| Revision as of 23:37, 21 November 2005 editCberlet (talk | contribs)11,487 edits Cberlet's view of the issues← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:33, 22 November 2005 edit undoFRS (talk | contribs)695 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| While it is clear to me that the work of Lyndon LaRouche is original research, while the work of Chip Berlet is peer reviewed research, I am somewhat at a loss to explain exactly why. My preliminary thought is that Chip Berlet is embedded in a progressive matrix which can provide feedback regarding his work, while LaRouche is not, thus free to engage in idiosyncratic musings. ] 22:01, 21 November 2005 (UTC) | While it is clear to me that the work of Lyndon LaRouche is original research, while the work of Chip Berlet is peer reviewed research, I am somewhat at a loss to explain exactly why. My preliminary thought is that Chip Berlet is embedded in a progressive matrix which can provide feedback regarding his work, while LaRouche is not, thus free to engage in idiosyncratic musings. ] 22:01, 21 November 2005 (UTC) | ||
| :If you mean by "peer reviewed research," a process like the one described here:] it's very unlikely that Mr. Berlet's work goes through such a formal process. | |||
| :On the other hand, ] is (we have no reason to disbelieve) an identified person, i.e, Mr. Chip Berlet of Political Research Associates, and is occasionally quoted in publications like the NYT, typically as having "written extensively on cults" and as one who "tracks right-wing groups". A search of the NYT shows his name in such contexts around 20 times since 1989. The articles I've pulled up usually quote a sound-bite from him regarding Larouche, right-wing militias or fringe political groups. | |||
| :I would say that gives his views a certain gravitas lacking in those expressed by anonymous posters (like me!), but does not make them authoritative in the sense that a real peer-reviewed paper is. ] 00:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Cberlet's view of the issues== | ==Cberlet's view of the issues== | ||
Revision as of 00:33, 22 November 2005
While it is clear to me that the work of Lyndon LaRouche is original research, while the work of Chip Berlet is peer reviewed research, I am somewhat at a loss to explain exactly why. My preliminary thought is that Chip Berlet is embedded in a progressive matrix which can provide feedback regarding his work, while LaRouche is not, thus free to engage in idiosyncratic musings. Fred Bauder 22:01, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- If you mean by "peer reviewed research," a process like the one described here: it's very unlikely that Mr. Berlet's work goes through such a formal process.
- On the other hand, Cberlet is (we have no reason to disbelieve) an identified person, i.e, Mr. Chip Berlet of Political Research Associates, and is occasionally quoted in publications like the NYT, typically as having "written extensively on cults" and as one who "tracks right-wing groups". A search of the NYT shows his name in such contexts around 20 times since 1989. The articles I've pulled up usually quote a sound-bite from him regarding Larouche, right-wing militias or fringe political groups.
- I would say that gives his views a certain gravitas lacking in those expressed by anonymous posters (like me!), but does not make them authoritative in the sense that a real peer-reviewed paper is. FRS 00:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Cberlet's view of the issues
This case involves establishing the boundaries of proper editing and discussion behavior on Misplaced Pages when a Wiki editor is also the subject of a Wiki entry under their real name and identity. The editors named in this arbitration vary greatly in terms of their behavior, with Nobs01 having the most problematic edit history. Some other editors named have simply participated on the discussion page. All have been involved in editing conflicts with me as a Wiki editor, and then been involved in editing or discussing the entries on me and my employer.
At the heart of the case is a complicated set of questions. If individual Wiki editors are discouraged from editing entries on themselves, what policies might be appropriate to advise Wiki editors who have been in editing disputes with an editor for whom there is an entry? What are the proper boundaries when digging up negative and derogatory information about a fellow Wiki editor with whom one has had a dispute? Is there not a built in bias? Shouldn’t there be some ground rules?
Since Wiki relies on published materials, does a person attacked on Wiki need to “publish” a response to every criticism posted on some marginal website or published in some highly POV print publication? How can persons with entries on Wiki defend themselves against the posting of false, malicious, and potentially defamatory text?--Cberlet 23:37, 21 November 2005 (UTC)