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

Tue Nov 25 13:05:09 UTC 2003

Stan Shebs wrote:
> 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.

Perhaps that is what Ed is doing, but it doesn't sound like it to me.
The particular statement that he's discussing is an example where, as
originally written, _Wikipedia_ was itself making a claim that is
significiantly too strong for us.

> If there are no peer-reviewed articles anywhere, that's a sure sign of 
> crackpot theory.

That's one possible sign yes, but of course that is NOT what is going
on here.  There are peer-reviewed articles.

> 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.

Ah, I think this is one of the misconceptions about good NPOV writing.
We do not need to "call into question" solid theories, we just need to
accurately report on the state of the actual field in question.

--Jimbo