[WikiEN-l] William Connelley no longer neutral contributor(Re: toJimbo)

Mon Nov 24 23:49:14 UTC 2003

Poor, Edmund W wrote:

>It's basically Singer's POV vs. Connolley's POV. Lots of
>environmentalsts side with Connolley, and lots of others side with
>Singer. 
>  
>
This sounds just like creationists working to bolster their position by 
saying
it's just one POV against another.  It is a sneaky tactic; once you've 
gotten
people to admit the discredited theory might just possibly conceivably be
valid in some alternate universe, then jump on it and demand equal time.

>Many of the environmentalists try to bolster their argument by saying
>that "the consensus of scientists" agrees with them. But I don't think
>Wikipedia ought to support the claim that such a "consensus" exists. 
>
>Now if someone did a survey, and 95% of scientists agreed on a point, we
>could arguably call that a "consensus" (as we have done on evolution:
>95% of all scientists (not just biologist) surveyed support Darwin's
>theory, and well over 99% of biologists.
>
Another sneaky tactic; it's unlikely anyone will survey scientists about 
global warning,
so you can safely say "we have to be open-minded until then". The 
scientific consensus
is normally defined by the peer review and publication process, so 
that's all that's necessary.
If there are no peer-reviewed articles anywhere, that's a sure sign of 
crackpot theory.

Although the global warming hypothesis is controversial, many of the 
specific
processes are completely straightforward and no longer a matter of 
scientific dispute.
It would be very harmful to Wikipedia's credibility if solid theories 
were to be called
into question in the name of NPOV, just because they are used as 
supporting arguments
for theories that are controversial. What if data about animal evolution 
unequivocally
supports the global warming hypothesis, are we going to back off and say 
"well, it may
be a consensus, but the scientific community has been wrong before, we 
need to go put
creationism mentions in every evolution-related article".

Stan

Stan