[WikiEN-l] Ethics - conflict of interest - relia

Tue Apr 11 14:30:37 UTC 2006

In a message dated 4/2/2006 7:20:01 P.M. Central Daylight Time,  
Thommandel at aol.com writes:

In a  message dated 4/2/2006 1:32:51 P.M. Central Daylight Time,   
guettarda at gmail.com writes:

The  essence of NPOV is to be able  to "write for your enemies".  It's a  
great
(and somewhat  humbling) experience to write fairly about something  you
disagree  with or someone you dislike.

Sounds good, but what if the  writing is not fair?  How does the NPOV  handle 
that?  What  if the writing is contradictory data, and the admin says  on 
entry  
(A) that it belongs on entry (B) and on entry (B) he says it belongs  on  
(A)? 
Is that what you call   Neutral     

Where is the WikiEthics aritcle?

I posed a question to this community concerning cross editing. I am a new  
editor focused on the plasma cosmology article.  There are three other  editors 
who also edit the Big bang article. It is clear from what these three  say 
that they support the big bang theory. The big bang theory is the most  widely 
accepted theory of cosmology. Plasma cosmology is what they have called a  non 
standard cosmology. It is an alternative theory to the big bang.  The  primary 
contention of plasma cosmology is that the redshift is not a Doppler  effect.  
The primary contention of the big bang theory is that redshift is  a measure 
of Doppler effects, and thus a movement toward expansion if  inferred.  Plasma 
cosmology contends that the redshift is caused by some  process such as the 
CREIL effect.  In short the big bang theory entire  foundation rests on the 
assumption that the observed redshift is a measure of  velocity. Without this 
velocity component there would be no reason for  expansion, no basis for a 
beginning, no need for Inflation, and no big bang. 

Now, the three editors mentioned above are big bang advocates. They  are over 
here "to help us" they say. But their idea of help is to ignore what  plasma 
cosmology actually says, instead they edit to say it their way.  And  only 
what they say is what goes up. Anything else gets reverted. (I'm not sure  where 
the contest started)  They allowed an incorrect definition to stand  for 
months. They wrote in claims like "discredited by most cosmologists." And  when 
they were confronted with the new facts, they decided to ridicule and  insult 
those who would argue with them "disrupting the entire wiki process. and  
threaten to RFC or Ban. 

I went to your list, and asked about the ethics of editing a competing  
article. The first answer I got was "a good wikipedian can edit as he damn well  
pleases." There were the yes'es. For the most part general agreement that  
editors can do as they please. On newbi wrote that if the edit is disparaging,  it 
is unethical. If it is positive it is ethical.  

Well, scientists are not above ethics. Indeed, some values are placed  higher 
in science, and a greater ethical conduct is required.  For example,  
manipulating the evidence is especially ethically constrained. 

To the degree that it is a different story at Wikipedia is the degree  
Wikipedia distances itself from real science.  Wikipedia then would become  
Wikifiction

Tommy Mandel 