Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by William M. Connolley (talk | contribs) at 07:42, 15 September 2009 (→CB: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome!

"The more limited your understanding of science, the more scientists resemble masters of the occult, and the more paranormal phenomena seem likely to reflect undiscovered scientific truths." -- Wendy Kaminer

"The annals of science are littered with the names of once-celebrated scientists whose wishful thinking forced them to jump into the fringe. If their pet theories become resistant to contrary evidence, if their logic resists criticism, if their peers suspect that they have fudged results, they are expelled from the scientific community. Pons and Fleischman were at the brink days after they went public. Almost immediately they were told that their peak was in the wrong place. They had to make a decision: retreat or press on despite the damaging evidence. In the end, they leaped into the void and will never rejoin the ranks of mainstream scientists." --Charles Seife Sun in a Bottle: the strange history of fusion and the science of wishful thinking. Viking, 2008.

"The wishful thinking about fusion extends far beyond a handful of shunned individuals. Individuals ... do little damage once they are excluded from the community. The real danger comes not from these individuals but from the wishful thinking at the very core of the scientist . This, and not a threat from a handful of renegades, is what makes the dream of fusion energy so dangerous. --also Seife

"The burden of proof, as always in science, is on those who claim extraordinary things. It is their responsibility to perform an experiment so well that it forces the scientific community to accept the results."

Editing Misplaced Pages

I saw your statement on the Abd/WMC case talk page and thought I would give you my thoughts on it. I've noticed that one of the most contentious areas in Misplaced Pages concern science articles, especially science topics in which a lot of people apparently have money or reputations at stake. The wiki model does not handle these kinds of issues very well. There are large areas of Misplaced Pages, however, such as military history, which are relatively free from intense editor conflict and enjoy a congenial atmosphere of collaboration and creativity. If you have any interests outside of Cold Fusion and similar subjects, perhaps you might try editing in another area? I have personally found building quality articles in non-contentious topics very rewarding. Cla68 (talk) 05:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your taking the time to advise me; however, I think you may have missed my overall point, maybe because I didn't articulate it well enough. I'm not at all interested in editing noncontroversial areas of the encyclopedia; someone else could handle those equally well. It's not that I'm looking for something to do to fill the idle hours of my retirement; I have more to do than I have time for as it is. I'm writing a book and have major landscaping and home improvement projects to finish; I'm not looking for things to do. But I am very concerned about the promulgation of misinformation, and since Misplaced Pages has become an important source of information, it has concerned me that there is so much misinformation in Misplaced Pages, especially in the areas where superstition and science collide. You're exactly right; Misplaced Pages doesn't handle those areas well, and especially where money is at stake, Misplaced Pages too often takes the path of least resistance and encourages the promotion of dubious and even fraudulent schemes and ideas. Gullible folks are sinking their life savings into cold fusion and other "free energy" schemes, and Misplaced Pages is (not deliberately, I'm sure, but obliviously) providing free advertisement and promotion for the sellers of those schemes. The same for multibillion dollar new age institutions that are misleading people by asserting that their ideas are based in science rather than in faith, as well as the various dubious "alternative medicine" scams that tempt people into spending money for snake oil and useless gadgets. This worries me, and it should worry others who care about Misplaced Pages.

No, I have no interest in editing needlepoint articles or whatever for the sake of editing Misplaced Pages; my interest was in hoping to slow the accelerating handover of the encyclopedia to fringe interests of all kinds. Now that I see that there's nothing I can do about that, and that there's no will to do anything about curbing that trend, there's no reason for me to stick around. Some day someone who lost hundreds of thousands of dollars in a scheme that was given credence by Misplaced Pages's positive coverage of nonsense will make a big stink in the press about it, and then maybe the powers that be in the encyclopedia (if there really is such a thing) will take steps. I've done what I can. Woonpton (talk) 15:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Well I wish you the best. I'm sorry that something like this has driven off another editor who only was here to help this project. Good luck with what you do and I hope a time comes when you might feel comfortable about coming back. I do understand though how you are feeling. --CrohnieGal 16:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I try, but don't always succeed, at trying to remove my feelings from the topics we write about here, if for no other reason to try to comply with NPOV. Since we're supposedly trying to build an "encyclopedia", then it should mean that we're not supposed to, at least outwardly, care at all whether the information here is actually true or not. We're supposed to simply report on what people have said and done related to the topics we have articles on. If someone is here to try to "save" anyone or anything from disinformation, hucksters, or conspiracies, then that person will inevitably become quickly disillusioned, because Misplaced Pages is not set-up for that type of effort, nor is it Misplaced Pages's mission. I would not worry about if anyone loses their shirt by investing in Cold Fusion. That's not our problem. We simply ensure that the information in the articles complies with policies such as RS, NPOV, BLP, etc. As far as truth goes, we leave that to our readers to decide for themselves by checking the sources used. Cla68 (talk) 01:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for making my point and demonstrating, yet again, the utter disregard on the part of Misplaced Pages insiders for the reader or consumer of information. Misplaced Pages doesn't care if people lose their shirts or are beguiled into buying worthless gadgets or following crackpot theories as a result of misinformation contained in Misplaced Pages articles, you say. That's quite obvious, that's what I've been saying, and that's why I'm abandoning the project, but it seems rather astonishing that you would be so proud of it. Readers/consumers care about the accuracy of the information in the sources they consult; when they realize that the information is routinely skewed by interested parties, they will no longer consult Misplaced Pages. I think our conversation is over, was over a long time ago; it seems rather overkill to keep kicking me on my way out the door to make sure I really really really get the message that I'm not welcome here. I knew that already; it's time to put the stick down and quit beating me up about it and go on about your business. Why it would be so important to you to press the point beyond courtesy or collegiality is quite beyond me. I accept that Wikiipedia has accepted and perhaps even embraced the role as the platform of choice for promoters of dubious ideas and products; I accept that and am leaving because I don't agree with that role for the encyclopedia; I think it will be Misplaced Pages's downfall in the end. We obviously disagree about that, but I'm not sure why you feel the need to continue to harangue me about it. We're done. Woonpton (talk) 01:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is a community project and it ultimately will get the kind of articles that the community wants. If the community wants articles that reflect the state of scientific knowledge on some topic, with appropriate weighting of all views according to their prominence, then it's likely to get those sorts of articles. I'd be glad to participate and to help create articles like that.

But many in the community don't want articles like that. You've already mentioned alt med and such. In my own field of climate there are many -- including certain "respected admins and content creators" -- who want articles full of nonsensical junk about how earthquakes cause El Niño and the rise in CO2 over the past few decades is from natural sources and so on. And if the community wants articles full of nonsensical junk, it will get articles full of nonsensical junk. GoRight, Cla68, Thatcher and the rest may eventually be able to twist the climate articles their way but any victory will be short lived. Misplaced Pages is closely watched and outsiders who know what they're talking about will point out that Misplaced Pages is full of nonsensical junk. People will stop using it, and the problem will solve itself. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Sine Die

In fact, I thought it made so much sense, I did it before you posted you comment. Cool Hand Luke 23:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

CB

Rumour has it that is at your request. Did you so request? I would prefer the full record of arbcomm's incompetence to remain on public display and searchable, and have told C so User_talk:Carcharoth#CB William M. Connolley (talk) 07:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)