Category talk:Pseudoscience: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 20:22, 24 February 2012 editAlan Liefting (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers134,250 edits →What a mess!: new section← Previous edit		Revision as of 20:50, 24 February 2012 edit undoHipal (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers137,922 edits →What a mess!Next edit →
Line 42:		Line 42:
	**Removed companies, products, unrelated lists, and minor topics that had little to do with the subject.		**Removed companies, products, unrelated lists, and minor topics that had little to do with the subject.
	My attempt to clean it all up is being hampered by editors who do not understand the category guidelines (or convention - they vary!), do not understand the hierarchical nature of topics, and attempt to link everything to everything else. -- ] (] - ]) 20:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)		My attempt to clean it all up is being hampered by editors who do not understand the category guidelines (or convention - they vary!), do not understand the hierarchical nature of topics, and attempt to link everything to everything else. -- ] (] - ]) 20:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
			:Please focus on the content and policy/guideline issues rather than the editors involved.
			:There seems to be a great deal of disagreement on whether or not some of the articles are relevant to the subject. Discuss rather than edit-war please if you want to change consensus. --] (]) 20:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:50, 24 February 2012

Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience

In December of 2006 the Arbitration Committee created guidelines for how to present pseudoscientific topics in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience.

Neutral point of view as applied to science: Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience.
Serious encyclopedias: Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Misplaced Pages aspires to be such a respected work.

The four groupings found at WP:PSCI

Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more.
Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.
Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized.
Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.

Skepticism Category‑class

	This category is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
Category	This category does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Template:Multidel

Archives

Parapsychology

Many of the inclusions are subjective. Is it right to describe all parapsychology as pseudoscience? There are pseudoscientists working in the field (and indeed physics, chemistry etc - witness the cold fusion debacle), but there are also certain people who attempt to employ scientific method. --MacRusgail (talk) 16:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

What a mess!

A few notes:

I have cleaned up the category page:
- removed links to project namespace
- removed redundant bare url (ext link to dictionary.com - hey we got our own!)
- removed redundant wikilinks
- tweaked layout
I am now trying to clean out the contents. It was a mish-mash of over 250 articles that readers would struggle to wade through.
- Created Category:Pseudoscience literature
- Removed companies, products, unrelated lists, and minor topics that had little to do with the subject.

My attempt to clean it all up is being hampered by editors who do not understand the category guidelines (or convention - they vary!), do not understand the hierarchical nature of topics, and attempt to link everything to everything else. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Please focus on the content and policy/guideline issues rather than the editors involved.

There seems to be a great deal of disagreement on whether or not some of the articles are relevant to the subject. Discuss rather than edit-war please if you want to change consensus. --Ronz (talk) 20:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Categories: