, and has even contributed in a biased fashion to the article about himself - clearly something should be done about that? Tuviya 18:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Anville, not directly involved

I have had tangential contacts with this slowly-brewing brouhaha: a few months ago, I made a few relatively minor edits to redshift quantization (diff, diff, diff) and quite a while before that, I participated heavily in the first FAC for redshift itself. User:Iantresman's behavior during that FAC was, in my judgment, disruptive, including that frivolous RfArb filed against ScienceApologist.

At the moment, I do not have the time to prepare my own statement, but I would like to endorse fully the statements made by ScienceApologist, FeloniousMonk, JBKramer, Guettarda and Bubba73. Joke, with whom I just had an edit conflict, also writes a summary with which I can largely agree. Anville 19:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement of Harald88, partly involved

I discovered this dispute by chance; it's not clear why I was not informed. Like Iantresman I have had disputes with ScienceApologist on similar issues and for similar reasons; thus I consider myself partly involved. Probably some other editors such as Art Carlson would also like to comment.

ScienceApologist follows IMO a conscious strategy to promote dogmatic views by all means, such as by degrading, reducing and where possible omitting notable alternative views. I have no other explanation for the continued battles that must be fought with him to include even the most minimalized NPOV references to such views, even when such a reference is required for verification (WP:V). I expect more of this encyclopedia than an image of textbook opinions; instead I expect it to be inclusive of all possibly relevant information about notable theories and alternative views. That is not only in line with the NPOV approach, it happens to be also the backbone of the scientific method. It has become crystal clear that that is at times incompatible with the aim of ScienceApologist, whose editor name I therefore find objectionable - BTW, I thought that such names are not allowed anyway.

This does not mean that I fully agree with Iantresman or always side with him in content disputes: in some instances I actually side with ScienceApologist against giving too much weight and space to minority views. IMO, articles that suffer exhaustive battles between Lantresman and ScienceApologist end up not too badly, but articles that are dominated by either of them do suffer the shortcomings portrayed in comments by other editors here above. It would be a relief for other editors and certainly beneficial for Wikipedia if both of them would be able to steer themselves to more moderate positions.

BTW, exceptionally I have to disagree with Pjacobi on an essential point: In order to achieve a high quality of scientific articles in Wikipedia, such articles should certainly not be written from a "typical mainstream point of view", but instead from a neutral point of view - which happily is a cornerstone policy of Wikipedia. As Uncle Ed reminds us, this is non-negotiable.

Thus I largely agree with the statements by Iantresman, Ragesoss, Shell_Kinney, Gleng, Uncle Ed, Jonathanischoice; and partly with the statements by JBKramer and Joke137. Harald88 22:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Art LaPella, sort of involved

A week or two ago you guys considered making ScienceApologist an administrator and now you're considering sanctions against him, and I share some of that ambivalence about ScienceApologist. I've watched these two eternal arch-enemies and their fellow travelers for almost a year, and it's unlikely that the Wikipedia powers that be can say anything new to either of them. They each know more about science and about writing articles than I do, but I nevertheless often catch them trying to ignore something relatively obvious when they know better, especially the non-mainstream advocates. I think I'm learning to talk down the endless parade of cosmological would-be know-it-alls when they are pretending not to understand something. ScienceApologist does that too, but his methods aren't anything like mine, and sometimes both sides seem to be pretending not to understand something. But I'm reluctant to criticize St. George until all the dragons are gone. Art LaPella 07:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Art Carlson, involved on another front

• I think the terms pseudoscience and pseudoskepticism are usually used for name-calling and are seldom helpful. Category:Pseudoscience is too subjective and should be deleted.
• I have no problem with the ideal of taking a neutral, as opposed to a scientific, point of view. I think the tension in Wikipedia between mainstream and fringe science is not a fundamental problem. When I read about a topic, I mostly want to hear the mainstream consensus. After that, I like to see where the boundaries are. What's the best case that can be made against the consensus? What makes the people tick, who fight against the mainstream? This does not always require a section in the main article, if the controversy is small, but a "see also" link is appropriate.
• The devil is in the details of deciding what constitutes a NPOV and appropriate weighting. What I hope for from this arbitration is some guidelines that reduce the frictional losses. The process currently needed to reach a consensus is too wearying and too redundant.
• I have not worked very closely with most of the editors involved in this dispute. I can say that both ScienceApologist and Iantresman can at times be difficult to work with, but it is possible to work with them, and they are always respectful and show good faith. In contrast, I find Eric Lerner impossible to work with. The other front I mentioned is aneutronic fusion, where Eric Lerner and I have repeatedly fallen into reversion duels. The topic itself is certainly not pseudoscience, but it has a lot of the mainstream/fringe characteristics of pseudoscience. I feel Eric uses invalid arguments to try to make aneutronic fusion look better than it is, possibly out of a conflict of interest. If I could get some outside help to reduce the bickering, I would greatly appreciate it.
• My advice to the arbitrators: First, separate the issue of biographical articles from that of the content of science articles. Second, be as concrete as possible at every step. For example, you might start by reaching a consensus for or against a guideline like this: In a biographical article, if the subject verifiably states that he has a particular degree from a particular university, this should be stated in the article as a fact, unless there is some specific evidence that it might not be true. Such guidelines should be formulated to apply to all biographies, not just those of suspected pseudoscientists (see my first point).

Please hurry on this one. Otherwise intelligent editors are reverting each other and arguing and arguing about whether to write Eric Lerner earned a BA or states that he earned one. I hate to watch the waste of valuable wiki talent! --Art Carlson 15:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

--Art Carlson 21:04, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment by entirely uninvolved user Adam Cuerden ^talk

It seems to me that this dispute has a more pressing problem than Pseudoscience - E. Lerner is a living person, and it appears his article may not be in compliance with WP:BIO, if the allegations that unsourced negative comments are being removed is accurate. This rather needs fixed quickly, if possible. Adam Cuerden ^talk 21:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment by mostly uninvolved user Ansell

From my few days of editing Michael Behe and Intelligent design, which came as a result of seeing the articles as being overtly based about the scientific mainstream consensus, as opposed to a neutral description of the subjects, and having been flat reverted every time (i think without fail) by FeloniousMonk or one of the other regulars at the article, I gave up.

It is sad that it has to come down to arbitration, however, this may clear up the scientific point of view controversy. Becoming uncivil with users has no excuse IMO. Accusations that the other side are "POV pushers" or similar insult, is not acceptable. That behaviour is especially worrying when one, a sysop no less, doesn't look at their own contributions with the same level of scrutiny. Ansell 11:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment by Linas, anti-pseudoscientist

Although I am not personally involved in the current dispute, I believe that the leading source of wiki-stress for the mainstream science editors is that WP is an irresistible magnet for pseudo-science believers. These people seem to have a boundless amount of energy, tireless in their one-sided pursuit of bad ideas and false thoeries. Just as their subject matter is irrational, so are all the attempts to reason with them. The disruption takes a serious toll on many good editors. The difficulty of keeping incapable, incompetent editors at bay is one of the most serious issues facing the science projects on WP today. These issues have fomented Wikipedia:WikiProject Pseudoscience and Wikipedia:WikiProject Rational Skepticism, although the effectiveness of these organizations is unclear. linas 05:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment by "semi-involved" User Asmodeus

I don't quite know the protocol here, but I do know something that "involves" me when I see it. If I've failed to go through any required form of pre-screening, please let me know...and if possible, I'd like to be added as an involved party. This is a good-faith contribution which, in my well-informed opinion, needs to be heard.

It would be hard to overestimate the importance of this issue to Wikipedia. Pseudoscience is extremely difficult to identify properly; it can seldom be done with certainty, and although many people like to believe themselves intellectually qualified to make the distinction, it requires a kind of knowledge that few of them actually possess. [1] Hence, the best they can do is shout, wave their arms, cite their asinine "crank index" of choice, and cry out to their comrades for the deletion of whatever they don't comprehend. I've had some rather unpleasant experiences with this sort of thing at Wikipedia, involving at least two of those listed above ( pjacobi and ScienceApologist, the first of whom is an administrator who misinformedly participated [2] in a misbegotten "pseudoscience" AfD involving me [3] and took it upon himself to warn me for "incivility" after I overreacted to a vicious string of personal attacks about which he persistently did nothing [4], and the second of whom followed a baseless attack on a certain notable theory [5, 6] by going after the author's biography [7]). This led to the raucous deletion of an accurate, well written article on a logically tight, unmistakably notable, explicitly philosophical theory which gets 15,000 specific hits on google and was described or mentioned by heavyweight elements of the mass media, including ABC, the BBC, and Popular Science (which presented it as about science rather than as an example of science). See my response in this bogus RfC, which discusses the affair in greater detail.

In short, both ScienceApologist and Pjacobi deemed the topic of an initially well-written and well-verified Wikipedia article "non-notable" on the basis of its superficial associations, which are not legitimate criteria for inclusion or non-inclusion in Wikipedia. ScienceApologist deemed it non-notable by association with ISCID and the ID movement, while Pjacobi deemed it non-notable by non-association with academia. Neither of these association judgments was either verified or accurate, and neither has any real bearing on the content or validity of the topic in question. But as the AfD and DR transcripts clearly reveal, many participants evidently imagined that these judgments had bearing on content, and not only dismissed the topic as "pseudoscience" on that basis without further ado, but voted to delete it on that basis as well. Thus, verifiable notability - which the topic certainly enjoys, courtesy of ABC, the BBC, Popular Science, google, and so on - was bumped aside with embarrassing ease by erroneous content and validity judgments based on ignorance, misunderstanding, and superficial associations which are "hot buttons" for two special-interest minorities within Wikipedia, namely, professional or aspiring academics and "ID critics". Thus, the fate of the article was irrationally determined by three overlapping groups: (1) academics, whose professional bias amounts to a conflict of interest with respect to Wikipedia's verifiable notability standard (which treats the mass media as reputable sources); (2) ID critics and others unfriendly to the ID movement, whose philosophical bias functions in kind; and (3) those naive, overly-trusting individuals who are willing to make snap editorial judgments strictly on the say-so of people pseudonymously identifying with these two groups. The question naturally arises: how can people known to function this way, including ScienceApologist and Pjacobi, be trusted to properly identify "pseudoscience", and to neutrally apply legitimate editorial criteria?

This kind of SNAFU has unmistakable relevance to certain larger issues facing Wikipedia. One is philosophical bias; some "experts" are so biased, and so unaware of it, that NPOV is unrecognizable to them. Just as importantly, when Popular Science, ABC, and the BBC are no longer sufficient to establish notability on Wikipedia, but notability instead comes to rest on publication in the relatively obscure, frequently biased journals of professional academic guilds which select their members by willingness and ability to shell out a hundred grand or more on an advanced "formal education", economic and scholastic elitism become serious problems. In effect, Wikipedia becomes a neutered appendage of Academia, Inc.. This has an upside; many academics know a lot about their fields, and have the field-specific technical sophistication to generate worthwhile material and spot no-go ideas. But it also has a downside: many academics are publish-or-perish hacks who are steeped in orthodox viewpoints, behave like good little myrmidons of the higher educational establishment, and are willing to fudge their claims of expertise to encompass matters in which they are not specifically trained, and which they do not in fact understand. In short, we're talking about the profound issue of systemic professional and philosophical bias exacerbated by false claims of expertise underwritten by self-reported academic credentials which are frequently inapplicable to the material under dispute. This is a can of worms which will ultimately and inevitably lead to professional conflicts of interest among academics, a group already known for philosophical and theoretical orthodoxy, coercive ideological conformity, cloak-and-dagger dog-eat-dog competition for credit and advancement, the cross-suppression of incompatible views, financially-loaded political and corporate contamination, and ruthless pursuit of the upper hand in the battle of public opinion. It is a road down which Wikipedia, which permits its "experts" to cloak themselves in anonymity, should think very long, and very hard, about going.

Wikipedia exists to serve the public. If this were what the public wanted and needed, then everybody would already have begged, borrowed or stolen enough money to buy into academia, or at least to wink at each other and exchange the secret handshake known only to genuine academics, and adopted the politically correct, conceptually orthodox academic party line. The fact that vast numbers of intelligent people have not bought into this self-interested cephalopodian guild suggests that if that's the way Wikipedia wants to go, it will leave the public majority behind in the process, and at the expense of a huge quantity of notable, valuable, but more or less unorthodox material. Asmodeus 16:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment by User:Iamthebob, semi-involved (in a sense)

Note: This is the first time I had ever made a section like this. I hope I have not made a mistake with dividing my comment into sections or having placed any sections in the wrong place.

[edit] Background Information

Summary: my interest in this argument and how I got involved in the pseudoscience argument in the first place

My relation to this topic does not originate in the "creation of the universe" debate, but rather a debate I had with User:Tommysun in Talk:Crop circle regarding much of the same issues: pseudoscience, NPOV, undue weight, and so on. On the way, I picked up much of what I will present now through my own research from WP:NPOV, Pseudoscience, the research I did on crop circles, and what Tommy said. Most of the things that I know about the subject of cosmic infaltion, tired light, etc. come from what I read in the past two days; I do not have comprehensive knowledge in this area. The examples given in this section may not be accurate in terms of what actually happened, but are there serve to make a point about pseudoscience and Wikipedia. This was written over a period of hours throughout the entire day in periods of free time.

[edit] Pseudoscience is not well defined

Summary: the idea of pseudoscience is objective, and is based of what a person believes.

Problem: Look at its talk page and you see what I mean; there is no agreement on what exactly is pseudoscience and what is not, everyone thinks what they are doing is correct. People who are studying what most scientists would consider "pseudoscience" believe the opposite, as do the people who read their works and believe in what they do. Meanwhile, the people who side with mainstream science have difficulty why the pseudoscience is in fact pseudoscience and not just something that they are not willing to believe in because it seems implausible. And that is exactly the case, there is no real definition of pseudoscience. What happens is that when a person studies something carefully and in depth to the point where he/she believes all arguments about it, all contradicting view immediately becomes plain out incorrect and stupid, and as a result pseudoscientific, since science does not do things that are stupid and incorrect.

[edit] Policy on WP:NPOV is not specific

Summary: there is a lot of ambiguity about what viewpoints are significant and what sources are reliable.

Problem: The controversy over NPOV lies almost exclusively over this single sentence, found in WP:NPOV#Undue weight:

NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all (by example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority).

The following problems exist:

• What viewpoint is "significant?": Everyone thinks their own viewpoint is the most correct, and is significant. But when a person thinks that another person's view is incorrect, he believes it to be insignificant (since it is "obviously wrong"). This prblem leads to the next one.
• How prominent is each point of view?: We are supposed to "represent all significant viewpoints … in proportion to the prominence of each." How prominent is the Big Bang theory as compared to other theories? What is prominence, anyways? The general population believes in very different things than the scientif community (take the topic of evolution, for example). In addition, each point of view requires description of the point of view; keeping two POVs in a single article either requires excessive explanation of the majority POV—or insufficient explanation of the minority POV. There isn't really a good way of designation of how much of each POV to put any given article.
• What is a "reliable source?": Exactly what the questions asks, how reliable does something need to get to be reliable? It's obvious that a personal website on Geocities or Tripod is not reliable, but what is reliable? Does it need to be published in a scientific journal? Which scientific journal? Many viewpoints aren't published in scientific journals because they are thought to be pseudoscience. Does that mean they really are pseudoscience? What about websites in general? Is the website of a anti-inflation group a reliable source? What about a site written by a pro-inflation author? For that matter, are major news websites like CNN reliable? And books? If a book is published, does that mean that it is reliable? Books are often highly POV in order to sell well. "Reliable source" is a purely subjective term and should probably be replaced with something more specific.

[edit] Extremeists are all the same

Summary: the problem with people and Wikipedia is that edit wars will occur whenever opposing sides believe strongly in an issue.

It doesn't matter whether you take someone who takes a point on a majority view, or a point on the minority view, if the person holds strong to their beliefs, no productive work will get done on the Wikipedia article due to edit wars. People are not willing give away article space to the other viewpoint, they are not willing to listen to others, but boldly stide around proposing that their own viewpoint is correct. This is with both sides in this argument, both with people who support the big bang theory, and with those that oppose it, and it is what causes the massive edit wars, which is fueled even further because of the NPOV policy of undue weight. This is a problem with all of Wikipedia, not just this specific instance of it, because when people see that they can edit the encyclopedia that is read by millions of people, they add their own viewpoints to it and improve on it, while people on the other side refuse to let the viewpoint be heard. I have no idea what to do with this problem, though.

[edit] Comment by mostly-uninvolved user ObsidianOrder

I have done some light editing on the article pseudoscience and on various controversial science topics (e.g. cold fusion). In doing so, I have always taken the line that Wikipedia does not exist to further the mainstream scientific POV; it exists to represent all significant POVs fairly. This is what I understand NPOV to mean. The mainstream scientific view is important, and it is important to clearly state what that is, if there is a clear consensus within science. Other views should also be fairly presented, with space allocated in proportion to their notability and relevance to the topic of an article. An article about an alternative theory should primarily report on what the supporters of that theory would say (not as facts, naturally), with significant space also allocated to the mainstream view/criticisms (maybe a 50/50 or 60/40 ratio). An article about a mainstream theory should mention alternatives very briefly, and only if they are somewhat significant.

I wholeheartedly endorse the statement by Uncle Ed above. It describes my position exactly, except much more clearly than I could ;) I think Asmodeus raises some valid points, if perhaps slightly overstated. I disagree with Pjacobi.

I agree with the general concerns of Iantresman, although I am not familiar with the specific examples of articles and edits he cites to have an opinion on those. I strongly disagree with the statement of ScienceApologist, particularly the part where he says "I demand exclusion or marginalization of certain points" (this is not the Wikipedia way).

Disclaimer: I will probably soon be involved in a new content dispute with ScienceApologist over at cold fusion because of his revert to a two-year-old version.

Suggested rename of the case: "Should Wikipedia write science-related articles from the mainstream scientific POV?"

Comment: undue weight should be determined primarily based on what the article is about, and secondarily on the apparent prominence of a viewpoint, and the reliability and quality of sources. In an article about Earth, Flat Earth gets just a brief mention, if at all. However in an article about Flat Earth, the division would have to be something like 60/40 or more in favor of what people who actually believe in Flat Earth would say (assuming it can be sourced). ObsidianOrder 19:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment by Arbustoo

I also mirror FM's comments on |NPOV-Pseudoscience. Iantresman's aims of changing the article is to modify the wording to push a POV that does not conform to science. Science is not politics where you every has an equal say. Science is based on facts and evidence, which form academic consensus. Wikipedia will not rewrite the history of science so Iantresman can feel more comfortable about Eric Lerner's scientifically rejected claims. Arbusto 07:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment by uninvolved user Lambiam

I've found myself on opposite sides of the debate with ScienceApologist on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Self creation cosmology (but without any animosity) and on the same side in defending Modern geocentrism against persistent pushing of quality-degrading edits. As far as I'm aware I have had no direct involvement with the other parties.

Wikipedia is an open invitation for supporters of fringe theories to try and give them an aura of respectability by overrepresenting their cherished theory and its importance, downplaying criticism and overstating or misstating things that can be interpreted as support from established scientists, by adding dubious wikilinks and external links whereever possible, and so on. If there were no staunch defenders against this form of abuse of the openness of Wikipedia, we would be forced to either give up the idea of an encyclopedia that "anyone can edit", or simply give up the idea that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. But who needs a second unencyclopedia?

In the time I've been active here – less than a year – I have seen several people give up the good fight. Each was an expert, and the loss is Wikipedia's – ours. Some people would perhaps rather see more of these disappear.

Assume good faith. Yes, assume good faith. I love that principle, and I like to assume good faith. But only so far. This case must be seen in the context of a pattern of unabating attempts to promote, little bit by little bit, far-out minority positions as if they are just off-centre. This is not a paranoid delusion; the pattern is obvious. The posting by Ian Tresman referred to in the evidence presented by ScienceApologist[2] makes this quite explicit: This is a chance to set a precedence, and to bring "intrinsic redshift", the Wolf Effect, and other little-known causes of redshift, into the mainstream. If this is not abuse of the openness of Wikipedia, then what is it?

We need editors like ScienceApologist. We need more of them. Without such editors, we may as well give up. ScienceApologist is right in not assuming good faith for editors who do not deserve it, who try to game the system to bring their beloved fringe stuff "into the mainstream". Everyone makes mistakes, and I'm sure that among all the good work ScienceApologist has done, there have been some mistakes. I'm equally convinced that all of it has been with the aim of enforcing policy in order to protect the encyclopedic value of Wikipedia.  --Lambiam^Talk 23:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Misunderstanding about "objective wording"

In GoodCop's presentation he accuses ScienceApologist of grossly disruptive POV-pushing, giving as an example SA's reverting of GC's "objective wording" into "a POV-biased version". Now for essentially anything accepted as having been confirmed by experiment or other observations by a vast majority of experts, there will be some people who disagree. Following GC, instead of "further experiments proved Einstein's hypothesis that light itself is quantized" (as in the FA Photon), we should write: "further experiments were believed by the majority of physicists to have proved Einstein's hypothesis that light itself is quantized." And why stop there? Let us be truly objective: not "The Earth's shape is very close to an oblate spheroid," but "The Earth's shape is believed to be very close to an oblate spheroid by a majority of geologists." After all, there is the Flat Earth Society who believe otherwise. If GC thinks, as he apparently does, that such hedging is needed for objectivity, then GC's accusations of POV pushing by SA and other editors become understandable. However, this is based on a misunderstanding of what NPOV means, and is in fact entirely unreasonable.

It also opens the road to abuse of the Wikipedia rules. After all, who says that "the majority of physicists" believed the big bang theory to have been confirmed? On whose authority should we accept that? Surely, that needs a {{fact}} tag. But then we get "objective wording" edits like this (not accidentally by another involved user) that remove such statements altogether, thereby lending undue prominence to the BLT Research Team, described as "a prominent group".

 --Lambiam^Talk 15:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Right. NPOV policy says"A statement should only be stated as fact if it is viewed as fact by an overwhelming majority of the scientific community. ". So there is no need to put "believed" on things that have been scientifically established. Bubba73 (talk), 15:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Clever try, Lambiam. The interpretations of the red shift and the CMB as supporting the big bang are based upon gross assumptions about the causes of said phenomena, in stark contrast to quantized light and a round earth, which rely upon no such gross assumptions about the evidence. Furthermore, the big bang belief IS refuted by a large minority of people, and many of those people are experts in astrophysics. Proof: http://www.cosmologystatement.org . The petition at that URL even appeared in the popular science magazine New Scientist -far from fringe. Your argument that it must be proven that the big bang belief is the majority belief among physicists is clearly hypocritical, because that is the very criteria upon which the big bang's dominant coverage in the article is based. GoodCop 05:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand most of this ("gross assumptions"?). The petition at http://www.cosmologystatement.org only states that some funding must be allowed for the study of alternative hypotheses; this does not mean that the signatories "refute" the big bang hypothesis. But I don't see how this is possibly relevant for the interpretation of what is POV pushing on Wikipedia and what constitutes a viable interpretation of NPOV.  --Lambiam^Talk 07:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I take it that you are hoping that other people do not read the petition for themselves (which I strongly suggest they do), because the petition clearly states that the big bang belief relies upon improvised 'fudge factors' such as inflation and dark energy, and is never doubted despite the evidence against it, clearly demonstrating that the signatories refute the big bang belief. "I don't understand most of this ("gross assumptions"?)." -I'll spell it out for you then. The big bang belief is said to be based upon certain astrophysical phenomena (especially the red shift and the CMB), which are said to be evidence of the big bang. Yet that is based upon the gross assumptions that those astrophysical phenomena are due to particular causes, when there are other causes that are far more likely. Specifically, the red shift is assumed to be due to the doppler effect, and the CMB is assumed to be remnants of a giant past explosion. More rational explanations include interaction with transparent interstellar matter, and dynamical friction (in the case of the red shift), and continuing (as distinguished from one-time) emissions from electrons that are shedding energy from absorbed starlight (in the case of the CMB). There is also the matter of Einstein's clever gross false assumption (what is called a 'strawman tactic', as Einstein had pretended to believe in a static infinite universe at first), the assumption that a static universe is dependent upon a precise balance of forces, when in fact it obviously needs only a regulatory mechanism (particularly, one which works to shrink or destroy black holes), and such mechanisms have been proposed by static universe proponents. "But I don't see how this is possibly relevant for the interpretation of what is POV pushing on Wikipedia and what constitutes a viable interpretation of NPOV." -Clever. You falsely say that the petition does not demonstrate people refuting the big bang belief, and then you act oblivious to the undue weight policy (which is based upon the relative popularity of different beliefs), which is related to the NPOV policy. Right. I don't believe you. GoodCop 04:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I still don't see how it is relevant for the interpretation of what constitutes POV pushing. For the purpose of this RfA, there should be no need to review cosmological theories. For the rest, most cosmologists and other physicists who subscribe to the opinion that the big bang hypothesis offers the best explanation for the observations will agree that this depends on the interpretation of red shift, the additional inflationary hypothesis, etcetera. They may perhaps not agree with the pov word choice "fudge factors", but that by itself is not an essential difference of opinion. I don't understand the distinction between "assumptions" and "gross assumptions", or between "explanations" and "rational explanations". If "explanations" fail to explain the actual observations they should not be called that, whether rational or not. Good assumptions are those that make the theory work, whether gross or not. In numerical terms, cosmologists who reject the big bang hypothesis are a small minority, and only a few of the signatories have a credible scientific background.  --Lambiam^Talk 07:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Lambiam, I have to say that much of what you say hardly makes sense, due to self-contradicting statements and apparent non-understanding of the very obvious. This is not meant as an offense, just as a notification of the difficulties that I am having in communicating with you.

The anti-big-bang-belief petition has over two-hundred signatures from established scientists, far more than 'a few' (which usually means about 3-10) as you have stated, so I take it that you again do not want anyone to look at the petition for themself. That is not even mentioning the 200+ signatures from other people.

"If "explanations" fail to explain the actual observations they should not be called that, whether rational or not." -That is a self-contradicting statement; a rational explanation is one which best explains the observations.

" I don't understand the distinction between "assumptions" and "gross assumptions" " -Is english by chance a second language to you? I don't mean this as an insult, but as an honest question. That would explain why you don't understand such basic things. Again, I'll spell it out for you: A gross assumption is a very large assumption, as distinguished from a small or medium assumption.

"Good assumptions are those that make the theory work, whether gross or not." -So you therefore believe then, for example, that assuming that the presence of teeth in human mouths indicates that there is a great tooth god somewhere is a 'good assumption', because that gross assumption makes the theory work. Very well. I disagree. The smaller the assumptions upon which a theory is based (if there are any assumptions at all), the stronger the theory is.

The NPOV policy is clear and thorough, such that it needs very little interpretation; an article either follows the policy or it doesn't. A gross assumption is something that leaves out facts, which clearly contradicts the NPOV sub-policy of 'let the facts speak for themselves'. A conclusion based upon a gross assumption is by definition a biased statement, and the NPOV policy demands that biased statements be attributed. It's very cut-and-dry.

We're not going to keep going back and forth forever, are we? There is no consensus emerging between us, so I think that it is better to agree to disagree.

GoodCop 03:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that you are right we are not getting any closer to an agreement.  --Lambiam^Talk 08:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment by MichaelMaggs

Although I have had no involvement, and would not want to comment on the actions of the individual parties, I do have some observations to make on the basis of this dispute.

When considering the weight to be accorded to non-standard theories, we ought to be careful to distinguish between:

1. Pseudoscience – theories that are not based on the scientific method and which, for that reason, would have no chance of acceptance in a reputable peer-reviewed journal.

2. Minority scientific viewpoints – theories that are based on the scientific method, but which, for whatever reason, have not been generally accepted by the majority of the scientific community. Such theories may have been published in peer reviewed journals.

I believe that these two categories should be treated differently:

[edit] Pseudoscience

No editor seeking to add information about pseudoscience will, of course, ever admit that it is such, nor that the scientific method has been sidestepped or misapplied. Nevertheless, such information cannot and should not be accorded any sort of scientific status, and in particular should never be presented as “just another point of view” on any scientific subject. Rigorous, peer reviewed, scientific research is the bedrock of the scientific method, and should not be treated as just one of a variety of available points of view on the subjects that it addresses.

Pseudoscientific theories, if sufficiently notable, may have a place within Wikipedia as a record of a non-scientific human endeavour. However, pseudoscientific theories should generally not be included or linked to science pages. As with any other material, extreme minority viewpoints and non-notable theories should be excluded entirely as non-encyclopaedic.

[edit] Minority Scientific Viewpoints

Minority scientific viewpoints may, if sufficiently notable, find a place on a corresponding science page. However, this is a matter of degree, and the prominence given to a minority viewpoint ought to be commensurate with the level of acceptance the theory has gained within the worldwide scientific community. Only where there is a real and live disagreement within a significant proportion of the scientific community is it appropriate for the minority view to be given space on a main science page.

Where the minority is so small that it is ignored or derided by the majority of scientists that are active in the field, it should not be discussed on the main science page devoted to the topic, although it may, if sufficiently notable, have a page of its own.

Editors who wish to stress a particular minority theory often try to add detail to a main page by calling the mainstream ideas “disputed”. They then seek to add a discussion of the minority view which starts “…Some scientists, however, disagree and argue that …”. They may cite scientists who hold to this view, and may refer to published papers in peer reviewed journals. Neither is (or should be) enough. All sorts of speculative ideas have appeared in published papers, and have been either disapproved or ignored by the majority of scientists. Thus, the existence of a published paper (or even several) is not in itself sufficient evidence of a real and live disagreement within a significant proportion of the scientific community.

Even the fact that a minority viewpoint may have gained publicity through news outlets such as the BBC should not, in itself, entitle the theory to space on a main science page; any more than a BBC news item would entitle the theory to column inches in the main article of a printed encyclopaedia. News is a branch of journalism and has an entirely different agenda from an encyclopaedia. A minority theory may have a high news value for a large number of reasons, including the weirdness of the ideas being put forward or the vociferousness of its proponents, entirely independently of the scientific validity of the theory itself. Indeed, theories that are widely accepted by everyone are typically not newsworthy, simply because the news media considers them to be boring.

Now it should be perfectly acceptable for a minority scientific theory to be included on a page of its own within Wikipedia on the basis of the notoriety or notability it has achieved through any type of publication, news reports included. Wikipedia is not paper. However, news-type publicity is of close to zero reliability when it comes to establishing that the theory has any realistic support whatsoever within the scientific community. Thus, news reports cannot sensibly be used as reliable sources for the purpose of establishing the verifiability of purported scientific facts.

It is of great importance that extreme minority viewpoints are not permitted to find their way onto main science pages, since most readers will not be experts and a page that labels a field “disputed” will often give the reader a wholly inaccurate perception of the accepted state of scientific knowledge. That is particularly so if (as often happens) the minority theory is heavily referenced, but the majority theory is not. The reader cannot be expected to realise that there are (say) 10 scientists worldwide who support the minority view, but 100,000 who consider it so wrong as not to be worth addressing.

This is not a case of “mainstream scientists” being “pseudosceptical” or seeking to suppress minority viewpoints. Rather, it follows from the absolute need to give readers a fair and unbiased view of the currently accepted state of scientific knowledge.

Any minority scientific theory (provided that it is sufficiently notable to be encyclopaedic at all) ought to be entitled to a page of its own where, of course, it may be subject to challenge by the majority who disagree with it. However, unless the minority theory is of sufficient importance to have generated a real and live disagreement within a significant proportion of the scientific community, it should not expect to be granted space on one of the main science pages.

If that sounds unfair, it is for a reason: extreme minority viewpoints are simply not as encyclopaedically important as the general consensus of the scientific community, and they should not be treated as if they are. There is no true parity here.

Several editors have suggested that by excluding extreme minority theories from the main science pages, we run the risk of excluding research which, while derided or ignored today, will one day be accepted and itself become mainstream. That is almost certainly so, but we should be attempting to reflect the state of scientific knowledge as it stands today, not trying to second guess which neglected theories will “make it”. For every unjustly neglected theory, there are many thousands of justly neglected ones, and apart from relying on scientific consensus, we have no way of judging which are which. An encyclopaedia cannot and should not substitute its judgement for the consensus of the scientists working in the field.

Wikipedia is not at present a very congenial place for those scientific editors who are striving hard to present a fair and balanced view of the current state of scientific knowledge. Typically, editors having an interest in minority viewpoints tend to be more persistent than editors who follow mainstream thinking, and are certainly more numerous (probably because there are so many minority viewpoints).

It is largely, I believe, because of these issues that there are so few good, knowledgeable, scientific editors working on Wikipedia. Such editors are sorely needed: without their continuous and unstinting efforts to keep the main science pages focused and balanced, we will continue to see articles such as Physics destroyed by a never-ending stream of single-issue editors. The policies we work to should be devised to encourage experienced and knowledgeable scientists to create top-quality scientific articles. But I am afraid that many drop by, but are driven away pretty quickly when they realise that they have to spend all of their time preventing even articles on well-understood topics from fragmenting into to a collection of minority viewpoint theories, each eager to characterize everything else as “disputed”.

ArbCom should bear in mind the danger of the entire project collapsing if serious scientific editors continue to be driven away. It would be only too easy for the public to lose confidence in Wikipedia if they are unable to find within it reliable and unbiased articles which explain clearly the current state of scientific knowledge on a topic that interests them. I believe this to be a real and present danger.

I have posted a version of this at User:MichaelMaggs/Minority_science_and_pseudoscience. Comments are welcome there.

--MichaelMaggs 15:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment by Metamagician3000

As a neutral administrator I attempted to broker what agreement I could from the involved parties when the Eric Lerner article was protected - to see whether the article could be put in a form that met Elerner's most serious concerns. How far I was successful is for others to judge. I have had some other peripheral dealings with the involved parties. I am not in a position to comment in detail on the dispute as a whole, since it has ranged across areas of Wikipedia that I am not familiar with. From my limited knowledge, I have formed the impression that all parties are attempting to act in good faith for the benefit of the encyclopedia. This particularly applies to other administrators who have made attempts to deal with the ongoing problems.

As I see it, we must distinguish between articles on (1) mainstream, paradigmatic scientific theories, such as the Big Bang theory of cosmological origins, and those on (2) fringe theories, such as Plasma Cosmology, that are critical of the mainstream view. However well intentioned they may be, efforts to undermine the credibility of theories of type (1), with insistence on disproportionate inclusion of critical material, are inherently disruptive of Wikipedia's aims. Such articles should report the mainstream scientific consensus, such as it is. They should make very little reference to type (2) theories, though some brief indication of what type (2) theories exist and their main bases for criticism of the mainstream theory might be appropriate. Articles on type (2) theories should always make reference to the relevant article on the type (1) theory and should always make clear that the type (2) theory is not the generally accepted one. Thus, one-way referencing should be a possibility, though not a strict requirement. Ideally, some brief indication should be given in an article about a type (2) theory as to why it is not the prevalent view among relevant scientists (even if it is just that the "main" theory continues to be successful in solving scientific problems and is not in crisis). Articles on type (2) theories and their proponents should not, however, turn into attempts to destroy credibility, e.g. with a litany of quotes in opposition. It should be sufficient that the facts are stated, that the "fringe" status of the relevant theory be made quite clear, and that reference be made to the main theory and its mainstream acceptance. With that said, the main purpose of an article on, say, Plasma Cosmology, is simply to inform the reader what the theory is. The main purpose of an article on, aay, Eric Lerner, is simply to give a concise, clear, accurate account of his career, not to try to discredit him.

There are, of course, also type (3) theories - genuinely bad or cranky science that could never be published in reputable journals at all, or outright pseudoscience, such as Creation Science. That is a separate issue.

With some kind of guidance like the above, or whatever the arbcon thinks in its wisdom is better, I hope all concerned can in future edit in ways that are less likely to cause ill-temper and disruption (which is what makes this a matter for arbcom rather than being an ordinary content dispute). I see no need for draconian penalties to be imposed on any individual, but some articles may need to be singled out for article probation status. If the latter is done, any guidance (of the sort in my second para, for example) that the arbcom can give to admins dealing in future with conduct re those articles will be very helpful.

Metamagician3000 04:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Postscript: I've made another attempt to express my thoughts here. Metamagician3000 10:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question from Joke137

On the article page, User:GoodCop has alleged that I have "demonstrated POV-pushing and incivility specifically on the big bang issue". I regard this as a substantial allegation and I would like to see diffs or some substantiation. If the consensus is that it is necessary, I will become an involved party. –Joke 02:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

You know full well of your guilt, but for the sake of the other users, I will describe your actions. My attention was first drawn to your POV-pushing a while ago, when I saw a statement in the cosmology article edit history that described you as a POV-pusher, or something like that. I then investigated your edits around that time, and saw them to be highly POV-pushing and uncivil. GoodCop 03:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I asked you to provide diffs, not a sneer. The editor that described me as a "POV-pusher" had in his head the rather bizarre idea that I was trying to push a creationist bias. See the rejected RFAr and Talk:Cosmology. If, as you claim, you have done an "extensive investigation" then it should be no trouble to find relevant diffs. –Joke 04:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

"I asked you to provide diffs, not a sneer." -That right there is a fine example of your incivility; falsely accusing me of 'sneering' at you when I answered your question just as you asked, and did nothing else. You said 'or some substantiation', and I gave you that. "If, as you claim, you have done an "extensive investigation" then it should be no trouble to find relevant diffs." -With a statement like that, it is ironic that you accuse ME of sneering. And you are an ADMIN?! I saw the creationist accusation, which was unwarranted, but understandable, but that is of no relevance; your edits were what they were, and you can not justify any wrongful actions of your own by pointing the finger at others. A request for diffs is reasonable, but the accompanying insults that you have given clearly are not. You should also keep in mind that those were old edits, which take time to dig up, but my guess is that you are well aware of that. GoodCop 06:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

As one of the "other users", for whose sake you offered to provide "substantiation", I must admit I can't find the substance. Rather than repeat and amplify your accusations, perhaps a simple "diffs are coming in 2-3 days" would have sufficed. --Art Carlson 08:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Art, do not uncivilly falsely portray my informative and relevant statements as completely insubstantial and as "repeating and amplifying accusations".

You have cut me to the quick! I didn't mean to suggest that your comment was not informative. I only wanted to humbly confess that I lack the acumen to perceive the information. Now that you have spelled it out below for my little brain, the evidence, as Joke says, speaks for itself. --Art Carlson 07:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The following are Joke137's article edits in question, consisting entirely of revert warring. They show Joke137 changing more-objective wording to POV wording, and removing important explanatory information which consequently casts doubt on the big bang belief, even information that serves to explain the big bang belief itself(!): [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]

I should mention though that there was one small mitigating factor in Joke's favor, which is that he did eventually decide to include the fact that Georges LeMaitre was a priest. Actually, Joke's opponent summed up Joke's POV-pushing edits fairly well in the RfAr that Joke137 linked to, as is confirmed in the diffs that I provided. (The RfAr was rejected due to being considered by the arbitrators as being a content dispute rather than a user issue.)

Here is a diff by Joke137, on the talk page, which I found particularly notable, in which he tries to emphasize his opponent's accusation that he is a creationist: [9]

Other than that diff, the talk page itself is most informative. Since statements are usually not deleted form talk pages (as opposed to articles), it is much more appropriate, for talk pages, to simply point out the section of the talk page, rather than presenting a mess of diffs that people are supposed to put together.

In the talk page, in section 4, you can see Joke's incivility, where he repeatedly belittles his opponent:

• "This would be annoying, if it weren't so amusing."
• "I think the point was there was no logic in your original statement to refute."
• "Every kindergartener knows that. If you refuse to accept these things that have been known for almost ninety years, and checked by generations of physics students, that is fine."

To Joke's credit though, he did also make many relevant statements, albeit many of them false.

I also found evidence of wikistalking by Joke137: [10]

GoodCop 05:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough. I think the evidence speaks for itself. I do particularly like re-living my childish edit. You might enjoy another childish edit. Good times, folks. –Joke 05:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment by Cedars

Hi all,

I have some very strong feelings on this matter. I believe:

• That articles that are mostly pseudoscience should be clearly labelled as such in the opening paragraph.
• That articles on science that is not widely accepted in the scientific community should be labelled as such in the opening paragraph.
• That articles on science that is widely accepted in the scientific community should be mostly devoted to that science and alternative theories only be mentioned in proportion to the amount of coverage they receive in modern scientific journals.

If this is not allowed, Wikipedia does a disservice to the community by failing to properly inform them of how widely accepted certain scientific theories are.

Alternative theories are an important of the scientific process, but usually they are based on empirical evidence or reasonable mathematical formulations. Wikipedia is not the place to allow largely unaccepted scientific theories to gain support by linking to them from the articles of competing theories.

While it seems fair for the Arbitration Committee to warn members when their tactics are becoming too heavy-handed, it would send the wrong message and be detrimental to Wikipedia if those involved in guarding Wikipedia against fringe science and pseudoscience were banned or prevented from editing various articles.

Wikipedia has much more to gain by informing the world on currently accepted scientific thought. Though alternative theories are an important part of science, most of the alternative theories that actually changed the world were discovered by those who spent much more time studying the traditional theories and discovered strong empirical evidence that they were wrong. Not being a scientific journal, Wikipedia is well within its right to place an emphasis on theories that are widely accepted by the scientific community — as an encyclopedia the public would expect nothing less. Cedars 01:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you, arbitrators

This turned out better than I expected it would. Art LaPella 07:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Verification

I am confused. Does this ruling over-ride the duty of editors to avoid POV and personal research? I do not find any mention of the need for verifiable notable secondary sources to back any "pseudoscience" label. Is it just that I have not read closely enough? Currently some of the things tagged in this way do not seem to have any (pseudo-)scientific content at all and many others have no sound back-up for the allegation - at the most they often refer to skepdic and so forth, which is not exactly rigorous and balanced. Redheylin (talk) 15:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)