Ed Poor wrote:
>The question is: What is "mainstream science"?
>
>1. Money
[SNIP]
>2. Journal Articles
Money and journal articles both correlate positively with mainstream
science, but journal articles are a better indicator. If a particular
idea isn't being published at all in the peer-reviewed journals (as
is the case with so-called "creation science"), that's a clear
indication that the idea falls outside mainstream science.
Of course, someone has to _interpret_ those journal articles.
Scientists speak a specialized language, so explaining what the
articles mean may require some translation for lay people. Moreover,
not all scientific papers are equal in significance. For example, a
short-duration health study involving a small number of people is
considered less significant than a long-term study with a large
sample size. Scientific expertise is obviously helpful in assessing
how much weight each piece of published research deserves within the
larger body of research on a given topic.
One common mechanism used by scientists for this purpose is a
"consensus panel" or "consensus conference," which convenes when
expert opinion has converged on a single answer to a previously
controversial question. The panel's job is to officially state the
consensus so it can be gotten out to the less-expert. The experts are
selected from among the leading researchers in the field, chosen to
reflect the range of viewpoints that exist in that field. They hold a
series of meetings, discuss the relevant published scientific
research on the topic at hand, and put together a report.
Occasionally a panel will be convened when opinion has not completely
converged on all aspects of a question. In this case the panel's job
is to see what everyone can genuinely agree on and what sorts of
hedge statements are acceptable for the rest. Once in a while there
will be an agreement to disagree in certain areas, and if so,
typically the majority view is published accompanied by an appendix
detailing the dissenters' positions.
In the United States, the National Research Council (the working arm
of the National Academy of Sciences) is the body that generally
convenes consensus panels for the purpose of provide expert reports
to policymakers. Many of its reports are published e-books, which
anyone can read online (or download in their entirety, sometimes for
a fee). If you'd like to see a fairly typical example, here's one
that they did in 2002 that looks at the impact of automobile fuel
economy standards on motor vehicle safety:
http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10172.html
The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is basically an
extremely large consensus panel (with some 2,000 participants). Their
published reports (along with similar reports that have been
published by smaller scientific panels) are the basis for saying that
there is a "scientific consensus" on global warming. That's term
"consensus" is absolutely, if it is understood to mean that consensus
panels have convened and published their conclusions. However, Ed may
be interested in looking closely at specifically _what_ the IPCC
reached by way of a consensus. Here are a couple of examples that I
posted here previously, taken from their latest report:
>In the light of new evidence and taking into account the remaining
>uncertainties, most of the observed warming over the last 50 years
>is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas
>concentrations.
>Emissions of CO2 due to fossil fuel burning are virtually certain to
>be the dominant influence on the trends in atmospheric CO2
>concentration during the 21st century.
Although these are "consensus" statements, they do acknowledge
uncertainty. The IPCC uses the term "likely" to mean that the
probability is higher than 66%. The term "virtually certain" means
99% or higher. This means that the IPCC thinks there is a possibility
(of 33% or less) that the observed warming over the last 50 years is
due to some cause _other_ than greenhouse gas concentrations. In
science, there are no "certainties," only probabilities. Even
commonplace scientific "facts" such as Einstein's theory of
relativity are regarded as theories. Even though the likelihood of
its being false is vanishingly small, science can't entirely rule out
that possibility. (Absolute truths only exist in religious dogma and
other faith-based belief systems. They have no place in science.)
If Ed wants to ensure that the uncertainties related to global
climate research are adequately reflected in the global warming
article, I think the best way to do this would be to accept the
IPCC's standing as a consensus body, and write the article so that it
reflects the degrees of uncertainty actually stated in the IPCC's own
report. This would be more productive, more accurate, and more likely
to lead to consensus under Wikipedia's NPOV rule than trying to
juxtapose the IPCC against Fred Singer's op-ed pieces for the
Washington Times.
--
--------------------------------
| Sheldon Rampton
| Editor, PR Watch (www.prwatch.org)
| Author of books including:
| Friends In Deed: The Story of US-Nicaragua Sister Cities
| Toxic Sludge Is Good For You
| Mad Cow USA
| Trust Us, We're Experts
| Weapons of Mass Deception
--------------------------------
Almost 24 hours have passed since the Sarah Edmonds edit conflict/war, and I
still am not sure what it was that I accidentally overwrote. Once I realized
that something was overwritten, I did try to restore it, but I guess I missed
something. Such is life. If I would have known, I would have put it back, but
Wik did not want to even tell me what it was.
On the other hand, more words have been written about that silly edit war
than on the article itself. I find that kind of pathetic. It is now being debated
on Wikipedia:Edit conflicts.
Personally, I agree with Martin's suggested policy, though I will add that we
should be working together, not debating one-upmanship or the rights of one
contributor's edits to override those of another contributor. In the almost two
years that i have been part of Wikipedia, there have always been edit
wars--hell, I was even involved in a few--but they were always over content, not ego.
I find it unfortunate that Wikipedia has come to this.
Danny
As Wikien-l administrator, I am forwarding this feature suggestion to
the community for comment. --Ed Poor
_______________________________________________
Hello.
Still trying to figure out, with others, how to handle vandalism on fr:
Wikipedia, I have a feature suggestion: ability to prevent someone from
editing only encyclopedia pages (namespace 0, i think?), but letting
her/him edit talk pages and such.
This way articles are protected, but still we can talk with the user
through talk pages, or meta pages, something we can't do if we totally
block the user.
It would also make it easier for a user having an ip matching a blocked
vandal's ip to ask for unblocking.
What do you think?
Nicolas 'Ryo'
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Viajero wrote:
>A new user named Mr-Natural-Health has created a number of new articles
>in recent days which are disturbingly non-neutral [...]
>Though several are currently listed on Cleanup and have been edited a
>bit, VfD might be a better place, since they are so slanted that
>deleting and starting anew is probably the wisest strategy.
I think deleting them is a bad idea. If we can't avoid an edit war, all
this achieves is making the beginning of it viewable only by sysops. I
don't think that's going to help.
-M-
Dear Wikipedians,
Edit conflicts often occur on Wikipedia. We advise users to do their
best to merge the two texts together when this happens, but mistakes
do happen. Thus, where someone accidentally reverts one of my minor
changes due to such a mistake, while making many other
improvements to the article, I have two options:
1) Reinstate my changes to the other person's text
2) Revert to my version, removing all the other person's improvements.
In choosing between these two options, it is important to note that the
first option has been standard practice on Wikipedia for some years.
Further, the first option results in an improved encyclopedia article,
whereas the second option results in a worse encyclopedia article.
Further, the second option has been empirically observed to cause
conflict. Further, the first option is in accordance with existing policies
on Wikiquette, WikiLove, and with existing advice on avoiding reverts
and staying cool when the editing gets hot.
As a result, I have rewritten [[wikipedia:edit conflicts]] to specifically
deal with this issue. By the powers vested in me by the Wikipedia
power structure, I hereby declare those changes to be de facto official,
subject of course to overruling by other sysops, mailing list opinion, talk
page opinion, and Jimbo's veto.
References: [[wikipedia talk:Edit war]], etc.
Thank you for your time,
-Martin "MyRedDice" Harper
But of course I'm several hundred emails behind, in Wikipedia alone,
not to mention all my other email.
Here's a thought: if I were to engage in a policy of de-sysop'ing
(what a word!) for more or less routine quarrels between sysops, then
rather than learning to live together, we'd have a strong incentive to
quarrel even more. Rather than seeking to find a way to harmonize our
different points of views, we'd have an incentive to make the
counterparty look as bad as possible.
Compare: "Hey, SoAndSo, I wanted to leave a note for you about what
you did on thus-and-such a page. I disagreed with what you did there,
and here's why. Even though we disagree, I hope you can find a way to
meet me halfway on this."
Versus: "I nominate that SoAndSo be de-sysop'ed, and here's why: blah
blah blah. And some other bad stuff about him. And a list of links
to jerky things he's done."
--Jimbo
> From: wiki pedista <wikipedista(a)yahoo.com>
> Hello,
> This is to recommend you to keep an eye on the
> contributions of user Sayeya. He has written before
> in
> the Spanish wikipedia and before that in
> Enciclopedia
> Libre, and has been regarded in both as a, at least,
>
> problem user with serious POV issues.
>
> AstroNomer
Something I have not been able to figure really
Astronomo, is whether Sayeya was HeKeIsDa or not ?
ant
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree
Much as the Cunctator irks me, I'd much prefer to have him around than
to have him hounded out. He supplies needed perspective and balance.
He's not destructive, he's just a curmudgeon. And we need a curmudgeon
like Cunc around here, if only to play devil's advocate.
Believe it or not, I consider him one of my top ten influences at
Wikipedia. I might not agree with everything he says, but I NEVER take
what he says lightly.
Uncle Ed
Fred wrote:
> The issue is whether the opinions of
> someone posing as a scientist but in
> fact pushing a position derived from
> devine revelation is to be treated as
> a legitimate divergent view from a
> scientific viewpoint. Clearly, if not
> excluded which is my preference, such
> material should be clearly labeled as
> to its nature, including references to
> the source of the revelation.
I agree, if you're talking about the [[creation science]] viewpoint
about evolution. 95% of all scientists (and 99.8% of biologists) favor
the "no divine intervention" viewpoint on evolution.
Thus, I think it's safe to say that mainstream science favors the
Darwinist position. And that Creationists' attempt to fly the flag of
religion in scientific waters need not be endorsed by Wikipedia as a
"legitimate divergent view".
I disagree, if you're painting SEPP or its founder S. Fred Singer as
pushing a position based on divine revelation. Singer actually disagrees
with the only religious viewpoint I've ever heard expressed about CFCs.
For example, Rev. Moon said,
"The development of scientific knowledge and civilization has . . .
resulted in such global problems as the destruction of nature and the
environment, global warming and the diminishing of the ozone layer."
-- http://www.tparents.org/Moon-Talks/sunmyungmoon95/SM950822.htm
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Moon's view seems to differ from Singer's.
The reverend is blaming people for global warming and ozone depletion,
if I'm not reading this quotation out of context. The retired scientist
(Singer) is much less certain that human beings are to blame, and even
questions whether the phenomena Rev. Moon expressed so much concern
about, are even occurring!
Ed Poor