Category talk:Pseudoscience: Difference between revisions

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

Revision as of 01:31, 17 July 2012 editElektrik Shoos (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers16,663 edits surprised this wasn't projected under WikiProject Pseudoscience← Previous edit		Revision as of 22:39, 9 October 2012 edit undoMagioladitis (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers908,576 editsm clean up using AWB (8459)Next edit →
Line 3:		Line 3:
	\|{{anchor\|Notice}}'''Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of ]'''		\|{{anchor\|Notice}}'''Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of ]'''


			==Untitled==
	In December of 2006 the ] created guidelines for how to present pseudoscientific topics in ].		In December of 2006 the ] created guidelines for how to present pseudoscientific topics in ].
	* ''']:''' ], 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 ].		* ''']:''' ], 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 ].
Line 19:		Line 21:
	* '''Keep/nom withdrawn''', January 27, 2008, ]		* '''Keep/nom withdrawn''', January 27, 2008, ]
	}}		}}
			{{WikiProjectBannerShell\|1=
	{{WPBS\|
	{{WikiProject Pseudoscience\|class=category}}		{{WikiProject Pseudoscience\|class=category}}
	{{WikiProject Rational Skepticism}}		{{WikiProject Rational Skepticism}}

Revision as of 22:39, 9 October 2012

Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience

Untitled

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 Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories#Pseudoscience

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.

Template:Multidel

This category does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Skepticism

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

Skepticism

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)

(edit conflict)

You know, I don't really overly care about this category, or even this topic (and not even certain how I saw/got to this page).

But you would be hard pressed to claim that I do not understand the category guidelines and policies : )

Anyway, in reading the arbcomm case, and associated pages, it seems clear that this is a drama-laden topic, and by extension the pages thereof.

So I would think that it would be a good idea to at least provide the opportunity for "enthusiastic editors" to check out certain project pages. Links are cheap. And having links to project pages on a category page (as opposed to categorised IN the category) is very much not uncommon.

Our goal should be to reduce disruption, and if a couple links may help to prevent future disruption, then that's a no brainer, I would think. - jc37 20:53, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

"Our goal should be to reduce disruption" Having some familiarity with some of the drama around this topic, let's be clear: our goal first is to improve this encyclopedia. --Ronz (talk) 20:59, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Lol, yes, and one way we do that is by reducing disruption.

I'm not sure what your concerns are, or even what edits your concerned with.

For me it's that the links to the Project pages which cover this topic broadly (WP:FRINGE#PS for example) should be linked in the category page intro. In looking over other situations in categories, it would seem a hatnote would be the best way to go with it.

If you're interested in arguing what should be a member of this category, sorry, I'm not who you're looking for. - jc37 21:03, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Since the links are already here at the top of the talk page, I just added a hatnote to see the talk page. I still think that a link to a related project page should be at the top, but for now, this should suffice. - jc37 21:56, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

One of the problems that's come up is that some articles about practioners/vendors/applications of PS are often placed in the category, such as Samuel Hahnemann, Bach Flower Remedies, Blacklight Power, Ionized bracelet. If these don't belong in PS, then where? Perhaps subcats for "Pseudoscience products", "Pseudoscience advocates", "Pseudoscience companies"? LeadSongDog come howl! 22:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

As I have already said at the head of this thread they don't need a category relating to pseudoscience since it a non-existent or tenuous relationship. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:00, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

So it remains a mess...

...because nothing gets done. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Categories: