Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:04, 13 July 2007

Another one bites the dust.

Bye Misplaced Pages.

I hereby retire. I can't stand the fact that no one actively helps fighting the actions of uneducated editors who make really dumb claims like "heat is the same thing as thermal energy". If the Misplaced Pages will continue to refuse to give experts the editorial control necessary to guard against such errors, then there is really no place for experts at Misplaced Pages. They will leave as I am leaving.

--ScienceApologist 23:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not happy to hear this. I agree with you that experts should be given editorial control, but there might be other ways of accomplishing this. You need to join talk. That won't help sway dedicated cranks - that's for ArbCom, I guess - but some people might simply fail to understand why you're doing what you're doing, and might appreciate and be convinced by your explanation. Educate them. Alternately, you can solicit the involvement of other editors such as William M Connelley or myself.Proabivouac 00:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm also sorry to see you go, but fully understand the reasons. I would have left a long time ago (and nearly did so a couple of times) but felt I could not in good conscience abandon the project to the lunatic anti-science POV-pushers. My rationale is that as long as people are going to continue using this thing, I have a responsibility to try and make it conform to reality. But when all you get for your trouble is a kick in the teeth it's hard to continue. Raymond Arritt 00:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I too say, don't go William M. Connolley 12:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

We've got a long row to hoe here, and it'll much tougher without your help. It's frustrating and time-consuming working on Misplaced Pages, but I think it is in the end worthwhile, and fun to boot. I hope you reconsider, or at least return after a nerve-soothing vacation at the beach. --Art Carlson 14:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

You are/were one of the great editors. I'm sorry to see you go and hope you will be back. Bubba73 (talk), 05:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

You Will Be Missed

Your abilities in all things WP:V, your talents in WP:SPADE, and your crystal-tipped logic will be sorely missed around here. Were it not for your clearly stated rationale for retirement, I would be begging you, for the good of Misplaced Pages, to stay until the Paranormal arbitration is finished. Antelan 00:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

PS - Nevermind, I'm going to beg anyway. Antelan 00:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I, also, will miss you. Cardamon 23:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Wifflebat award

		The Wiki Wiffle Bat
		I'm awarding you this Wiki Wiffle bat for having shown exceptional skill in the area(s) of logic, rationality, dispute resolution/mediation particularly in the face of flames and general animosity. Wikidudeman 05:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Defender of the Wiki

This is really bad news. Your abilities, dedication and energy here will be greatly missed. I hope that you will reconsider and return one day, hopefully soon. In recognition of your efforts, I give you this barnstar, hoping that you will appreciate it. — BillC 23:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

		The Mighty Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		Awarded to ScienceApologist for being one of the sane ones.

Departing essay

Because experts are not given recognition on Misplaced Pages and indeed looked on as somewhat suspect, editors that are ignorant or outright cranks are afforded way too much power at this site. I was blocked for reverting the actions of an editor who had declared that because people (which "people" these were was never made clear) use heat and thermal energy interchangably, Misplaced Pages should do the same. When I made good faith changes to conform to reality he reverted them without comment. What my allies say I should have done was find other editors to help revert him back and thus avoid 3RR. I think that this is esentially meatpuppetry and effectively a tactic that is also in opposition to Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. The fact is that there is no policy or guideline in place that enables quick and effective response to ignorant editors who should be treated similarly to vandals. People who haven't taken a physics class in their life shouldn't be editting physics articles for content. When they habitually introduce errors into the encyclopedia they should be reverted as quickly as someone would revert petty vandalism.

• I disagree slightly. I would point to Assume good faith. On occasion you seem to assume bad faith, or assume "ignorance," rather than "assuming good faith" in edits. Perhaps that's simply an outsider's opinion... I think this was one of the reasons so many people felt that your editing style was contentious (whether rightly or wrongly; I won't make a judgment, as it's not my place to do so). Not necessarily for reverting bad to good, but for often doing so without necessarily listing reasons, discussing with other users beforehand, etc. From a few pages I've seen, things appeared a bit "heavy-handed." But, c'est la vie. I do think that a "check on insanity" is a good thing, but I also think that constructive and cooperative ways of doing so are more valuable than simply "jumping in" with no explanation (which leads others to a "what just happened?" contentious state of mind; again, whether rightly or wrongly). Mgmirkin 19:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• I do agree that meat and sock puppetry should be avoided at all cost and more constructive means identified for working to bring articles in line with "reality" (but whose reality? Yours, theirs, mine, etc?).Mgmirkin 19:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the help that others give, but it should not be required that I recruit other editors to get around the three revert rule for fighting ignorance. I have come to the conclusion that consensus as it is explicated here is an extremely flawed ideal that essentially makes Misplaced Pages a community devoted to mob rule rather than the accurate explication of facts and ideas. Those who are committed to accuracy are effectively encouraged to create tight-nit, ever-vigilant cabals to edit war against the ignorant. It is an intolerable nightmare, one that the community refuses to address for fear of becoming "elitist". But elitism is only a vice when it is unwarranted. When you get Velikovskians writing articles on the solar system, you have accomodated to your detriment. Unless Misplaced Pages addresses this, devoted idiots will degrade the quality of the encyclopedia until quasars become laser stars, the Big Bang never happened, evolution is just a theory: not a fact, and the Parapsychological Association will be afforded the ability to demarcate between science and pseudoscience.

Disgusting. The community needs to de-yellow their livers and ban the lot of lunatic fringe editors who think that their particular woo-woo belief is what deserves accomodating.

--ScienceApologist 01:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me.

I'm sorry that I didn't notice this silliness while it was happening, and that I only notice it now. Had I noticed it earlier, you wouldn't have had to recruit me; I'd have jumped in. But yes, even that shouldn't have been necessary. Or on practical grounds, I'm sure that I lack the energy, fanaticism and tenacity of Velikovskians and the like.

I believe that "Citizendium" welcomes qualified physicists. I hope it does. -- Hoary 03:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but again, I must disagree, a bit more strongly this time around. I think this gets to the heart of one of the reasons most people felt you were a contentious editor. Your propensity for asserting your own POV, whether consciously or not. When you express statements like "the lunatic fringe" and "their woo woo beliefs" in common conversation, you are expressing a personal POV. That has little place on Misplaced Pages. As I've said in other forums hereabouts, in some ways, Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, but it's also like a newspaper or a journal (bad examples, perhaps, since those occasionally contain opinion pieces). Insofar as it's a neutral platform for the cataloging of ideas (right, wrong or otherwise) as they've been expressed, by those who have expressed them and handled neutrally. Let me reiterate that last point: neutral handling is key. When POV's and egos start getting involved, the handling becomes less neutral (pushing one view or the other, trying to "correct" the view of "the other side"). Mgmirkin 19:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• I'm reminded of folklore classes in college where this was stressed quite hard. It's not the observer's job to offer their opinion of what the speaker says, but simply to record it as an expression of that speaker and attempt to record what it means to that person. Now, that's not to say that after the fact additional original research (opinion of the observer) can't be written (remember WP:OR is forbidden, "opinion" generally counts as OR). But it has no place in the testimony of the speaker themselves (IE, one's opinoin oftheir statement doesn't change waht they said or what it meant to them, or the idea they were trying to express). Hope that makes sense. In that regard, the handling of "fringe ideas" on Misplaced Pages has been mauled by you and others who really don't understand the distinction (my opinion). To boil it way too far down, it's the difference between saying "here's what he said and what it meant to him" and "here's my interpretation of what he said and why I think it's right or wrong." Misplaced Pages strives for the former, but many articles have been edited more toward the latter without regard for the former. In my opinion, that's the wrong way to go about it when trying to dispassionately record what has been said, who said it, what it meant to them, and what it might mean to the rest of us (the latter is more opinion than anything, though if it's cited/notable/verifiable, it's game for inclusion). When people's opinion of the material starts factoring in (you generally support the Big Bang and obviously edit from that POV, whether rightly or wrongly), then it muddies the waters by inserting opinion instead of fact.
• I realize that in some of my earlier posts (being new to WP at the time), I may have done the same thing. I'd like to think I've upped my standard slightly in referencing things that need it. But now I can at least recognize a POV and try to more evenly present things. I think you helped some in that regard (despite some aforementioned heavy-handedness), by asking for references & citations, etc. I guess I meant that as a compliment, even if it didn't come out that way. Mgmirkin 19:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• On the one hand, I'll be sad to see an "opposite viewpoint" leave. On the other, perhaps one day you'll mull it over and decide to come back with a slightly more even hand and work constructively on some more articles. Who knows, maybe some day you'll even see the error of your ways and come back to help edit a NEUTRAL version of the Electric Universe article (kidding, mostly). I think it can be done, with a little effort and dispassion. Mgmirkin 19:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

You are not by any means alone in these sentiments. Hope to see you at Citizendium. ---CyberAnth 00:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Some unsolicited advice: The process takes time to work. If you find yourself battling a crank, just leave a concise, content-oriented comment on the talk page and any associated project pages, then go away for a few days. The world won't end if some Misplaced Pages article is screwed up for awhile, and dollars-to-donuts, by the time you come back, enough others will have noticed the screwiness that it will be fixed by consensus. I've found myself involved in stupid squabbles around here. The answer, in my experience, is just to remember that Misplaced Pages doesn't matter. Don't get caught up in arguments. Just say your peace, then go away and let others take it from there. Misplaced Pages has lots of scientists, lots of physicists, lots of artists, lots of croquet players, etc., and the good outnumbers the bad over time. Best wishes, Gnixon 16:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC).

• Agreed. Hopefully the community will generally come through. If not today or tomorrow then in a week or two. Lots of articles out there, but little time to edit them all. Mgmirkin 19:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

:-(

Hope that you reconsider after a break. FloNight 18:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I do too, but in the meantime, his mini-essay should be required reading for the community.

See also Tom harrison's recent statement.Proabivouac 18:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm collecting them here. Raymond Arritt 23:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. I hope that ScienceApologist returns. Eusebeus 23:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• So long as it's with a slightly more even hand toward neutrality. Fringe ideas do (contrary to popular opinion) have a place on WP, so long as they're handled neutrally and dispassionately from a NPOV standpoint. IE, "here's what they said," "here's what it meant to them," "here's what it means if they're right," "here's what traditional science has to say about it from notable sources," "here's why it's controversial," etc. This can all be worked out cordially in the talk pages, without censorship and revert wars. I don't think that WP should be a platform for emphasizing one article or topic over another, whether it be BB, intrinsic redshift, Electric Universe, Plasma Cosmology, the Virgin Mary, etc. They all have a place here. But now I'm rambling. Long story short, sad to see you go (any past heated words aside). Perhaps you'll wander back this way after a sabbatical. Until then, cheers and good luck! Mgmirkin 20:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

An apology

As the 'uneducated editor' who proposed the ill-advised merger between 'heat' and 'thermal energy' in the first place, I can't help but feel responsible for your leaving Misplaced Pages, even though I had no part in the edit war that followed. I just wanted to say that I'm extremely sorry for what happened - I proposed that merger in good faith (if from a position of utter scientific ignorance), and I never meant for it to lead to arguments and people leaving the project in disgust.

You're entirely right about the problems with Misplaced Pages - by its nature, it is anti-scientific, favouring the mob over the informed expert, and 'consensus' over provable fact. But I don't think that's reason enough to leave: on the contrary, it makes it all the more important that better informed editors stay around to fight that anti-scientific culture and explain why certain edits are simply wrong, whether backed by consensus or not.

I've already learned my lesson: I won't in future be making any major changes to topics I know nothing about. My 'understanding' of heat and thermal energy was wrong, and I should never have proposed merging the two without doing any research on the subject. But many others still have that attitude, and will continue to make ignorant edits to scientific articles until they learn that they shouldn't do so.

The Misplaced Pages community needs to improve its policy in this area, so that it gives more respect to the informed scientific perspective. I would rather see established editors staying and working to change that policy than giving up and leaving. If you wish to leave the project, neither I nor anyone else can stop you - but you are clearly a highly valued and experienced editor, and Misplaced Pages will be the worse for your departure. I for one hope that you will reconsider.

Once again, I apologise for all problems I have caused. Thanks for reading. Terraxos 04:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

You deserve this

		The E=mc² Barnstar
		I have watched you for months and months as you beat back countless cranks and vandals and upheld policy and verifiability over dubious claims to keep Misplaced Pages's science articles accurate. I hope you come back some day, but for now, take this barnstar; you deserve it. —Dark•Shikari 03:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Something to Think About

Several weeks ago I posted a link on the Dark Matter page, which pointed to an article that I wrote on the subject. This was my first and only post on Misplaced Pages. I did not edit any article content, I only posted the link in the reference section near the bottom of the page. Almost immediately, you removed the post on the basis of vanity, no original research and unreliable source, among others. This was an eye opening experience for me. I must admit that I have never taken even one physics class, but I do have a trunk full of books on the subject. In my naive ignorance, I posted the link with the thought that people with interest in Dark Matter and galaxy formation may find the article thought provoking. I wrote the article for that very purpose over six months before it occurred to me to post a link on Misplaced Pages.

As a senior level technologist with over two decades of experience, I realized I was being treated in the very same manner that I had long-since resolved never to treat newcomers to my own field; harshly. Like a person in a strange city who takes a wrong turn onto a dark street, I immediately realized that Misplaced Pages was not where I belonged. I must say that I did not, nor do I now contest the validity of removing the link to my article; in the end I agree that I lack credentials in the area of physics (even though I am convinced my theory on Dark Matter is no less reasonable than any others I have seen ;-)). My real message here is that I understand your frustration. I think you have provided a valuable service to Misplaced Pages, but the frustration you feel is the very same that you have dealt to others in the execution of your self-appointed role.

I hope you decide to return and carry on this important work. Many kudos for having done so for so long. To succeed you must engage the powers that be at Misplaced Pages itself. If they do not recognize and support your efforts, then your decision to leave was the right one.

Bclayabt 19:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)