I agree with much of what Dr. Connolley says, with one key exception.
We must take into account the possibilty of POLITICAL bias on the part
of journal editors. Since scientists and those who publish their
findings are human beings, there is at least the theoretical possibility
that they have human failings. One of these is the desire to be
"considered right". Another is the desire to keep a steady paycheck
coming in. Then there's always the desire to use science to advance
certain causes.
The system of publishing results in referreed journals is by and large
an excellent one, but we would do the entire world a dis-service if we
were to ENDORSE the process as incapable of error or bias.
There have been enough cases of both of these problems to justify
holding off on such an endorsement, even if OBJECTIVITY were Wikipedia's
only concern.
Topics such as total world annihilation via an all-out nuclear way
between superpowers - or destruction of the environment (via
over-heating the atmosphere - are naturally of concern to scientists.
They are not mere automatons, nor are they mere disinterested seekers,
seeking to satisfy their curiosity. Science is also done on purpose to
affect technology and policy.
"If I say this, the policymakers will choose that." Who can resist such
a temptation? Is there any evidence that scientists better than the rest
of us, and immune to ordinary human failings? (And is Wikipedia prepare
to amend its NPOV policy to endorse this view of scientific objectivity
and infallability?)
I think we should stick to our original commitment. Just say that
"certain scientists" say X about Y. And don't try to endorse any
particular view on current scientific controversies as "representing a
consensus" which Wikipedia then is committing to endorsing.
Ed Poor, aka Uncle Ed
Bureaucrat
Member of Mediation Committee
Self-described "chief exponent and defender of NPOV policy"