Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience/Workshop

message: About  - once again, plasma cosmology doesn't mean any cosmology that recognizes plasma - that would make ScienceApologist a plasma cosmologist. Ian, please distance yourself from this kind of transparent nonsense from Tommy, or at least give him a less-than-ringing endorsement as I gave ScienceApologist here. The way this arbitration is going, you might not get another chance for a long time. Art LaPella 13:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ian, distance yourself

message: In response to : I didn't mean to say that being reverted by ScienceApologist proves Tommysun is disruptive - that depends on one's opinion of ScienceApologist. I mentioned it only to explain why I only criticized Tommy's talk page behavior. I also didn't mean to say that repeating the same thing over and over again is disruptive - I've done just that when criticizing Tommysun. What is disruptive is to repeat the same thing over and over again, to be refuted over and over again, and to continue to repeat the same thing over and over again without bothering to address previous criticism. Art LaPella 02:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: The arguments supporting the reverts of tommysun's work are "nonsense" and "irrelevant" which is obviously a POV which obviously is not amendable to reason. Tommy Mandel 15:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note note: I agree ScienceApologist's word "nonsense" could have been more illuminating, but "irrelevant" was a good reason that Tommy himself wasn't very amenable to answering. Art LaPella 21:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Art L.'s comments on Tommysun

message: I am not certain how ArbCom wants to focus the results of this RFAr -- whether they will primarily address conduct issues or whether an effort will be made to give an interpretive ruling regarding the problems with policy.  If the former, I have no input here.  If the latter, I would suggest a four-tiered structure.  Certainly, there will be questions about which tier some theories apply to, especially during genesis of new theories or during a paradigm shift.  Still, I feel such a clarficiation is a substantial improvement over the current wordings, without necessitating any actual change in policy per se.
1) Recognizing Wikipedia's goal to be a responsible and respected source of encyclopedic information, articles about scientific topics should primarily cover the mainstream scientific viewpoint.
2) When alternate scientific theories are treated in the same (or comparable) publications as the mainstream theory, those alternate theories should be discussed in their own section of the topic's article.  If there is sufficient material in total, they may also warrant a daughter article.  Regardless, the weight given such theories should be appropriate to their recognition in the scientific community.  This is likewise the case for competing theories when no clear mainstream scientific consensus has formed.
3) When alternate scientific theories are not treated in the same (or comparable) publications as the mainstream theory, but are documented in sources that meet Wikipedia's requirements for reliable sources, they generally should not be discussed in the primary article.  Individual articles for such theories can be created; their length and level of detail must respect undue weight guidelines with respect to the main article.
4) When alternate scientific theories are treated exclusively or nearly exclusively in self-published material and/or are discussed only in the context of a single proponent or sole creator, they should only be discussed within the article for their creator or proponent.  If sufficient reliable sources also do not exist to support an article for that proponent, then such a theory should not be included in the encyclopedia unless further appropriate sources arise.
Serpent's Choice 10:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Support pretty much all of the above.  One addition: articles specifically about alternate theories should strive for a balance between describing the things that the theory claims (or its supporters claim), and describing the mainstream view/criticism.  Articles should allocate substantial space to both, but no less than half should be about what the theory claims (a 60/40 ratio may be a good numeric target).  ObsidianOrder 23:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This "balance" criterion for articles about alternate theories is artificial. It should be up to the individual editors and should reflect the best secondary sources available about the alternate theory. Imposing an artificial ratio for how much criticism belongs in an article is to impose an external valuation of alternate theories that may or may not be justified. Certainly some articles should have more than half of the article devoted to criticisms. Some articles should have well-less than one half of the article devoted to criticism. It is an article-by-article determination and there is no panacea. --ScienceApologist 12:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "best secondary sources" - what exactly policy says that primary sources are unacceptable?  "impose an external valuation of alternate theories" - no, although devoting most of the article to criticism certainly does that.  "some articles should have more than half of the article devoted to criticisms" - that would not be sticking to the topic, which is the theory, not the criticism of the theory (also relevant, also allocated substantial space if there is substantial criticism, but not the whole article - if you want that, that is a different article).  ObsidianOrder 15:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Complete agreement.  There is a huge variance in the quality, substance, and scientific value of minority-held theories.  This is especially true in the more esoteric subfields of physics.  Tightening the loopholes in NPOV to prevent abuse of the system is of benefit to the encyclopedia and its readers.  Mandating certain ratios of content seems more likely to devolve into wikilawyering, and would do a disservice to legitimate minority-held opinions from particularly esoteric subfields of physics (string theory variants, some models of vector gravity, and so forth) that deserve less than the magic ratio of criticism while providing a shield for unmitigated crackpottery (perpetual motion, and so on) that deserves more. Serpent's Choice 14:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: SC - "huge variance in the quality" - yes, but we cannot judge that ourselves, and trying to determine it from sources is somewhat problematic.  For theories which are mainstream, it is trivial (pick seveal recent textbooks in the field and check what they say).  For theories which are not mainstream, it is effectively impossible (do a survey??).  "Mandating certain ratios of content" - ok, agreed, ratios is probably stupid, I would just say "substantial space should be allocated to both" and leave it at that.  "that deserve less than the magic ratio of criticism" - fair enough; please note that the ratio specified the maximum of criticism, not the desired number.  The only rationale for my proposal is that an article about X should be, well, primarily about X.  If we want an article about "criticism of X" that is a different article.  If there is significant criticism, that should take significant space in the article about X, but not the whole article.  It is akin to having the article about George W. Bush be primarily devoted to "why Bush is a bad president": perhaps a widely held opinion, but it is not appropriate as the main content of that article (and indeed, there is a separate article for it, here).  ObsidianOrder 15:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Two observations.  First, I think that policy provides the tools needed to have at least some idea what we're dealing with regarding minority-held theories.  Everyone's favorite (or not) policy section -- undue weight -- says that we should represent viewpoints "in proportion to the prominence of each".  Because Wikipedia doesn't judge truth, that "prominence" must mean representation in reliable, context-appropriate sources.  If a theory isn't the mainstream one, but people in the field have at least talked about it somewhere, that's a large step up from a theory documented only on its creator's website, or even in the journal of a discipline that is totally unrelated.  Does that mean we give little if any space to some amateur cosmologist who can't get his theory printed in anything that isn't self-published?  Of course, that's what WP:V is about.  But, second, I don't think that any ratios are a good idea, even a numberless "significant space" one.  We have to make sure that we don't paint ourselves into a corner regarding theories that have been discounted as demonstrably wrong but still have adherents (archetypical example: Flat Earth).  If the only reliable sources for an article demonstrate the universal condemnation of a theory, then our article on that topic should of course still discuss its tenets before presenting the criticisms, but a neutral point of view doesn't mean a disingenuous one.  Serpent's Choice 15:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions 

message: See Wikipedia:Notability (science), which has this RFarb as one of its inspirations.  --EngineerScotty 19:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New proposal 

message: Arbcom can decide upon what to do about enforcing NPOV policy. The most sensible thing to do will be to decide which pseudoscientific subjects (eg pseudoscience art, chiropractic art, scientology art, etc) to police properly (mediate thoroughtly) and then go ahead and do it. Its pretty simple. If there is a good mediator/s there to decide when people are crossing the line then that will help a lot. Incivility punishments (rigorous blocking) will most likely help though they are not nice to work with. Practical steps! Simply prioritize the articles and assign accordingly. KrishnaVindaloo 17:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are imagining we are much more organized then we are. Fred Bauder 18:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK Fred, perhaps I overstate how easy it will be. In fact there is no perfect solution. But as long as there is a decision to place some authorities in key problem areas, there will be some sort of solution. I appreciate perfection is impossible and I'm not expecting miracles. But some groups of editors really do need to be reminded, quite regularly and sharply, about reasonable and constructive NPOV application. KrishnaVindaloo 18:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Solutions