[WikiEN-l] Response to Anthere's claims

Tue Jul 1 02:23:42 UTC 2003

I need to reply to Anthere's statements. First off, the
issue has never been about how many Gaia titled articles
that Anthere personally created. At least six Gaia articles
already exist, and frankly, I don't care who authored
these.  So please stop acting as if this is an issue.

Anthere writes:
> When Royal We decided all articles should be united
> in one, some merged were done, resulting in three
> articles.

Whoa...Anthere has been refusing to do merging, and has
repeatedly mass reverted many attempts to do merging. 
Anthere is even pushing science dicussions (on Gaia theory)
into an article an the Greek goddess Gaia.

Now, if Anthere wishes to defend her refusal to merge
articles, that's her perogative. But to present *my*
position as her own (I am the one who is trying to merge),
and to gloss over the fact that she is preventing such 
merging, is quite misleading.

Anthere writes:
> Unlike what Royal We claims, I was *not* the author of
>  these moves, nor of the new names proposed."

Sigh. This is not my point, and she is wasting our time
attacking a position I couldn't care less about.

Anthere writes:
> He is currently suggesting that we move away the
> general article, to replace it with the content of the
> scientific one. This is very wrong. This is wrong
> because there is more to the Gaia theories than just
> *science*. 

This is just not so. Look, among English speakers, people
who look up encyclopaedia entries on Gaia theory are
usually looking for information on theories about how life
on Earth may regulate the Earth itself to make it more
hospitable for life.

Most English speakers generally are not using this title to
look for information on pre-1900s mystics (who *never* used
the name Gaia theory), nor are they looking for info on
radical European left-wing political acitivists (i.e. the
Gaiains).  If someone wants to link to articles on those
topics, fine: We already have a working convention for
this.  We can create a disambiguation page, or use "See
also".  This is a convention that all of us have
successfully used in the past; why now are so many people
dead set against it?

Anthere writes:
> And that is no reason to disperse all the
> non-scientific points in other articles to keep just
> the scientific point. I think that here, that is the
> scientism of User Royal We that makes him try to push
> away all non-scientific points away. This is bad.

I do not like it when people make accusations of
"scientism".  It is a perjorative word, used to demean and
insult.  (Anthere's charge, by the way, is false.  I am not
an adherent of "scientism". Frankly, I have never met
*anyone* who is.)

Also, I have never tried to prevent these non-scientific
points of view from being presented.  Ever.  Her claims to
the contrary are bizarre and baseless.  In fact, I have
stated publicly time and again that do *not* have a problem
with Wikipedia presenting these views.  I just wish to
disntinguish them from scientific theories. Ok? 
(Sigh...Why do some people seem to believe otherwise? Such
beliefs are certainly not based on anything I have
written.)

Anthere writes:
> For this reason, I think keeping the scientific
> theories *apart* from other perspectives is a best
> choice, to avoid mixing scientific perspectives from
others.

How can she claim this?  After all, this is precisely what
I have been saying all along! I am confused as to how she
could claim otherwise.  

Anthere writes:
> The second point : the most famous of all Gaia
> theories is Lovelock Hypothesis. Mind you, this is
> under this name I believe it is most well-known. This
> is not a crazy suggestion of mine to call it that way.
> This is what can be read in articles on the topic, as
> well as in Lovelock book. Suffice it to read a bit
> litterature on the topic to realise that.

I am astonished at seeing so many misleading claims. I have
*never* denied that James Lovelock refers to his idea as
the Gaia hypothesis.  Ever. I have never tried to prevent
this from being stated in Wikipedia articles, ever.  

Anthere writes:
> I think that since it is the most famous theory, that
> is in fact the one most readers will look for, when
> searching information on the topic. For this reason, I
> believe it is a good idea to have an article named
> "Gaia Hypothesis". It is likely the name under which
> they know this theory, I would say it would be
> confusing to redirect them in a more general article
> dealing with every aspect of scientific views of the
> Gaia topics. I am just trying to avoid losing them
> here.

Um, twenty years ago, when only one person was writing
about this in science books, that might have been true. But
today that positions is totally misleading!  Many parts of
the Gaia hypothesis (also called the Gaia theory by
scientists) are now accepted (to one degree or another) by
many scientists.  When people do research on this issue,
they usually do _not_ want to find out the views of only
one person, from 20 years ago. They want to learn about the
entire topic. 

Consider Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity. 
At the time he developed this theory, when people wanted to
learn about it, they read Albert Einstein's papers. Simple,
right?  But today if someone wants to learn about general
relativity, it would be grossly misleading to refer them
*only* to Albert Einstein's work!  Relativity has been
accepted by physicists in general, many other scientists
have contributed greatly to this subject, and others have
created a number of potential extensions to it.

Look, my position is very simple: When people search for
articles on General Relativity, they should find a general
article on this subject.  Specific sub-topics within an
article can and should be split off into their own page. 
For instance, we can and should have an article on how
Einstein developed the theory of general relativity; an
article with a detailed mathematical treatement of it; an
article on preposed extensions to it; etc.

I have always agreed with you that there should be a
general article on the topic of the Gaia hypothesis (or
Gaia theory, use what name you like.), and that there can
be other articles with more specialized information.  I
just am confused about your unwillingness to understand
this, and am perterbed by your mispresentation of my views.

Anthere sarcastically writes:
> Yes. You are right. I entirely made up the "Gaia
> Hypothesis"  name. All the 12500 references to that name
> on google..

This is too much. I can't imagine why Anthere is doing
this.  I have never implied that Anthere made up this term.
 I have, on the other hand, pointed out that Anthere's
*useage* of many of this term is confusing, and needs to be
standardized. But why is she repeatedly attacking
statements I have never made?  

Attributing false positions to fellow Wikipedians, and then
publicly lambasting them for non-existent view is a serious
violation of our code of ethics, and an impediment to our
working together.  Please stop such behaviour.

Anther writes:
> Here is where you are uncovering you. For the past month,

> Royal We has been trying to remove anything *not* about
science on the topic. 

Not true. I have only been trying to distinguish science
from mysticism and politics. Again, please stop attributing
positions to me that I do not have.  You are seriously
confused, if not deliberately insulting.

Robert (RK)

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com