Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:51, 2 September 2014

This user is an administrator on the English Misplaced Pages. (verify) This editor is a Most Plusquamperfect Looshpah Laureate and is entitled to display this Book of All Knowledge with Secret Appendix and Errata Sheet. This user is one of the 400 most active English Wikipedians of all time. This user is a Rouge admin. This user has been on Misplaced Pages for 19 years, 4 months, and 4 days. This user has been an admin for 18 years, 11 months, and 7 days. This user resists the POV pushing of lunatic charlatans.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

• In science, any compromise between a correct statement and a wrong statement is a wrong statement. Thanks, user:Stephan Schulz.
• My activity level is 53mKo (milli-Koavfs).
• Sad now. Special:Contributions/Geogre.
• My Last.fm profile
• vGuyUK on Twitter | SceptiGuy on Twitter

Obligatory disclaimer

I work for Dell Computer but nothing I say or do here is said or done on behalf of Dell. You knew that, right?

POV Pusher's charter

The opposite is true as well. Onus being on inclusion would also benefit POV pusher trying to whitewash. We should leave issues of NPOV to the NPOV policy and not try to address it with WP:V.--v/r - TP 20:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

A POV-pusher trying to whitewash will quickly lose, based on quality of sources. The onus is always on whoever wants to include disputed content, to justify it and achieve consensus. It can't be any other way - and thids was previously agreed (at V or NPOV, can't remember exactly) but removed by someone at some point. The reason for removing it is not hard to guess... Guy (Help!) 20:46, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I disagree, and I also think NPOV policy should stay in the NPOV policy. What impact does your change have on deletion policy, though? Can editors blank articles now until a consensus is achieved to keep it? I'm not invested in this enough to oppose you outright, I'm just not sure your change is entirely thought through. After ec: I've never seen it in WP:V before so I must have missed the conversation and the addition/removal.--v/r - TP 20:51, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

As we already say, just because it's verifiable doesn't mean it gets included. Anything other than putting the onus on the person seeking to include disputed content, makes it impossible to hold back WP:RANDY and his ilk, as well as POV-pushers, cruft and every other ill to which Misplaced Pages is heir. But I haven't the heart to fight it out. Misplaced Pages is losing the ability to keep crap at bay, and every time I spend more than a few minutes here I am forcefully reminded of it. Not that you are any part of the problem, it's more the likes of Brian Josephson, the Chopra fans, Sheldrake groupies and so on. Getting their way is vastly more important to them than it is to us, and they will never, ever walk away until they get what they want. One day we'll have an article on homeopathy that presents it as a valid medical treatment, you mark my words. Guy (Help!) 20:55, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) this is, sadly, true. Alexbrn 20:59, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

As another talk page stalker, I'm inclined to offer a tepid disagreement. Between MEDRS and the pseudoscience discretionary sanctions, Misplaced Pages is inching towards improvement in its handling of the fringier aspects of medicine. It's not a perfect situation by any means, but I would argue that fringe medicine is about the only area where POV-pushers don't have an edge, because it's one of the few areas where there exists the necessary triad to keep POV-pushing down: stringent sourcing policy, active editors who have deep understanding of both the subject matter and Misplaced Pages policy, and enforcement tools that admins aren't afraid to use. (Yes, it is easier to pull teeth than it is to drag the homeopathy article toward a reality-driven POV. On the other hand – and not to downplay our problems – we've done a lot better cracking down on the miracle cancer cures and the anti-vaccinationists.)

Fringe physics (or pseudophysics), though? You're right. Softer sourcing expectations coupled with a lack of vigorous enforcement mean we're still giving away the farm on cold fusion and reactionless drives. Say what you will about Misplaced Pages's medical coverage, but you can't get away with building a medical article out of a Ny Teknik or New Scientist article and the inventor's press releases any more. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to buy you all a drink. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 00:03, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll take a virtual swig (glug) thanks - but remember boys and girls, don't drink and edit - you'll often live to regret it. Alexbrn 08:52, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

You make a fair point, in that the position on physics woo is markedly worse, but look at the articles on acupuncture and chiropractic, both of whihc are subject to relentless assault by true believers who steadily chip away at the reality-based perspective and insert references which turn out, on investigation, to be fringe, or not to actually say what they are purported to say (e.g. user A1candidate on acupuncture using tentative conclusions or "may play a role", represented as settled fact , whereas the consensus view based on the lack of repeatable evidence that location of needling, or insertion of needles, makes any odds, leans more towards the usual combination of placebo and other confounders).

Acupuncture and chiropractic are a litmus test here. They are actually quack treatments, they are struggling to hold on in a science-based world by desperately trying to find support for some subset of their ideas, but the majority of what is taught to and promoted by practitioners as "fact" is in fact complete bollocks. There is no innate, chiropractic subluxations do not exist, spinal manipulation does not affect the immune system, there is no qi, there are no such things as meridians, acupoints are not empirically verifiable anatomical structures - you know the litany. Does manipulation relieve back pain? Plausibly, but there's no evidence for maintenance adjustments, and the studies where, by the random effects inherent in p=0.05, a biologically implausible effect is shown (infant colic, asthma) are a statistical artifact and nothing else. The talk pages of all these articles are covered in WP:CHEESE, with cheesemongers such as Brian Josephson active at the edges and trying to amend policy to make the appeal to authority a valid argument on Misplaced Pages. Guy (Help!) 08:31, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

To TCM and chiropractic I'd add osteopathy, TM and various Steiner things (not always health) as prominent examples among the many others. I'm increasingly of the view that it's WP:CPUSHing backed by a COI which is at the root of a lot of the problems: I wish the problem of COI was taken more seriously on WP. And yes, there are increasing attempts to modify the PaGs - WP:FRINGE and WP:MEDRS are not liked in some quarters. Things are not helped by the large number of otherwise neutral editors who see reality/rationality as "just" another point of view: here for example I've just been told that Misplaced Pages cannot assert that the Earth is round (that thread BTW is a good example of the problem at hand). Alexbrn 08:46, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

So basically what you guys are saying is that WP:FRINGE should read, "If it was featured on Dr. Oz, it's fringe." lol--v/r - TP 19:07, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

It's a fair first approximation. Also any use of the words "miracle", "natural", "traditional", any reference to the cancer industry, any claim of suppression by the drugs industry or teh evil gubmints (especially the FDA), anything based on anecdotes, any Brave Maverick Doctors. The progress of understanding of h. pylori as a cause of ulcers is a perfect model. We can see at wat point it went fomr being amaverick idea to a tentative finding with inadequate science, to a plausible finding, to an accepted fact. Guy (Help!) 15:59, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Your input would be appreciated...

on the issues raised at User_talk:2over0#Bit_of_a_tiff_about_a_source. This isn't meant as, or to be construed as, canvassing because it's about a simple matter of fact, which I'm asking you about because you're scientifically literate and objective. I've asked a couple other clueful users, who I trust to be objective, to comment as well. Thanks! regards, Middle 8 (POV-pushing • COI) 17:31, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)I think a discussion which is predicated on comments about another editor "not grokking some basic stuff", "just digging in", being "a bit embarrassing" (etc.) is not merely about "a simple matter of fact" but is canvassing - especially in view of the opinionated, personalized context, and will probably be seen as such when the acupuncture bunch (in all its various forms) has their likely date with arbcom. Alexbrn 17:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Alexbrn -- You'll note that I've rephrased my comments at 2/0's talk page in a much more neutral way, so please strike/redact yours. But remember -- there's only one right way to read this source. And lighten up dude; truth is an absolute defense against such gratuitous, dark threats. Read it yourself and see. If I'm to be booted for such a thing, I'll be proud of it. It'd probbaly make a graet blog post about how personalities have trumped facts and logic at WP. --Middle 8 (POV-pushing • COI) 18:26, 2 September 2014 (UTC) revised a couple times, last at 18:37, 2 September 2014 (UTC))

(talk page stalker) also. I look forward to that arbcom day - I'm fed up with acupuncturists and other quacks. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 18:28, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Like I said above.... I actually somewhat relish the prospect of editors getting this wrong just because of the messenger. Either outcome I'll be satisfied by the outcome (albeit in a much more perverse way should incompetence & wikiality prevail). And I'll be happy to check in with Ernst. Go ahead -- support the wrong reading if you want. Getting it wrong will reflect on your integrity and/or literacy, though. --Middle 8 (POV-pushing • COI) 18:37, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages administrators