| Revision as of 18:18, 29 February 2008 editRandy Blackamoor (talk | contribs)367 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:21, 29 February 2008 edit undoNaturezak (talk | contribs)428 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 35: | Line 35: | ||
| :We cannot assume good faith, because the most vocal editors on that page are not, in fact, acting in good faith. That's the fundamental problem here. The pro-magic editors are not willing to discuss (they simply stonewall when presented with contrary evidence, and bring up the same fallacies over and over again until they happen to hit a time when no one is watching the page). They are not willing to concede even the most basic tenets of NPOV, FRINGE, or WEIGHT (Dana Ullman wants the page to reject the entire molecular theory as "scientistic dogma!"). They are not willing to admit the basic definitions of words such as "pseudoscience." They abuse the administrators complaint pages in an attempt to get all their opponents banned. They are not looking to create an objective encyclopedia article that presents facts backed up by citations; nothing less than a glowing pro-homeopathy piece that ignores 99% of the facts will suit them. There is no solution to this problem short of getting rid of the magicians on the page and giving it back to the reasonable scientists to fix. ] (]) 18:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC) | :We cannot assume good faith, because the most vocal editors on that page are not, in fact, acting in good faith. That's the fundamental problem here. The pro-magic editors are not willing to discuss (they simply stonewall when presented with contrary evidence, and bring up the same fallacies over and over again until they happen to hit a time when no one is watching the page). They are not willing to concede even the most basic tenets of NPOV, FRINGE, or WEIGHT (Dana Ullman wants the page to reject the entire molecular theory as "scientistic dogma!"). They are not willing to admit the basic definitions of words such as "pseudoscience." They abuse the administrators complaint pages in an attempt to get all their opponents banned. They are not looking to create an objective encyclopedia article that presents facts backed up by citations; nothing less than a glowing pro-homeopathy piece that ignores 99% of the facts will suit them. There is no solution to this problem short of getting rid of the magicians on the page and giving it back to the reasonable scientists to fix. ] (]) 18:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC) | ||
| :I concur with Randy. ] (]) 19:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 19:21, 29 February 2008
Problems with Homeopathy Discussions
I believe there are major communication problems with the homeopathy discussions.
Good communication is important in any discussion. However, because this topic is highly polarized, and has such a history of dispute and ill will, clear communication is especially important in homeopathy.
I would say, and this is an opinion only, that the quality of the communication typically ranges from mediocre to bad.
- There is a shortage of good will and AGF. Not always, but too often.
- Misunderstanding of what another editor is trying to say; making assumptions that are incorrect.
- Wandering off topic is common.
- Scattering discussions between sections of the talk page is also common. To give an example, earlier this month, there was discussion about the lead section of the article (which is three paragraphs long.) This discussion is in Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 30. If anyone wants to read it, it is inconveniently scattered over the following fourteen! sections:
- 1 popularity
- 2 Prevalence of use
- 4 Concerns with the latest version of the opening sentences
- 5 What happens if we put important things first?
- 7 Another suggestion for a LEAD
- 12 Rearrangement
- 15 Propose a sandbox discussion of the LEAD
- 16 Discussing the LEAD
- 18 2nd sentence
- 20 Strong disagreement with the above section
- 22 Article degradation (briefly)
- 23 Doesn't make sense
- 26 What is wrong with the lead of this article - a highly personal opinion
- 27 Revert of LEAD
This would not be as bad if it was a linear discussion. No such luck. It was in some cases parallel discussions of different versions of the lead. During the course of this discussion, suggestions for bringing some order were made by editors Smith Jones, Arion 3x3, Filll, and myself, without effect, as near as I could tell. Filll created a subpage Talk:Homeopathy/LEADdiscussion in an attempt to take the discussion to one location. However, discussion continued scattered over multiple sections of the talk page. In other words, independent discussions of the same thing. In short, near chaos.
Bad communication and unstructured discussion are not the entire problem in homeopathy by any means. However, these greatly aggravate other problems. Wanderer57 (talk) 08:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- We cannot assume good faith, because the most vocal editors on that page are not, in fact, acting in good faith. That's the fundamental problem here. The pro-magic editors are not willing to discuss (they simply stonewall when presented with contrary evidence, and bring up the same fallacies over and over again until they happen to hit a time when no one is watching the page). They are not willing to concede even the most basic tenets of NPOV, FRINGE, or WEIGHT (Dana Ullman wants the page to reject the entire molecular theory as "scientistic dogma!"). They are not willing to admit the basic definitions of words such as "pseudoscience." They abuse the administrators complaint pages in an attempt to get all their opponents banned. They are not looking to create an objective encyclopedia article that presents facts backed up by citations; nothing less than a glowing pro-homeopathy piece that ignores 99% of the facts will suit them. There is no solution to this problem short of getting rid of the magicians on the page and giving it back to the reasonable scientists to fix. Randy Blackamoor (talk) 18:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- I concur with Randy. Naturezak (talk) 19:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)