Fred,
Please do not charge me with equivocation or double-talk. These things
are not true, and I request that you take them back. I have always been
honest and straightforward on this list.
If you don't like my church, that's another matter: you are free to
regard my religious beliefs as "spurious -- but we're talking about
science here, not my church.
Patiently,
Ed Poor
Oops! I drifted off topic, as Allan correctly points out. Sorry, I was
busy posting scientific proof that Michael Mann's "hockey stick" graph
was an erroneous reconstruction -- and I conflated the 2 controversies.
CFCs is something different: it's related to the [[ozone depletion]]
controversy - which is what Dr. Connolley and I were discussing earlier
today.
The only relation to global warming is the similarity in how the two
ideas have been handled. In both cases:
1. There was never any scientific consensus.
2. Politicians rushed in, urging quick action.
Ironically, on the CFC issue I might be running counter to my own "cult"
(or "church" as I prefer to call it: Hi, Fred :-) because Rev. Moon made
a passing reference to ozone depletion which indicated a position
somewhere between a "concern" and a "belief" that CFCs were causing harm
to the ozone layer. That's my problem: insufficient brainwashing,
leading to independent thought!
Cheers.
Ed Poor
Ed writes:
> That's precisely the question we've been trying to answer, and the
> two points of view are:
>
> The Democratic Party of the US, along with the Clinton EPA and the
> UN's climate panel (IPCC) say that "nearly every expert" accepts
> the GW theory (which William also supports).
>
> Others, like Bush (a politician); Lindzen and Balunias
> (scientists), Singer and Seitz (retired scientists) that that "less
> than half of all experts" accept the GW theory.
You've drifted off-topic, Ed. We're not talking about the GW theory
in general. We're talking about the claim that "CFCs with lifetimes
of decades and longer become well-mixed in the atmosphere, percolate
into the stratosphere, and there release chlorine."
In fact, I hadn't realised we were dealing with CFCs. Is this even
relevant to global warming? I still don't even know what article
we're talking about. Anyway, my point here is we're talking about a
single claim, not entire theories. Even if theories are disputed,
single claims relevant to them need not be.
--
Allan Crossman - http://dogma.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk
PGP keys - 0x06C4BCCA (new) || 0xCEC9FAE1 (compatible)
Now, I'd like to add to my previous message that just saying
something is clearly false isn't very helpful to the non-informed
reader, and *why* it's known to be clearly false should be stated, if
possible. But something can still be said to be correct or incorrect,
even within the bounds of NPOV.
--
Allan Crossman - http://dogma.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk
PGP keys - 0x06C4BCCA (new) || 0xCEC9FAE1 (compatible)
Well, Stan, I admit to getting up late this morning, but please don't
use "arrows" as a metaphor. I'm not attacking William. I really like the
guy.
I'm just saying that if he's going to edit a Wikipedia article to say
that some POV he personally opposes is "clearly false", then he himself
should be cited as the source of that POV.
Dr. Connolley is one of the few people (if not the first) at Wikipedia
who play simultaneous roles: neutral contributor and authoritative
source.
Everyone else has to cite an "expert" as a source when writing articles.
I propose that Dr. Connolley is /himself/ a source. So I created a page
for him. It's not a vanity page, as some have termed [[Easter
Bradford]], because he didn't create it to publicize himself. It's an
article about an expert.
Uncle Ed
"Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor(a)abc.com> schrieb:
> We cannot allow spelling bots unless:
>
> A. The bot is registered
> B. The bot draws from an approved list
>
> A word like /thier/ can safely be changed to "their", since it's almost
> always a misspelling. However, there are many misspellings which can't
> be automatically corrected.
>
> I don't mind HUMANS whiling away their time doing a bit of spell-check
> work; I do it myself, when I want to relax.
>
> But if a machine can do it, then it probably shouldn't be done as a
> logged-in contributor (robot or "bot"). Rather, let's have our zealous
> programming staff write a custom spell-check program.
In my opinion that would just worsen the problem we are facing here. Although you say 'thier' can safely be changed, a bot (or spell-check program) simply changing all references will make errors - Thier is for example a German surname.
Checking wikipedia on google, it seems that the only page on Wikipedia where it would have been wrong, would have been [[Wikipedia:Common misspellings]], but the miss would be close - on quote.wikipedia.org there is an occurence where 'Thier' is an old spelling of the German word 'Tier'.
Nevertheless, I do think that a bot can be useful in correcting spelling mistakes. Just not a fully automatic bot. A bot of the kind of [[User:Robbot]] could considerably speed up the process while still ensuring human control of every single edit.
Andre Engels
Dr. Connelley is now a "source", and not just a contributor. Despite
repeated warnings, he has once again tried to use the authority of the
Wikipedia to back up one of his pet opinions.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=SEPP&diff=0&oldid=0
<<SEPP (or Fred Singer) has also commented on the question of [[Ozone
depletion]], making the clearly false assertion that the statement "CFCs
with lifetimes of decades and longer become well- mixed in the
atmosphere, percolate into the stratosphere, and there release
chlorine." is controversial>>
I can no longer consider William a regular contributor. He is an
authority in his field, and so I think we should cite HIM as the source
of the POV that there isn't any controversy about CFC mixing.
It's better than a reversion war, anyway.
Comments?
Ed Poor
Libertarian,
Sorry for dropping the ball. I am very busy, and if it was "my turn" to
respond but I failed to do so, then I beg you to forgive me. Let's
continue this week.
I'd like to resume with our "point #1" privately, but I'm also willing
to go "public" if that's what you'd prefer. (I think private will work
better, but that's only a guess.)
For a public discussion,
* Raise point #1 on the "talk page" of the relevant article, and then
* Leave a note at my personal talk page, telling me where it is.
I appreciate your patience; this is not an easy process.
Uncle Ed
James, I am confused by Reddi's comments.
Is he saying he's /right/ about a certain point, like the "correct
definition" of [[suicide bomber]]? If so, then he is an advocate, rather
than a neutral contributor. We should thus counsel him to re-cast his
view as the POV of a prominent organization or person, and to contrast
it with other views:
Here is a (fake) Jewish view, contrasted with his (real) Word Spy view.
* Hyram N. Fyrem of the Benign Birth Society says that ''suicide
bombing'' means the deliberate murder of people.
* Word Spy [http://www.wordspy.com/words/suicidebomber.asp] defines
''suicide bombing'' in a broader sense that includes acts which kill
only the person detonating the bomb.
I'm not sure /why/ this distinction would matter.
Maybe he's trying to make the point that Arab "human bombs" aren't
/murdering/ the people they kill: it's murder only if the homicide is
both (a) deliberate AND (b) unjustified. He might be saying that he
feels the suicide bombing campaign against Israel or the US is
"justified".
Unfortunately, he's not being clear, and I'm running out of patience
*speculating* on what he might mean.
Feel free to revert any of his edits which don't make sense. If this
doesn't work, we might have to lock the relevant article(s).
Uncle Ed
With discussion about mediation going on again, off again, maybe we should
ask ourselves what kind of people we want to do the job, besides Ed who
regularly reminds us that *he* wants to do it. Seeing that I have a
reputation for spreading peace and justice on Wikipedia even among morons
and pathological liars, I think I am well qualified to lay out the
criteria needed for achieving the ultimate WikiHarmony. My initial thought
was to kick out all the Republicans, but I'm not sure if Jimbo would
authorize a vote on that.
So who is qualified to mediate in disputes? I think the following
attributes are crucial:
- mostly refrains from editing controversial articles because they seek
harmony or just want to get work done
- is patient and willing to listen, but also wants to make decisions
- keeps strong personal opinions and beliefs mostly to themselves
- uses clear, non-offensive language (this rules out using a Perl script)
- treats each act of mediation as a new one, i.e. forgives and forgets
Perhaps most importantly, a good mediator is accepted by the entire
community and has Jimbo's stamp of approval on his forehead in biblical
fashion.
Realistically, we probably won't find someone who meets all these
criteria. People have flaws. That's why we won't want to have a single
mediator but a team. But we probably don't want to have people on it who
fail on all or most of these counts (and I do include myself here, because
I consider myself more of a truth seeker than a harmony seeker).
That being said, I think nominations should be public, and should be voted
on, because this is really a matter where community opinion matters. We
don't need consensus, but we need something very roughly like it (85-90%
support). Basically like the Requests for Adminship page.
To get the ball rolling, I support the following people as mediators:
- Ed Poor (obviously). I think he would do a great job in a team. He does
have strong beliefs and participates in controversial articles, but he
mostly comes across as benevolent and understanding.
- Daniel Mayer (Mav). While he can be a bit brusque, he is incredibly
dedicated, pragmatic and gets things done. He would definitely be a
valuable team member.
- Martin Harper (MyRedDice). I personally think he could do the job alone
if given the authority, but he's a bit too bold in editing to have *that*
much support. I do think he is very impartial and goal-oriented, and even
if you disagree with some of the things he does, he should be involved in
the mediation process.
- Vicki Rosenzweig. She declined one of my requests for mediation because
she thought she was too partial and the subject too complex, if I remember
correctly. Being able to reflect on your own involvement is really healthy
and important, and she could prevent the team from becoming too cocky (no
pun intended).
- The Cunctator - ha, ha, just kidding.
The mediation team should, in my opinion, be allowed to make *binding*
decisions by consensus, and recommendations to Jimbo by majority vote.
This includes most of the decisions Jimbo usually makes that relate to the
enforcement of Wikipedia policy through bans, warnings etc. But of course
they should try to avoid using these measures when possible. The team
should be large enough so that some members are always available within a
span of 3 or 4 days.
They could use a closed mailing list, mediation-l, where non-members can
only post but not read. Their decisions would be posted on the appropriate
talk page. Team members personally involved in a debate should recuse
themselves for obvious reasons. Conflicts within the mediation team (e.g.
"Person <x> makes consensus decisions impossible") should be resolved
mostly internally, with Jimbo's help, and taken public if necessary.
So there you have it -- an actual plan that can be implemented within
days. All it needs is some kind of official go-ahead, and we can start
voting/discussing who we want to put in those seats. I wonder if anyone
actually reads my mails this far or if I could just write gibberish at
this point. The quick brown fox jumped over the yellow chicken and caused
a warp core breach in the process.
Cordially,
Erik the Red