body:
> From: "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com>
> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 16:26:43 -0500
> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Subject: RE: [WikiEN-l] William Connelley no longer neutral contributor
>
> Alan,
>
> We should not bother disputing dead issues like the Flat Earth
> hypothesis. Everybody already knows that mainstream science has held
> that the earth is ball-shaped for centuries. Say rather that Joe Bloggs
> believes the "discredited [[flat earth]] hypothesis", or simply that
> Bloggs believes in a [[flat earth]]. I assume your Joe Bloggs is an
> athlete or actor, or someone equally clueless about science.
>
> But in the debate over the environment, there is no consensus. Some
> scientists think one thing, while others think another. The viewpoint of
> the UN's climate panel, which was a plank in the Democratic Party's
> campaign, is that THERE IS A CONSENSUS FAVORING GLOBAL WARMING THEORY.
>
> However, this is merely a politically motivated claim. The asserted
> "consensus" does not exist. Many prominent scientists disagree;
> therefore, there is no consensus.
>
> So we should divide scientists, scientific agencies, and political
> entities into:
> (a) those that assert GW theory is true, and
> (b) those that assert that GW theory lacks sufficient proof
>
> I'm labelling William Connolley as one of the pro-GW camp, along with
> the UN's climate panel and the Clinton administration's EPA. Lindzen,
> Balunias and others get labelled anti-GW because of their skepticism.
>
> What could be simpler?
>
> Ed Poor

Being honest is far simpler than the course of equivication and double-talk
you have chosen Ed. Please cease to engange as an editor and on this mailing
list as an advocate for a position and organization supported by the Moon
cult.

Fred


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] naming convention on common usage

body:
Adam [name omitted for privacy reasons] wrote:

> About this time last year, I remember a lot of people arguing with me
> that we must use the most common terminology when naming a page; has
> this convention changed? Wik continues to revert my move of
> [[extermination camp]] to [[death camp]] -- is there any usage of
> "death camp" which does not directly, or indirectly, refer to the
> death camps of World War II? Google finds 6 times as many death camp
> articles -- surely that makes it clear which is more common?!
>
>
>
> Some would be mediators are trying to "compromise" by turning [[death
> camp]] into a disambiguation where they note, "Some people call
> prisons with execution chambers, as death camps" -- does not that very
> statement make it clear that "death camp" is the most common usage. --
> In any case, while "death camp" is used to refer to non-death camps
> (such as the prison at Guantanamo) -- its really very clear that such
> comparisons are deragatory and not to be taken literally. Furthermore,
> such comparisons are not expressed, "Guantanamo is an extermination
> camp!"; I think its very clear that death camp is the most common name.
>
>
>
> I have asked repeatedly how to get my messages to display properly in
> the mailing list, please inform me.
>
Your messages are fine even if in a somewhat smaller type size than
others.  It must be something to do with your settings, but then IANAT
(I Am Not A Techie).

The term "death camp" seems more generic than "extermination camp".  I
would have the impression that the management of the latter would be
somewhat more motivated toward the efficient accomplishment of their
aims.  The former might also include those who follow the technique of
malign neglect.  To include Guantanamo one would need to include old age
as an effective killing technique. :-)

Ec


from_name: Poor, Edmund W

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Dr. Connolley is an expert (was: ... no longer neutral
	contributor)

body:
Well, Stan, I admit to getting up late this morning, but please don't
use "arrows" as a metaphor. I'm not attacking William. I really like the
guy.

I'm just saying that if he's going to edit a Wikipedia article to say
that some POV he personally opposes is "clearly false", then he himself
should be cited as the source of that POV.

Dr. Connolley is one of the few people (if not the first) at Wikipedia
who play simultaneous roles: neutral contributor and authoritative
source.

Everyone else has to cite an "expert" as a source when writing articles.
I propose that Dr. Connolley is /himself/ a source. So I created a page
for him. It's not a vanity page, as some have termed [[Easter
Bradford]], because he didn't create it to publicize himself. It's an
article about an expert.

Uncle Ed


from_name: Nathan Russell

subject: [WikiEN-l] Spelling Day?

body:
--On Monday, November 24, 2003 4:56 PM +0000 Andre Engels <engelsAG at t-online.de> wrote:

> Nevertheless, I do think that a bot can be useful in correcting spelling mistakes. Just not a fully automatic bot. A bot of the kind of [[User:Robbot]] could considerably speed up the process while still ensuring human control of every single edit.

Or a human can run a spellcheck utility on the page text.  I think that's a much better idea.

Nathan


from_name: Fred Bauder

body:
No, we are comparing and contrasting divine revelation with science and
divine revelation comes out very poorly.

Fred

> From: "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com>
> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 16:43:25 -0500
> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Subject: RE: [WikiEN-l] William Connelley no longer neutral contributor
>
> Fred,
>
> Please do not charge me with equivocation or double-talk. These things
> are not true, and I request that you take them back. I have always been
> honest and straightforward on this list.
>
> If you don't like my church, that's another matter: you are free to
> regard my religious beliefs as "spurious -- but we're talking about
> science here, not my church.
>
> Patiently,
>
> Ed Poor
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


body:
> From: Ray <saintonge at telus.net>
> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 13:48:43 -0800
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] William Connelley no longer neutral contributor
>

There is no scienfic evidence that the following statement is controversial:

>> "CFCs
>> with lifetimes of decades and longer become well-mixed in the atmosphere,
>> percolate into the stratosphere, and there release chlorine."

Diffusion will spread any gas into the stratosphere. The action of
ultraviolet will briefly release elemental clorine.

Fred


subject:
[WikiEN-l] William Connelley no longer neutral contributor
	(Re: toJimbo)

body:
You're off-topic, the text in question relates to ozone depletion, not to
global warming.

Fred

> From: "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com>
> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 16:50:16 -0500
> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Subject: RE: [WikiEN-l] William Connelley no longer neutral contributor (Re:
> toJimbo)
>
> Alan asks:
>
>> Here the question is - does nearly every expert
>> in whatever field "global warming" falls under
>> (environmental science, or whatever) accept
>> William Connolley's claim? I don't know yet.
>
> That's precisely the question we've been trying to answer, and the two
> points of view are:
>
> * The Democratic Party of the US, along with the Clinton EPA and the
> UN's climate panel (IPCC) say that "nearly every expert" accepts the GW
> theory (which William also supports).
> * Others, like Bush (a politician); Lindzen and Balunias (scientists),
> Singer and Seitz (retired scientists) that that "less than half of all
> experts" accept the GW theory.
>
> So there is a dispute over whether there is a consensus about a theory.
> Is that clear now?
>
> Uncle Ed
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


body:
While we were chatting the following reasonable language has been put into
the article which Ed has not reverted:

SEPP (or Fred Singer) has also commented on the question of [[Ozone
depletion]], incorrectly asserting that the statement "CFCs with lifetimes
of decades and longer become well-mixed in the atmosphere, percolate into
the stratosphere, and there release chlorine." is controversial
[http://www.sepp.org/ozone/ozonefranklin.html].

Fred

> From: "Tim the Enchanter" <t-money at thehouse.ws>
> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 16:15:00 -0600
> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] William Connelley no longer neutral contributor (Re:
> toJimbo)
>
> I would say the answer to that is no.  You could go to a library and look up
> GW and you would find numerous books on either side of the argument.  You
> could do the same thing with a search on Google or a similar site and the
> results would be the same however, considering the nature of the internet,
> you might not consider that ample proof one way or the other.  I think Ed's
> suggestion of making Dr. Connelly a source would be the best way to handle
> it.
>
> [[User:T-Money]]
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Allan Crossman" <a.crossman at blueyonder.co.uk>
> To: <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
> Sent: Monday, November 24, 2003 3:39 PM
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] William Connelley no longer neutral contributor (Re:
> toJimbo)
>
>
>> Here the question is - does nearly every expert in whatever field
>> "global warming" falls under (environmental science, or whatever)
>> accept William Connolley's claim? I don't know yet.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Allan Crossman - http://dogma.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk
>> PGP keys - 0x06C4BCCA (new) || 0xCEC9FAE1 (compatible)
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


body:
> From: Jimmy Wales <jwales at bomis.com>
> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 14:22:28 -0800
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] William Connelley no longer neutral contributor (Re:
> toJimbo)
>
> Fred Bauder wrote:
>> SEPP (or Fred Singer) has also commented on the question of [[Ozone
>> depletion]], incorrectly asserting that the statement "CFCs with lifetimes
>> of decades and longer become well-mixed in the atmosphere, percolate into
>> the stratosphere, and there release chlorine." is controversial
>> [http://www.sepp.org/ozone/ozonefranklin.html].
>
> I suppose it is just a smidge 'softer' to say 'incorrectly' rather
> than 'obviously false'.  But it still commits _Wikipedia_ to a stand
> on an issue that we shouldn't take.

I don't think there is any credible evidence to the contrary. At least not
that is part of the canon of knowledge.

Fred


from_name: Stan Shebs

subject:
[WikiEN-l] William Connelley no longer neutral contributor(Re:
	toJimbo)

body:
Poor, Edmund W wrote:

>It's basically Singer's POV vs. Connolley's POV. Lots of
>environmentalsts side with Connolley, and lots of others side with
>Singer.
>
>
This sounds just like creationists working to bolster their position by
saying
it's just one POV against another.  It is a sneaky tactic; once you've
gotten
people to admit the discredited theory might just possibly conceivably be
valid in some alternate universe, then jump on it and demand equal time.

>Many of the environmentalists try to bolster their argument by saying
>that "the consensus of scientists" agrees with them. But I don't think
>Wikipedia ought to support the claim that such a "consensus" exists.
>
>Now if someone did a survey, and 95% of scientists agreed on a point, we
>could arguably call that a "consensus" (as we have done on evolution:
>95% of all scientists (not just biologist) surveyed support Darwin's
>theory, and well over 99% of biologists.
>
Another sneaky tactic; it's unlikely anyone will survey scientists about
global warning,
so you can safely say "we have to be open-minded until then". The
scientific consensus
is normally defined by the peer review and publication process, so
that's all that's necessary.
If there are no peer-reviewed articles anywhere, that's a sure sign of
crackpot theory.

Although the global warming hypothesis is controversial, many of the
specific
processes are completely straightforward and no longer a matter of
scientific dispute.
It would be very harmful to Wikipedia's credibility if solid theories
were to be called
into question in the name of NPOV, just because they are used as
supporting arguments
for theories that are controversial. What if data about animal evolution
unequivocally
supports the global warming hypothesis, are we going to back off and say
"well, it may
be a consensus, but the scientific community has been wrong before, we
need to go put
creationism mentions in every evolution-related article".

Stan

Stan


from_name: Tim the Enchanter

body:
I would say the answer to that is no.  You could go to a library and look up
GW and you would find numerous books on either side of the argument.  You
could do the same thing with a search on Google or a similar site and the
results would be the same however, considering the nature of the internet,
you might not consider that ample proof one way or the other.  I think Ed's
suggestion of making Dr. Connelly a source would be the best way to handle
it.

[[User:T-Money]]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Allan Crossman" <a.crossman at blueyonder.co.uk>
To: <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
Sent: Monday, November 24, 2003 3:39 PM
Subject: [WikiEN-l] William Connelley no longer neutral contributor (Re:
toJimbo)

> Here the question is - does nearly every expert in whatever field
> "global warming" falls under (environmental science, or whatever)
> accept William Connolley's claim? I don't know yet.
>
>
> --
> Allan Crossman - http://dogma.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk
> PGP keys - 0x06C4BCCA (new) || 0xCEC9FAE1 (compatible)


body:
Hmm, I saw no argument posted here between divine revelation and science.
So far everyone but you has been talking about science.  What is the name of
the article in question?  I'd like to look at it.

[[User:T-Money]]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Fred Bauder" <fredbaud at ctelco.net>
To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
Sent: Monday, November 24, 2003 4:23 PM
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] William Connelley no longer neutral contributor

> No, we are comparing and contrasting divine revelation with science and
> divine revelation comes out very poorly.
>
> Fred
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] William Connelley no longer neutral contributor

body:
Alan,

We should not bother disputing dead issues like the Flat Earth
hypothesis. Everybody already knows that mainstream science has held
that the earth is ball-shaped for centuries. Say rather that Joe Bloggs
believes the "discredited [[flat earth]] hypothesis", or simply that
Bloggs believes in a [[flat earth]]. I assume your Joe Bloggs is an
athlete or actor, or someone equally clueless about science.

But in the debate over the environment, there is no consensus. Some
scientists think one thing, while others think another. The viewpoint of
the UN's climate panel, which was a plank in the Democratic Party's
campaign, is that THERE IS A CONSENSUS FAVORING GLOBAL WARMING THEORY.

However, this is merely a politically motivated claim. The asserted
"consensus" does not exist. Many prominent scientists disagree;
therefore, there is no consensus.

So we should divide scientists, scientific agencies, and political
entities into:
(a) those that assert GW theory is true, and
(b) those that assert that GW theory lacks sufficient proof

I'm labelling William Connolley as one of the pro-GW camp, along with
the UN's climate panel and the Clinton administration's EPA. Lindzen,
Balunias and others get labelled anti-GW because of their skepticism.

What could be simpler?

Ed Poor


from_name: Adam [name omitted for privacy reasons]

body:
About this time last year, I remember a lot of people arguing with me that we must use the most common terminology when naming a page; has this convention changed? Wik continues to revert my move of [[extermination camp]] to [[death camp]] -- is there any usage of "death camp" which does not directly, or indirectly, refer to the death camps of World War II? Google finds 6 times as many death camp articles -- surely that makes it clear which is more common?!

Some would be mediators are trying to "compromise" by turning [[death camp]] into a disambiguation where they note, "Some people call prisons with execution chambers, as death camps" -- does not that very statement make it clear that "death camp" is the most common usage. -- In any case, while "death camp" is used to refer to non-death camps (such as the prison at Guantanamo) -- its really very clear that such comparisons are deragatory and not to be taken literally. Furthermore, such comparisons are not expressed, "Guantanamo is an extermination camp!"; I think its very clear that death camp is the most common name.

I have asked repeatedly how to get my messages to display properly in the mailing list, please inform me.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20031124/a215e300/attachment.htm


body:
Fred,

Please do not charge me with equivocation or double-talk. These things
are not true, and I request that you take them back. I have always been
honest and straightforward on this list.

If you don't like my church, that's another matter: you are free to
regard my religious beliefs as "spurious -- but we're talking about
science here, not my church.

Patiently,

Ed Poor


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Walter Vermeir

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: [Fwd: Invitation: how will be MediaWiki in 2004?]

body:
The say it is no spam :-)
The are not listmembers so the will not get the responds.

Walter

Quim Gil wrote:

> Please forward this message to the WikiMedia project cordinator or
> anyone assuming such role. This is not spam, is a real message addressed
> to the core WikiMedia developers. Thank you!
>
> Quim Gil
> http://interactors.coop
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject:
> Invitation: how will be MediaWiki in 2004?
> From:
> Quim Gil <qgil at interactors.coop>
> Date:
> Mon, 24 Nov 2003 15:24:28 +0100
> To:
> wikitech-l at Wikipedia.org
>
>
> Dear colleagues,
>
> We invite you to participate indirectly in a speech that we will offer
> in Barcelona on December 9th to 700 Internet related professionals. This
> will happen in the context of the Next'04 -
> http://www.infonomia.com/eventos/next04/ . This is one of the main &
> classic Internet events in Spain and it has a very special format: 10
> selected speakers have 5 minutes each to explain which they think will
> be the most relevant fact of the next year, and why.
>
> Our speech will bet for the consolidation of free software as an option
> known and recognized out of the usual specialized spheres, gaining
> attention from the media, businesses, institutions and society. We
> believe that this will happen partially thanks to projects like yours
> and this is why we want to include you in our speech.
>
> We ask you just for some lines explaining the main developments your
> project is plaining to release next year and how can this affect its
> context, the users and also the similar projects developed as
> proprietary software. This last element will help the audience of the
> event (mainly MS Windows / Mac users) to have references and understand
> by themselves how close these free software developments are related to
> their needs and their work.
>
> We ask you to send those lines to next04 at interactors.coop. There is a
> dummy example in http://interactors.coop/next04/ (sorry but this working
> website is only in Spanish). Here we will also publish the other answers
> we are receiving.
>
> We will enhance the speech with screenshots, taking advantage from the
> fact that the venue has a cinema screen. We wont get into details about
> the screenshots, they will serve as background images in order to help
> the audience to visualize the concept of "free software" that may sound
> too abstract to many of them. The idea is to obtain this surprise effect
> so usual between Linux newcomers: "But it looks just like Windows?!". If
> you want that we add your screenshots please send them to us, preferably
> at 1024x768. Or you can just send us the URLs and we make the captures,
> as you prefer.
>
> We hope that you find this experience interesting. We'll see how the
> experiment turns out and thank you very much in advance for your
> participation.
>
> Looking forward for your answer,
>


subject:
[WikiEN-l] William Connelley no longer neutral contributor (Re:
	toJimbo)

body:
Alan asks:

> Here the question is - does nearly every expert
> in whatever field "global warming" falls under
> (environmental science, or whatever) accept
> William Connolley's claim? I don't know yet.

That's precisely the question we've been trying to answer, and the two
points of view are:

* The Democratic Party of the US, along with the Clinton EPA and the
UN's climate panel (IPCC) say that "nearly every expert" accepts the GW
theory (which William also supports).
* Others, like Bush (a politician); Lindzen and Balunias (scientists),
Singer and Seitz (retired scientists) that that "less than half of all
experts" accept the GW theory.

So there is a dispute over whether there is a consensus about a theory.
Is that clear now?

Uncle Ed


from_name: Delirium

body:
Just to jump into this debate, here are the relevant two paragraphs,
from [[Ozone hole]]:

----
One prominent opponent of CFC reduction strategy has been the
atmospheric scientist Fred Singer, who has noted the scientific
uncertainties such as the lack of direct observations of surface UV
increases (as mentioned above). However, Singer goes far beyond this to
claim, for example, that "CFCs with lifetimes of decades and longer
become well-mixed in the atmosphere, percolate into the stratosphere,
and there release chlorine" is controversial [4], when there is clear
evidence for it (though Singer is wrong to use the word "percolate").
Singer, who is also a leading skeptic of strategies on global warming,
has consistently insisted that the remaining level of scientific
uncertainty about these issues is too high to justify taking the control
measures recommended by most other atmospheric scientists, given their
possible economic impact.

As noted above, Singer's objections go beyond reasonable skepticism.
Moreover, he is a retired scientist who has produced no new research
since the mid-1970s. His only recent publication in the peer-reviewed
scientific literature is a single technical comment published in 1994 in
Science magazine.[5] In 1995 testimony before the US Congress, Singer
himself stated that his last original, peer-reviewed research was in
1971. His contributions to the recent debates over ozone deption and
global warming have consisted entirely of commentaries and letters,
mostly self-published or published in newspapers and other popular media
rather than in scientific journals. Environmentalists critical of
Singer's role also allege a conflict of interest, pointing out that he
has financial ties to oil companies (Exxon, Shell, ARCO, Unocal, and Sun
Oil).
----

I don't think these read like NPOV.  I'm completely unfamiliar to the
debate, but they read to me like they were written by someone who is
trying to discredit Singer.  Whether Singer is credible or not is
another matter, but the tone of the writing shouldn't make it sound like
it's written by someone who dislikes Singer.  It also shouldn't be
phrased as *Wikipedia* making the claim that Singer's objections are
"beyond reasonable skepticism"--we are not in a position to judge what
skepticism is reasonable and what isn't.  If it is a widely accepted
viewpoint that Singer's skepticism is unreasonable, we should say
"However, most scientists find Singer's objections to go beyond
reasonable skepticism...", preferably with a source.  The rest of the
2nd paragraph in particular needs to be rephrased--it reads entirely as
someone trying to build a case against Singer, which Wikipedia is not
the proper place for.

-Mark


from_name: Andre Engels

subject: [WikiEN-l] Spelling Day?

body:
"Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> schrieb:
> We cannot allow spelling bots unless:
>
> A. The bot is registered
> B. The bot draws from an approved list
>
> A word like /thier/ can safely be changed to "their", since it's almost
> always a misspelling. However, there are many misspellings which can't
> be automatically corrected.
>
> I don't mind HUMANS whiling away their time doing a bit of spell-check
> work; I do it myself, when I want to relax.
>
> But if a machine can do it, then it probably shouldn't be done as a
> logged-in contributor (robot or "bot"). Rather, let's have our zealous
> programming staff write a custom spell-check program.

In my opinion that would just worsen the problem we are facing here. Although you say 'thier' can safely be changed, a bot (or spell-check program) simply changing all references will make errors - Thier is for example a German surname.

Checking wikipedia on google, it seems that the only page on Wikipedia where it would have been wrong, would have been [[Wikipedia:Common misspellings]], but the miss would be close - on quote.wikipedia.org there is an occurence where 'Thier' is an old spelling of the German word 'Tier'.

Nevertheless, I do think that a bot can be useful in correcting spelling mistakes. Just not a fully automatic bot. A bot of the kind of [[User:Robbot]] could considerably speed up the process while still ensuring human control of every single edit.

Andre Engels


subject:
[WikiEN-l] William Connelley no longer neutral contributor (Re:
	toEd)

body:
Oops! I drifted off topic, as Allan correctly points out. Sorry, I was
busy posting scientific proof that Michael Mann's "hockey stick" graph
was an erroneous reconstruction -- and I conflated the 2 controversies.

CFCs is something different: it's related to the [[ozone depletion]]
controversy - which is what Dr. Connolley and I were discussing earlier
today.

The only relation to global warming is the similarity in how the two
ideas have been handled. In both cases:

1. There was never any scientific consensus.
2. Politicians rushed in, urging quick action.

Ironically, on the CFC issue I might be running counter to my own "cult"
(or "church" as I prefer to call it: Hi, Fred :-) because Rev. Moon made
a passing reference to ozone depletion which indicated a position
somewhere between a "concern" and a "belief" that CFCs were causing harm
to the ozone layer. That's my problem: insufficient brainwashing,
leading to independent thought!

Cheers.

Ed Poor


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Sascha Noyes

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: [WikiEN-l] Spelling Day?

body:
On Monday 24 November 2003 16:45, Jimmy Wales wrote:
> Ray Saintonge wrote:
> > Spelling bots that do not require human intervention should be
> > completely outlawed.
>
> I could not possibly agree more.  As usual for Monday, I'm catching up
> on the weekend's festivities... is this actually happening, or just a
> theoretical discussion?

I don't know what bots are being run - (i.e. whether the bots require human
intervention or not) but there certainly are people running spell-correction
bots:

http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:typo

Best,
Sascha Noyes
--
Please encrypt all email. Public key available from
www.pantropy.net/snoyes.asc


body:
I can't revert it, because I promised Dr. Connolley I wouldn't engage in
an edit war with him. That doesn't mean I "accept it" as neutral, let
alone correct. I'm more interested in maintaining my good working
relationship with Dr. C. than in "winning" a point temporarily. I'm
thinking about the long-term good of the Wikipedia. I want William to
remain as a contributor and/or source. I also want the article to be
neutral and informative.

SEPP lists 4 points at ozonefranklin.html -- and claims that all 4 are
controversial, not just the one WC and I are discussing.

The big picture is:
* Some people say "the science is settled"
* Other people say "there is still a controversy"

I don't want Wikipedia to say Singer is right, or Moon is right, or the
UN is right. All I want is a nice clear neutral article which says what
everybody's point of view is.

Is that too much to ask for?

Wearily,

Uncle Ed


subject:
[WikiEN-l] William Connelley no longer neutral contributor
	(Re:toJimbo)

body:
The thing I like about WC is that he will listen to reason. He softened
the claim, merely because of our conversation on the talk pages.

He does NOT read this mailing list, as far as I know!

He might not agree with my take on "the neutral way to write the
article", but I think we can all agree that he is unfailingly polite :-)

Uncle Ed


body:
Singer wrote in 1995,

<< For the general public, and even for the trained scientist, these
scientific controversies are difficult to sort out. It is indeed a
multi-faceted problem, a chain with many links connecting the release of
CFCs into the atmosphere with the occurrence of skin cancer. Briefly,
the steps are postulated as follows (6):

1. CFCs with lifetimes of decades and longer become well-mixed in the
atmosphere, percolate into the stratosphere, and there release chlorine.

2. Chlorine, in its active form, can destroy ozone catalytically and
thereby lower its total amount in the stratosphere.

3. A reduced level of ozone results in an increased level of solar
ultraviolet radiation reaching the surface of the earth.

4. Exposure to increased UV leads to increases in skin cancer.

Each of these four steps is controversial, has not been sufficiently
substantiated, and may even be incorrect (7,8). One can reasonably
conclude that policy is rushing far ahead of the science. >>

William Connolley is picking apart #1 above (the well-mixed point).

The context of the discussion is the POLITICAL controversy over the CFC
ban. Singer says it's not justified, because NOT ALL of the 4 points in
the chain of reasoning are correct. If even one is incorrect, he argues,
then the Montreal Protocol was unjustified.

It's basically Singer's POV vs. Connolley's POV. Lots of
environmentalsts side with Connolley, and lots of others side with
Singer.

Many of the environmentalists try to bolster their argument by saying
that "the consensus of scientists" agrees with them. But I don't think
Wikipedia ought to support the claim that such a "consensus" exists.

Now if someone did a survey, and 95% of scientists agreed on a point, we
could arguably call that a "consensus" (as we have done on evolution:
95% of all scientists (not just biologist) surveyed support Darwin's
theory, and well over 99% of biologists.

I'm getting tired, so I'll see you guys tomorrow...

Uncle Ed


subject: [WikiEN-l] Spelling Day?

body:
--On Monday, November 24, 2003 1:48 PM -0800 Jimmy Wales <jwales at bomis.com> wrote:

> Ray wrote:
>> > A word like /thier/ can safely be changed to "their", since it's almost
>> > always a misspelling. However, there are many misspellings which can't
>> > be automatically corrected.
>> >
>> You can never be sure without looking at it in person.  Wasn't there a
>> French statesman by that name a century ago?  If that's the case the
>> proper correction would be to capitalize. :-)
>
> A quick search on google reveals that, though rare, there is a name
> 'Thier'.  I think this is actually a great example, because it *did*
> seem so unobjectionable at first glance.
>
> --Jimbo

So, Jimbo, is there a policy against fully automated spell-checking bots?

Nathan


from_name: Angela

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Project Sourceberg

body:
Brion wrote
>>In response to continual nagging, I've set up an
original-sources.

Thank you Brion.

Ec wrote
>>It didn't take long for people to start screwing it
up though.

No-one's screwing anything up. I probably should have
clarified this yesterday, but all that happened last
night is that *all* the articles from ps.wikipedia
were moved to sources.wikipedia. This was done to
clean up what ought to be Pashto Wikipedia. The
movement of them to sources did not involve any
editorial decisions and it does not reflect a view
that those articles should stay here. It was just
easier to get them moved in one go. Later, when we
have some policies there, we can decide what needs to
be done with them. Most of them have not been edited
since their move here, so they all need work, if not
deletion.

Ec wrote
>>Already somebody has moved in a number of lists that
properly belong
on Wikipedia

It was decided at Wikipedia that raw data such as
lists of postcodes were not encyclopedic, which is why
they moved from Wikipedia to ps.wikipedia in the first
place.

There are a number of things which need to be decided
- [[Project Sourceberg:What Wikisource is not]] is
probably a good place to start. We also need to decide
whether to stick with the name Project Sourceberg, or
to go with Wikisource (or WikiSource) or something
else entirely. Also, Walter has asked at Wikisource
whether the intention is for the site to be
international. I was assuming it was and we already
have articles in Latin, Polish, French and German, but
that decision is another one which will need to be
made.

Angela

________________________________________________________________________
Want to chat instantly with your online friends?  Get the FREE Yahoo!
Messenger http://mail.messenger.yahoo.co.uk


from_name: Rick

subject: [WikiEN-l] The Cunctator

body:
The Cunctator is unilaterally deleting Votes for Deletion headers from pages that are still under discussion on the Votes for Deletion page.

RickK

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20031124/245bdd80/attachment.htm


subject: [WikiEN-l] The Cunctator again

body:
The Cunctator has now begun marking his deletions of VfD headers as Minor changes.

RickK

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20031124/d79228d3/attachment.htm


subject:
[WikiEN-l] William Connelley no longer neutral
	contributor(Re: toJimbo)

body:
Still have confusion about the topic in this comment. The passage under
discussion relates to ozone depletion, not global warming. Other than that
it seems right on.

>> It's basically Singer's POV vs. Connolley's POV. Lots of
>> environmentalsts side with Connolley, and lots of others side with
>> Singer.

Is simply a false statement. There may be some serious scientists that doubt
that global warming exists or has a human cause, but there may not be any
that side with Singer on the ozone question. Who, for example, seriously
thinks UV radiation doesn't cause skin cancer? But what Ed says is even more
insidious, he says "lots of environmentalists (or is it others, what
others?) side with Singer.

The worst thing about this for me is that Ed makes absolutely no claim to
any knowledge or expertise on the underlying facts yet he advances a
position seemingly utterly without factual basis.

Fred

> From: Stan Shebs <shebs at apple.com>
> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 15:49:14 -0800
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] William Connelley no longer neutral contributor(Re:
> toJimbo)
>
> Poor, Edmund W wrote:
>
>> It's basically Singer's POV vs. Connolley's POV. Lots of
>> environmentalsts side with Connolley, and lots of others side with
>> Singer.
>>
>>
> This sounds just like creationists working to bolster their position by
> saying
> it's just one POV against another.  It is a sneaky tactic; once you've
> gotten
> people to admit the discredited theory might just possibly conceivably be
> valid in some alternate universe, then jump on it and demand equal time.
>
>> Many of the environmentalists try to bolster their argument by saying
>> that "the consensus of scientists" agrees with them. But I don't think
>> Wikipedia ought to support the claim that such a "consensus" exists.
>>
>> Now if someone did a survey, and 95% of scientists agreed on a point, we
>> could arguably call that a "consensus" (as we have done on evolution:
>> 95% of all scientists (not just biologist) surveyed support Darwin's
>> theory, and well over 99% of biologists.
>>
> Another sneaky tactic; it's unlikely anyone will survey scientists about
> global warning,
> so you can safely say "we have to be open-minded until then". The
> scientific consensus
> is normally defined by the peer review and publication process, so
> that's all that's necessary.
> If there are no peer-reviewed articles anywhere, that's a sure sign of
> crackpot theory.
>
> Although the global warming hypothesis is controversial, many of the
> specific
> processes are completely straightforward and no longer a matter of
> scientific dispute.
> It would be very harmful to Wikipedia's credibility if solid theories
> were to be called
> into question in the name of NPOV, just because they are used as
> supporting arguments
> for theories that are controversial. What if data about animal evolution
> unequivocally
> supports the global warming hypothesis, are we going to back off and say
> "well, it may
> be a consensus, but the scientific community has been wrong before, we
> need to go put
> creationism mentions in every evolution-related article".
>
> Stan
>
>
> Stan
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


from_name: Allan Crossman

body:
> I'm just saying that if he's going to edit a Wikipedia article to
> say that some POV he personally opposes is "clearly false",
> then he himself should be cited as the source of that POV.

So if I write "Joe Bloggs holds the clearly false view that the Earth
is flat" I'm violating NPOV? No I'm not, because in that case it
really is clearly false - though it could do with being rewritten for
a more sympathetic, encyclopedic style. But NPOV isn't the problem
there.

In order to show that William Connolley's edit is POV, you have to
show that the claim he says is "clearly false" is in fact a serious
point of contention in the relevant field.

NPOV is only an issue for claims that are not yet proven or disproven
to the satisfaction of the vast majority of the relevant experts.
You'll have to show that what William says is in fact in a serious
state of dispute in the field. It may or may not be. You've provided
no evidence on the matter.

Cheers,

--
Allan Crossman - http://dogma.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk
PGP keys - 0x06C4BCCA (new) || 0xCEC9FAE1 (compatible)


body:
Now, I'd like to add to my previous message that just saying
something is clearly false isn't very helpful to the non-informed
reader, and *why* it's known to be clearly false should be stated, if
possible. But something can still be said to be correct or incorrect,
even within the bounds of NPOV.

--
Allan Crossman - http://dogma.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk
PGP keys - 0x06C4BCCA (new) || 0xCEC9FAE1 (compatible)


subject:
[WikiEN-l] William Connelley no longer neutral contributor (Re: to
	Jimbo)

body:
> This bit is important -- it might be that "within the field" of
> postmodern literary criticism (for example), some idea 'X' is
> accepted as a matter of course, and that no one within that
> field questions it. But outside the field, others may find reason
> to dispute it vigorously.

No, that's not a fair example, as postmodern literary criticism is
just one camp in the study of literature. But if all camps - that is,
nearly everyone who was an expert in literature - accepted some
particular claim about literature, then that claim could probably be
stated with no qualifiers (I suspect there are very few such claims
in literary study...)

Here the question is - does nearly every expert in whatever field
"global warming" falls under (environmental science, or whatever)
accept William Connolley's claim? I don't know yet.

--
Allan Crossman - http://dogma.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk
PGP keys - 0x06C4BCCA (new) || 0xCEC9FAE1 (compatible)


subject:
[WikiEN-l] William Connelley no longer neutral contributor (Re: to
	Ed)

body:
Ed writes:

> That's precisely the question we've been trying to answer, and the
> two points of view are:
>
> The Democratic Party of the US, along with the Clinton EPA and the
> UN's climate panel (IPCC) say that "nearly every expert" accepts
> the GW theory (which William also supports).
>
> Others, like Bush (a politician); Lindzen and Balunias
> (scientists), Singer and Seitz (retired scientists) that that "less
> than half of all experts" accept the GW theory.

You've drifted off-topic, Ed. We're not talking about the GW theory
in general. We're talking about the claim that "CFCs with lifetimes
of decades and longer become well-mixed in the atmosphere, percolate
into the stratosphere, and there release chlorine."

In fact, I hadn't realised we were dealing with CFCs. Is this even
relevant to global warming? I still don't even know what article
we're talking about. Anyway, my point here is we're talking about a
single claim, not entire theories. Even if theories are disputed,
single claims relevant to them need not be.

--
Allan Crossman - http://dogma.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk
PGP keys - 0x06C4BCCA (new) || 0xCEC9FAE1 (compatible)


from_name: The Cunctator

subject: [WikiEN-l] William Connelley a rational contributor

body:
On 11/24/03 5:54 PM, "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> wrote:

> Singer wrote in 1995,
>
> << For the general public, and even for the trained scientist, these
> scientific controversies are difficult to sort out. It is indeed a
> multi-faceted problem, a chain with many links connecting the release of
> CFCs into the atmosphere with the occurrence of skin cancer. Briefly,
> the steps are postulated as follows (6):
>
> 1. CFCs with lifetimes of decades and longer become well-mixed in the
> atmosphere, percolate into the stratosphere, and there release chlorine.
>
>
> 2. Chlorine, in its active form, can destroy ozone catalytically and
> thereby lower its total amount in the stratosphere.
>
> 3. A reduced level of ozone results in an increased level of solar
> ultraviolet radiation reaching the surface of the earth.
>
> 4. Exposure to increased UV leads to increases in skin cancer.
>
> Each of these four steps is controversial, has not been sufficiently
> substantiated, and may even be incorrect (7,8). One can reasonably
> conclude that policy is rushing far ahead of the science. >>
>
> William Connolley is picking apart #1 above (the well-mixed point).
>
> The context of the discussion is the POLITICAL controversy over the CFC
> ban. Singer says it's not justified, because NOT ALL of the 4 points in
> the chain of reasoning are correct. If even one is incorrect, he argues,
> then the Montreal Protocol was unjustified.
>
> It's basically Singer's POV vs. Connolley's POV. Lots of
> environmentalsts side with Connolley, and lots of others side with
> Singer.

Actually, it's "people who believe in science" vs. Singer.

Arguing that active chlorine doesn't destroy ozone catalytically, that ozone
doesn't absorb solar radiation, and that UV radiation doesn't cause skin
cancer is the same as arguing that the laws of physics and chemistry are
wrong. It's arguing that Newton, Einstein, Watson & Crick, Mendeleev, etc.
were wackos.

These are arguments that are BEYOND THE PALE of scientific debate.

It's not "environmentalists" vs. "others".

It is true that there is debate over the total effect of CFCs, what their
actual longevity is, exactly how variation in UV radiation changes cancer
rates, etc., etc. but Singer's claims are bogus.

Ed also wrote:
> The big picture is:
> * Some people say "the science is settled"
> * Other people say "there is still a controversy"

That's a simplification so gross as to be a total misrepresentation of the
truth.

Under Ed's criteria, one could write

The big picture is:
* Some people say "the Holocaust happened"
* Other people say "there is still a controversy"

The big picture is:
* Some people say "Judaism is a valid religion"
* Other people say "Jewish people, you have to repent"

The big picture is:
* Some people say "Islamic countries are nations of human beings"
* Other people say they are "the principalities of darkness" with "demonic"
people

Yes, I'm falling into the Godwin trap, but we don't present the existence of
the Holocaust as simply a dispute between different factions of historians.
We don't present Rev. Moon's stated opinions about Jews as an equal
counterweight in our entries on Judaism. Nor we we present General Boykin's
claims about Islam as an equal side in our entries on Islam.

Instead, we create a consistent, coherent picture of the world through our
interlocking articles. For example, if on one page we say that active
chlorine doesn't destroy ozone catalytically, that contradicts all the pages
that describe how chemistry works.


subject: [WikiEN-l] The Cunctator again

body:
On 11/24/03 11:23 PM, "Rick" <giantsrick13 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> The Cunctator has now begun marking his deletions of VfD headers as Minor
> changes.
>
A: Why don't you mention which pages you're talking about?
B: I'm not deleting the headers.


subject: [WikiEN-l] The Cunctator

body:
Rick wrote:

> The Cunctator is unilaterally deleting Votes for Deletion headers from
> pages that are still under discussion on the Votes for Deletion page.
>
Well done!


subject: [WikiEN-l] The Cunctator again

body:
Rick wrote:

> The Cunctator has now begun marking his deletions of VfD headers as
> Minor changes.
>
As long as it doesn't change the meaning of the article, I guess they
are minor.

Ec


from_name: Dave Caroline

subject: [Wikitech-l] RE: [WikiEN-l] Spelling Day?

body:
At 09:43 24/11/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>We cannot allow spelling bots unless:
>
>A. The bot is registered
>B. The bot draws from an approved list
>
>A word like /thier/ can safely be changed to "their", since it's almost
>always a misspelling. However, there are many misspellings which can't
>be automatically corrected.
>
>I don't mind HUMANS whiling away their time doing a bit of spell-check
>work; I do it myself, when I want to relax.
>
>But if a machine can do it, then it probably shouldn't be done as a
>logged-in contributor (robot or "bot"). Rather, let's have our zealous
>programming staff write a custom spell-check program.
>
>Uncle Ed
>_________________

When I get my search engine converted to the wiki db, it comes with a
moderated spell checker
the result should be a fast search and a table full of typos for bots and
humanbots to play with.

Archivist

>______________________________
>Wikitech-l mailing list
>Wikitech-l at Wikipedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


references:
<3FC27A83.23048.222CC7@localhost>	<004c01c3b2d8$68e257d0$6601a8c0@frontdesk>
	<r5iekvw4v7t.fsf@gill.maths.keele.ac.uk>

body:
Gareth Owen wrote:

>"Tim the Enchanter" <t-money at thehouse.ws> writes:
>
>
>
>>I would say the answer to that is no.  You could go to a library and look up
>>GW and you would find numerous books on either side of the argument.
>>
>>
>
>Or you could look in scientific journalists.  You will find a great many
>scholarly papers supporting GW, and comparitively very few that do not.
>They may be wrong, but they're not really sharply divided.
>
>Don't judge cutting edge science by what appears in the popular press.
>If you want to know what scientists are thinking, look in journals.
>
>
Well, perhaps "comparatively few", but certainly not "none" or "almost
none".  They've declined in number recently, but there are still a good
number of "sceptical" papers being published.  There was one in Climate
Research pushed just a few months ago (January 2003) by Soon and
Baliunus that raised somewhat of a ruckus (abstract at
http://www.int-res.com/abstracts/cr/v23/n2/p89-110.html, among other
places).  Whether this paper or any others are accurate or not is
another matter, but it is true that they're being published in
mainstream peer-reviewed journals, by researchers at fairly prestigious
institutions.

-Mark


from_name: Sheldon Rampton

subject: [WikiEN-l] RE: William Connelley no longer neutral contributor

body:
Probably I should stay out of this one, but oh well, here goes...

The discussion thus far has dealt with several, separate topics: (1)
the appropriate role of "experts" vs. "non-experts", and of William
Connolley in particular; (2) global warming; (3) chlorine and the
ozone layer; and (4) the bona fides of S. Fred Singer (Ed Poor's
favorite authority on topics the topic of global warming).

With regard to the problem of "experts" vs. "non-experts," my own
expertise (ahem) comes from having written a book that is titled
(with ironic intent), "Trust Us, We're Experts." In it, my co-author
John Stauber and I make the point that many seeming "experts" are in
fact people with undisclosed conflicts of interest that skew their
points of view in ways that the public doesn't always see. For this
reason, it behooves us all to take experts with a grain of salt
rather than merely deferring to their claims of superior knowledge.

Nevertheless, the fact is that experts _do_ exist in many areas who
have more knowledge than lay people in the area of their expertise.
If I am trying to decide whether to have brain surgery, I think I am
probably better off taking the advice of a physician than of my uncle
Byron (even though the surgeon MAY have a profit-related motive for
wanting to influence my decision).

Ed seems to be saying that since William Connolley is an expert in
his field of climate science, Connolley should therefore be treated
as someone with a "point of view." Here, Ed is making a category
error. It is true that experts frequently have strong opinions
related to topics in their field of expertise. However, non-experts
ALSO frequently have strong opinions related to topics in their
fields of NON-expertise. A case in point here is Ed himself, who
clearly has a strong opinion about the topic of global warming, even
though he is not an expert in that field. (I'm not saying this to
disparage Ed. He's acknowledged himself that he is not an expert in
the field, and for that matter, neither am I.)

I see no reason whatsoever to believe that non-experts in a field are
better able to arrive at NPOV formulations than experts in a field.
If anything, experts are _better_ able to do this. Consider, for
example, the following summary of a news story that appeared awhile
back in the New York Times:

>New research indicates that incompetent people tend not to know they
>are incompetent. Not only that, they also tend to be very confident
>that they know what they're doing -- even more confident of their
>own competence than people who really do know what they're doing.
>
>   The New York Times reports that Cornell University psychology
>professor David Dunning reached those conclusions in a study he
>conducted with a graduate student, and wrote about his findings in
>the December 1999 issue of the Journal of Personality and Social
>Psychology.
>
>  The researchers concluded that one reason incompetent people do not
>know how much they do not know, is that the cognitive skills
>required to be competent are also required for recognizing actual
>competence.
>
>   Researcher Justin Kruger told the Times that the incompetence of
>incompetent people "robs them of their ability to realize" they have
>a problem. It also makes it difficult for incompetent folks to
>recognize competence in others.
>
>   By the way, the researchers say they also noticed that people who
>can't tell a joke tend not to realize that they're not funny -- and
>as a result they persist in telling jokes badly.

SOURCE:
http://www.truthinjustice.org/incompetent.htm

I think as Wikipedia continues to mature and becomes better regarded
as a credible information  resource, it is likely to attract more and
more contributors with expertise and credentials. We ought to welcome
this development (without, of course, excluding the participation
non-experts). But if we start declaring that the experts'
contributions must be labeled as "their point of view," we will be
effectively giving experts second-class status compared to
non-experts, which is precisely an ass backwards way of doing things.

What Ed is really saying here is that he, Ed, disagrees with some of
William Connolley's edits. Rather than try to insist that Connolley's
edits all be flagged as "Connolley's point of view," Ed should deal
with this the same way everyone else does when they have a
disagreement: He should try to work it out with Connolley in a
mutually acceptable way. If Ed is simply feeling out-gunned by
William Connolley's expertise and thinks that Connolley is a BIASED
expert, the proper solution is that Ed should try to find ANOTHER
expert with a point of view more to Ed's liking, and recruit that
expert to participate in working on the global warming article.
(Maybe he can recruit S. Fred Singer to speak for himself.)

(2)
I'm not going to say much about global warming, other than to point
out that it is a completely different topic than the issue of
chlorofluorocarbons and the ozone layer. The only thing the two
issues have in common is that they both relate to atmospheric science
and that environmentalists are concerned about both of them, while S.
Fred Singer thinks that they aren't much of a problem.

The other point that should be made about global warming is that it
is a topic that has been discussed two arenas, namely the arena of
scientific investigation, and the arena of public opinion. The
scientific investigation has been conducted in peer-reviewed
scientific journals, which is where scientific investigatiosn SHOULD
take place. The public debate has played out in newspapers,
magazines, political parties and other fora. It is appropriate that
both arenas exist, but it is important to avoid confusing the two.

(3)
With regard to the effect of human chlorine emissions such as
chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) on the ozone layer, this really _is_ a
settled matter. Even S. Fred Singer, who was stridently dismissive of
CFC-ozone theory in the 1980s and early 1990s, has largely dropped
the topic. The August 25, 1995 issue of _Science_ magazine quotes him
saying, "I'm now reasonably convinced that CFCs make the major
contribution to stratospheric chlorine, and what has convinced me is
the published data." He's hardly said a word about the topic since
1996, even on his own web site. His "Stratospheric Ozone" page
contains a slew of articles that he wrote up through 1995, the year
that the scientists who first warned of the ozone hole received a
Nobel Prize. After 1996, all Singer has on it site is a duplicate of
something he wrote the previous year grousing about the Nobel award,
followed by a single brief letter he wrote in 1998 that deals with
some tangential points but doesn't challenge any of the main points
in the scientific CFC-ozone consensus.
--
--------------------------------
|  Sheldon Rampton
|  Editor, PR Watch (www.prwatch.org)
|  Author of books including:
|     Friends In Deed: The Story of US-Nicaragua Sister Cities
|     Toxic Sludge Is Good For You
|     Mad Cow USA
|     Trust Us, We're Experts
|     Weapons of Mass Deception
--------------------------------


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikipedia-l] possible link rendering bug?

body:
On Nov 25, 2003, at 03:48, Peter Gervai wrote:

> Check these things on hu.wikipedia.org:
>
> See [[H?v?zi-t? TT]] (you can find it in recent changes if you're not
> accent-read), and check "Mi hivatkozik erre" ("who links here").
> Nobody.

Various link table bugs that affect Whatlinkshere and link style are a
known problem and are being slowly rooted out as they are found.

If you have specific information, please add it to the bug report
tracker:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?
func=detail&aid=802814&group_id=34373&atid=411192

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20031125/1f9a9036/attachment.pgp


from_name: Anthere

subject: [WikiEN-l] The Cunctator again

body:
From: Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net>

Rick wrote:

>> The Cunctator has now begun marking his deletions
of >>VfD headers as
>> Minor changes.

>As long as it doesn't change the meaning of the
article, >I guess they are minor.

>Ec

Agreed. VfD headers are not especially relevant to the
content of the articles. The headers especially deface
those articles which have no reasons to be deleted :-)

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: [Wikipedia-l] possible link rendering bug?

body:
Last night I found and fixed a bug in the new persistent link cache
code which seriously broke updates to the link tables; when the
persistent cache was loaded, the 'old' links variables weren't being
set at all, so every link in the page would be added as a duplicate to
the database, and newly removed links would not get cleared. On top of
this the linkscc entry wasn't cleared due to a missing global
declaration. Oh, those annoying little tiny things!

Anyway, we've still got a whole bunch of _old_ link table bugs to deal
with, as well as having monstrously corrupt tables to start with. E23's
working on speeding up the link rebuild script, which is great -- soon
we hopefully will be able to clean up the tables without taking the
wikis offline for half a day just to do it.

We really should scrutinize the persistent linkcache stuff a little
more, since synchronization errors between the cache and the regular
links tables can cause fun trouble that's hard to track down.
(Particularly as the data blob in linkscc is gzipped to minimize
io/cache stress; this makes it very hard to inspect it manually.)

Anyway, a number of reported link-table bugs have been consolidated
into bug #802814:
http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?
func=detail&aid=802814&group_id=34373&atid=411192

Bad link tables are mostly just a nuisance at present, but they do
interfere with a lot of things.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20031125/1b4ccc64/attachment.pgp>


from_name: Jimmy Wales

references:
<3FC27A83.23048.222CC7@localhost>
	<004c01c3b2d8$68e257d0$6601a8c0@frontdesk>
	<r5iekvw4v7t.fsf@gill.maths.keele.ac.uk>

body:
Gareth Owen wrote:
> Or you could look in scientific journalists.  You will find a great many
> scholarly papers supporting GW, and comparitively very few that do not.
> They may be wrong, but they're not really sharply divided.

Then that's what we should say, of course.  It's really a bit much for
_Wikipedia_ to leap from that to saying that the other side is
"incorrect" or that what they are saying is "obviously false".

> Don't judge cutting edge science by what appears in the popular press.
> If you want to know what scientists are thinking, look in journals.

I think that's right, but I also think that one difference between an
encyclopedia and a journal is that an encyclopedia has to hold to a
much higher standard of proof before declaring something to actually
be the case.  Journals can afford to be partisan and sloppy in a way
that we can't.

--Jimbo


body:
Stan Shebs wrote:
> This sounds just like creationists working to bolster their position
> by saying it's just one POV against another.  It is a sneaky tactic;
> once you've gotten people to admit the discredited theory might just
> possibly conceivably be valid in some alternate universe, then jump
> on it and demand equal time.

Perhaps that is what Ed is doing, but it doesn't sound like it to me.
The particular statement that he's discussing is an example where, as
originally written, _Wikipedia_ was itself making a claim that is
significiantly too strong for us.

> If there are no peer-reviewed articles anywhere, that's a sure sign of
> crackpot theory.

That's one possible sign yes, but of course that is NOT what is going
on here.  There are peer-reviewed articles.

> Although the global warming hypothesis is controversial, many of the
> specific processes are completely straightforward and no longer a
> matter of scientific dispute.  It would be very harmful to
> Wikipedia's credibility if solid theories were to be called into
> question in the name of NPOV, just because they are used as
> supporting arguments for theories that are controversial.

Ah, I think this is one of the misconceptions about good NPOV writing.
We do not need to "call into question" solid theories, we just need to
accurately report on the state of the actual field in question.

--Jimbo


body:
(I've omitted the lengthy quotes.)

Delirium wrote:
> I don't think these read like NPOV.  I'm completely unfamiliar to the
> debate, but they read to me like they were written by someone who is
> trying to discredit Singer.

I agree completely.  That's one of the worst examples of non-neutral
writing that I've seen on Wikipedia in a long time.

> It also shouldn't be phrased as *Wikipedia* making the claim that
> Singer's objections are "beyond reasonable skepticism"--we are not
> in a position to judge what skepticism is reasonable and what isn't.
> If it is a widely accepted viewpoint that Singer's skepticism is
> unreasonable, we should say "However, most scientists find Singer's
> objections to go beyond reasonable skepticism...", preferably with a
> source.

I think you said this very very well.

--Jimbo


references:
<E506B3FF6BC1254C9AC1B948C380BC280F4538@sm-nyny-xm05.nena.wdpr.disney.com>
	<3FC298FA.1050909@apple.com> <3FC2A7CB.5030109@rufus.d2g.com>
	<20031125130740.GH3295@joey.bomis.com>
	<r5i7k1o36qk.fsf@gill.maths.keele.ac.uk>

body:
Gareth Owen wrote:
>Are you really suggesting that
>     "most scientists find Theory X to be beyond reasonable
> skepticism."  is not an acceptable standard for the exclusion of
> Theory X from a supposedly scientific encyclopedia.

I don't think I'm suggesting that, no.  It depends on what you mean,
so I better ask some questions before I answer.  (And I think there's
a grammatical typo of some sort in what you wrote?  I think you meant
to say 'exclusion of criticism of Theory X'?)

What do you mean by 'exclusion'?  Do you mean that if most scientists
believe something, that we should be careful not to even _mention_
alternatives that are actually held by significant critics?

I think if most scientists find Theory X to be beyond reasonable
skepticism, then that's exactly what we should say.  We should not
give "equal time" to the other side, nor make it seem as if our
opinion is that both points of view are equally valid.  But we can
achieve all of that without actually needing to make the claim
ourselves.

We do this all the time in articles on actually crackpot notions,
like the Loch Ness Monster.  Here's a very good paragraph:

>The Loch Ness Monster legend refers to the purported existence of a
>large plesiosaur-like creature that lives in Loch Ness, a large lake
>in Scotland near the city of Inverness. "Nessie" is generally
>considered to be a sea monster. In July 2003, the BBC reported that an
>extensive investigation of Loch Ness by a BBC team, using 600 separate
>sonar beams, found no trace of any "sea monster" in the loch. The BBC
>team stated that it is now conclusively proven that "Nessie" does not
>exist [1].

Notice that the reader is not given any wishy-washy nonsense about
"some say this, some say that".  And yet, at the same time, the
article *itself*, Wikipedia *itself*, takes no stand on the issue.  (I
haven't read the rest of the article just now, so I can't say if the
rest of the article is as good.)

--Jimbo


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Shebs re: creationism (was: William Connolley no
	longer neutral contributor)

body:
Gareth Owen wrote:
> No.  You called for William Connolley's edits to be reverted.

In the interests of accuracy, Ed said absolutely no such thing.  He's
very supportive of those edits, in fact, and has additionally
suggested that it would be appropriate to cite Connolley as a source.

--Jimbo


subject: [WikiEN-l] Spelling Day?

body:
Nathan Russell wrote:
> So, Jimbo, is there a policy against fully automated spell-checking
> bots?

Uhm, o.k., if we really need it.  I'm open to counter-arguments, but I
can't see that anyone has really said that such bots are a good idea.
Automated assistance for human spellchecking, now that makes sense to
me.

Actually, I don't see any reason for a specific policy, as this
already seems to be well-covered by our existing bot policy.  On
http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3ABots
we see that a robot must be (1) useful (2) harmless (3) not a
server hog and (4) approved by someone.

It strikes me as fairly unlikely that a fully automated spell-checking
bot could satisfy (2).  It's actually a paradigm case of a bot that
"sounds good at first" but which actually would be a disaster.

--Jimbo


from_name: Poor, Edmund W

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Shebs re: creationism (was: William Connolley no longer
	neutral contributor)

body:
Stan compared my presentation of the Singer-Connolley conflict in terms
of "creationists". I hope what he meant by 'creationists' was "advocates
of creation science" - a subset of the larger group of Creationists.

Creationists believe that God created (a) the universe (b) all living
things and (c) human beings: their view is called Creationism. Some
creationists espouse a POV they call "creation science", which ASSERTS
THAT creationism is compatible with (or even supported by) geology and
biology.

The former view, creationism, is beyond debate: it's just something a
lot of religious folks believe. Wikipedia isn't going to say they're
wrong, no matter how many of us are atheists.

The latter view, so-called "creation science", is highly controversial:
a lot of creationists believe it, but most scientists do not. The
Wikipedia article says (or should say):

* Most scientists dismiss "creation science" as [[pseudoscience]]

(I think I wrote that line myself!)

The conflict over environmentalist ideas -- like (1) CFC damage to the
ozone layer leads to human skin cancer or (2) CO2 emissions make the
atmosphere heat up too much -- is not parallel to "creationism" vs.
evolution but rather to "creation science" vs. evolution.

However, there is nothing about Singer's views that is like so-called
"creation science". He's not dressing up his faith in scientific
clothes: he's reporting genuine dissent WITHIN the scientific community.
Scientists like MIT's Richard Lindzen (an IPCC leader!) and Harvared's
Sallie Baliunas DISAGREE with other scientists.

All I'm saying is that the controversy should be REPORTED in Wikipedia
articles.

Uncle Ed


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Surveys have been taken (was: William Connolley no
	longer neutral contributor)

body:
> >Now if someone did a survey, and 95% of scientists agreed on a point,

> >we could arguably call that a "consensus" (as we have done on
> >evolution: 95% of all scientists (not just biologist) surveyed
support
> >Darwin's theory, and well over 99% of biologists.
>
> Another sneaky tactic; it's unlikely anyone will survey
> scientists about global warning, so you can safely say
> "we have to be open-minded until then".

Stan, this is simply incorrect. There have been at least 2 different GW
surveys, and one of them was added to the Wikipedia by someone other
than me:

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

The survey shows an even split among scientists on whether the GW theory
is true. This is far from the "consensus" that some GW theory proponents
claim exists.

The fact that a survey contradicts the political views of the Clinton
administration and of the UN climate panel, should be in the Wikipedia.

...unless, of course, someone genuinely feels that a mean score of 4.8
on a scale from 1 (agree) and 7 (disagree) represents a "consensus" of
agreement!

Uncle Ed


subject:
[WikiEN-l] UV-A (not UV-B) causes deadly skin cancer (was: William
	Connolley no longer neutralcontributor)

body:
> There may be some serious scientists that
> doubt that global warming exists or has a
> human cause, but there may not be any that
> side with Singer on the ozone question. Who,
> for example, seriously thinks UV radiation
> doesn't cause skin cancer?

Sorry about the "shifting ground" confusion. Let's try to straighten it
out.

Singer does NOT doubt that CERTAIN BANDS of ultraviolet radiation can
cause skin cancer. Rather, he says argues that the chain of causation,
beginning with increased CFC emissions, and ending with increased human
skin cancer, is faulty.

There are 2 relevant bands of ultraviolet: UV-A and UV-B. UV-A causes
"malignant melanoma", an often fatal form of skin cancer. UV-B causes
the non-malignant form of cancer: i.e., you don't die from it.

Singer's points out that UV-A (the ultraviolet radiation which causes
deadly cancer) is UTTERLY UNAFFECTED by ozone. The hole he pokes in the
EPA argument for the Montreal Protocol is that:

* ozone depletion, if it were to occur, will not make more UV-A reach
the earth's surface
* if no more UV-A reaches the earth's surface, people won't be exposed
to more of it and thus people WILL NOT die more often from skin cancer.

Hope this clears this up. This info should go into the [[ozone
depletion]] article, if it's not there already.

Ed Poor


subject: [WikiEN-l] Quote me as saying I was misquoted

body:
Gareth thought:

--> > He's not dressing up his faith in scientific clothes: he's
reporting
--> > genuine dissent WITHIN the scientific community.  Scientists like
--> > MIT's Richard Lindzen (an IPCC leader!) and Harvared's Sallie
Baliunas
--> > DISAGREE with other scientists.
-->
--> On certain issues.
--> Certainly not on CFC atmospheric chemistry, as you seek to make out.

Yes, on GW theory -- as I stated.

No, not on the ozone depletion issue -- I never said they did.

Lindzen and Baliunas have repeatedly expressed their disagreement with
environmentalists over the GW theory. I cannot recall Baliunas
expressing ANY opinion on ozone depletion. Lindzen might have, but don't
recall mentioning that in recent letters here -- let alone in a
Wikipedia article.

--> > All I'm saying is that the controversy should be REPORTED in
Wikipedia
--> > articles.
-->
--> No.  You called for William Connolley's edits to be reverted. And
you called for the idea that CFCs deplete the ozone layer to be
considered controversial.

That is incorrect. I did NOT call for WC's edits to be reverted. It's
just the opposite: I promised not to enter into an edit war with him,
and I'm leaving his edits AS THEY STAND. Fred Bauder called attention to
the fact that I DID NOT revert WC's latest edit.

Please read more carefully.

Ed Poor


subject: [WikiEN-l] Gareth, don't call me dishonest

body:
Gareth,

Please do not call me dishonest. At worst, I might be mistaken.

In this case, I believe it is you who are mistaken.

There were several questions on the survey.

You are presenting one question, then giving the score for the answer to
another question. Assuming good faith, you are simply making an honest
error.

Later on today, I will explain this further.

But for now, please do not accuse me of dishonesty over this. If you
think I'm mistaken, just explain the mistake. Accusations of dishonesty
are in poor taste, as Jimbo recently said.

Stunned,

Ed Poor


from_name: Gareth Owen

subject: [WikiEN-l] William Connelley no longer neutral contributor

body:
"Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> writes:

> But in the debate over the environment, there is no consensus. Some
> scientists think one thing, while others think another. The viewpoint of
> the UN's climate panel, which was a plank in the Democratic Party's
> campaign, is that THERE IS A CONSENSUS FAVORING GLOBAL WARMING THEORY.

Ed, will you drop this.  You don't know what you're talking about.

There is not unanimity, there is however, certainly a massive majority of
informed scientific opinion that believes in anthropogenic.  I don't know
whether consensus require unanimity, but that *is* the present majority
belief.
They may be wrong, but thats what most environmental scientists believe.
Trust me, I work in the area.

To state otherwise is to be totally
out of touch with the scientific literature.

> What could be simpler?

The fact that you persistently and erroneously exaggerate the size of the
anti-camp within the scientific community -- mainly due to their hefty
funding, loud voices and desire to appear iconoclasts.
--
Gareth Owen
"The best lack all conviction and the worst are full of passionate intensity"
                  --  W. B. Yeats forsees the standard of debate on wikipedia-l


subject:
[WikiEN-l] William Connelley no longer neutral contributor (Re:
	toJimbo)

body:
"Tim the Enchanter" <t-money at thehouse.ws> writes:

> I would say the answer to that is no.  You could go to a library and look up
> GW and you would find numerous books on either side of the argument.

Or you could look in scientific journalists.  You will find a great many
scholarly papers supporting GW, and comparitively very few that do not.
They may be wrong, but they're not really sharply divided.

Don't judge cutting edge science by what appears in the popular press.
If you want to know what scientists are thinking, look in journals.
--
Gareth Owen
"The best lack all conviction and the worst are full of passionate intensity"
                  --  W. B. Yeats forsees the standard of debate on wikipedia-l


body:
"Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> writes:

> So there is a dispute over whether there is a consensus about a theory.
> Is that clear now?

Don't listen to what politicians say scientists think.
Politicians are natural liars. Look in the journals.
--
Gareth Owen
"The best lack all conviction and the worst are full of passionate intensity"
                  --  W. B. Yeats forsees the standard of debate on wikipedia-l


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Enviornmentalism vs. Science (was: William Connolley a
	rational contributor)

body:
> Ed > It's basically Singer's POV vs. Connolley's POV. Lots of
> Ed > environmentalsts side with Connolley, and lots of others side
with
> Ed > Singer.

Cunctator replied to Ed:
> Actually, it's "people who believe in science" vs. Singer.

Mere POV.

This is one of the most common arguments of enviromentalists. They claim
their position on GW is "the scientific position", hence anyone who
disagrees with their position is "unscientific".

They bolster this position with their incessantly repeated claim that
there is a "scientific consensus" in favor of GW theory.

There are 2 logical errors with this POV, either of which is sufficient
to demolish it. Anyway, it's their POV and should be labelled as such in
Wikipedia articles, which is all I've ever asked for.

1. There is no scientific consensus. They just made it up. The IPCC's
contributors, when polled, were split 50-50 on whether human-caused
emissions were contributing to GW.

2. Even if an overwhelming majority of people believe something, this
doesn't make it true. All the experts were against Copernicus, until one
solitary observer (Galileo) pointed his telescope at the Jupiter and
discovered 4 moons revolving around it.

The POV that the debate is "science" vs. the skeptics might be held by
the editors of ''Scientific American'' magazine, but that is a popular
magazine for laymen, with a long history of taking political stances on
scientific issues. SciAm is hardly representative of the world's
scientists.

Uncle Ed


subject: [Wikitech-l] Talk page notification

body:
On Nov 25, 2003, at 08:41, Erik Moeller wrote:
> Talk page notification seems to be no longer working, at least on the
> English Wikipedia. Anyone got any leads what's wrong?

Works fine for me.

Are you referring to bug #843038 "Newtalk flag sometimes not cleared
from cache"?
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?
func=detail&aid=843038&group_id=34373&atid=411192

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20031125/9d048453/attachment.pgp>


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Surveys HAVE been conducted,
	and they indicate LACK of consensus on GW theory

body:
Gareth,

Perhaps you agree with the popular laymen's POV (espoused by liberals,
Democrats, environmentalists, etc.) that there is a massive majority of
informed scientific opinion that believes in anthropogenic global
warming. But YOUR AGREEMENT with that viewpoint is insufficient reason
for the Wikipedia to endorse it.

Rather, we should consult surveys to see whether or not such a "massive
majority" exists.

Some people, such as you and Fred (if I recall correctly) seem to
believe two apparently contradictory things:

(a) that no surveys of scientists' GW theory
    acceptance have been conducted, and
(b) that there's a "consensus" of scientists
    who accept GW theory

You can't have it both ways.

But if there is some prominent figure or organization which holds both
those beliefs, we can mention that in the appropriate article.

The same article, however, should mention the EXISTENCE of surveys -
even if this makes holders of the "no surveys conducted" POV look
foolish. It's kind of like the flat earth thing. We mention believers in
flat earth, where appropriate, but we point out that their belief has
been discredited.

Ed Poor


body:
Gareth wrote:

> They may be wrong, but thats what most
> environmental scientists believe.
> Trust me, I work in the area.

Most of your colleagues might believe it, but I'd prefer to go by a
national or international survey.

Otherwise, the most a Wikipedia article could say is that most
scientists working at XYZ Institution believe CO2 is warming up the
atmosphere.

This hardly proves there is a worldwide consensus.

Ed Poor


subject: [WikiEN-l] Nasty Gareth, Mean Gareth

body:
Gareth,

I asked you to stop calling me "dishonest". I offered the possibility
that I had made a mistake.

Yet you persist in your attack on my character.

  "Your representation of those figures is flagrantly dishonest."

There's only one thing I can do in retaliation: I'm crossing you off my
Christmas card list. So there!

Disappointedly,

Ed Poor


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Indigenous issues: Wikepedia Encyclopedia

body:
Yes, of course you may link to us.  In general, there is no need to
get permission from anyone to link to their website.

Paul_Lorilla at pch.gc.ca wrote:
> In addition, because our website is linked to the Government of
> Canada, it is useful for sites to be bilingual (English and French).
> Is there a French version of the Indigenous website?

There is our French wikipedia, http://fr.wikipedia.org/, which is
editorially independent, i.e. not just a translation of the English
site, but independently written.  I imagine that a French-speaking
wikipedian will be able to help you find out if they have articles
on the topics you're interested in.

--Jimbo


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: William Connelley no longer neutral contributor

body:
Sheldon Rampton wrote:
> Personally I would favor resolving the issue with some language
> formulation that avoids the word "consensus" and instead says
> something such as "overwhelming majority of scientists active in the
> field of climate research."

In the interests of peace and wikilove, of course I agree.

> The problem is, Ed in the past has blocked those sorts of
> formulations as well.

Perhaps Ed could suggest a formulation that he'd be happy with, and
that he expects others would be happy with as well.

--Jimbo


references:
<3FC27A83.23048.222CC7@localhost>
	<004c01c3b2d8$68e257d0$6601a8c0@frontdesk>
	<r5iekvw4v7t.fsf@gill.maths.keele.ac.uk>
	<3FC32DF5.4020209@rufus.d2g.com>

body:
Delirium <delirium at rufus.d2g.com> writes:

> Well, perhaps "comparatively few", but certainly not "none" or "almost none".

Well, thats what "comparatively few" means.
If I'd meant "none" or "almost none", thats what I'd've said.

> Whether this paper or any others are accurate or not is another matter, but
> it is true that they're being published in mainstream peer-reviewed
> journals, by researchers at fairly prestigious institutions.

I know.  Thats why I stressed that there was *not* unanimity in the field,
especially in the field of interpreting indicators to show the climatology of
the past, such as the paper you cite.
--
Gareth Owen
"It's not a human or civic right to edit wikipedia."
                                 -- kq cuts to the core of the banning debate


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Special:Export bug on de:

body:
On Nov 25, 2003, at 11:11, Nils Kehrein wrote:
> It seems that the problem is about /empty/ lines in the textbox.
> [snip]
> | Henry Ford |
> |            |
> +------------+
> results in a fatal error.

Oops! :) Fixed now.

I also found and fixed a bug that broke the most recent edit when set
to retrieve all versions.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20031125/54abab7b/attachment.pgp>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Surveys and consensus

body:
There's been too much discussion about this one point, so I'll just say
one last thing, and then shut up until the dust clears.

Look at the survey quoted in this article:

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

It asks a number of questions. Answers are scored numerically, then
averaged.

The scale of answers ranges is:

1 = agree
.
.
.
7 = disagree

I would venture to say that any question with an average (i.e., "mean")
of 2 or less indicates a consensus of agreement, and an average of 6 or
higher indicates a consensus of disagreement. I think everyone on this
list is with me, so far.

But what about scores between 2.0 and 6.0? Okay, I'll be nice and even
grant that 2.0 indicates stong enough agreement for consensus, and even
2.5 -- but at 3.0 the 'consensus' is less than complete, and really
anything between 3.5 and 4.5 can't be called anything other than a 50-50
split.

So let's take another look at the survey. What is each question, and
what is its average (or "mean") answer? Which questions indicate a
consensus, and which a "near consensus", and which a "split leaning one
way" and which a "50-50 split"?

You tell me what are your criteria for judging survey results, and I'll
meekly abide by them.

Humbly and peacefully,

Uncle Ed

-----Original Message-----
From: Poor, Edmund W.
Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2003 9:22 AM
To: 'English Wikipedia'
Subject: Surveys have been taken (was: William Connolley no longer
neutral contributor)

> >Now if someone did a survey, and 95% of scientists agreed on a point,

> >we could arguably call that a "consensus" (as we have done on
> >evolution: 95% of all scientists (not just biologist) surveyed
> >support
> >Darwin's theory, and well over 99% of biologists.
>
> Another sneaky tactic; it's unlikely anyone will survey scientists
> about global warning, so you can safely say "we have to be open-minded

> until then".

Stan, this is simply incorrect. There have been at least 2 different GW
surveys, and one of them was added to the Wikipedia by someone other
than me:

The survey shows an even split among scientists on whether the GW theory
is true. This is far from the "consensus" that some GW theory proponents
claim exists.

The fact that a survey contradicts the political views of the Clinton
administration and of the UN climate panel, should be in the Wikipedia.

...unless, of course, someone genuinely feels that a mean score of 4.8
on a scale from 1 (agree) and 7 (disagree) represents a "consensus" of
agreement!

Uncle Ed


body:
On Nov 25, 2003, at 11:39, E23 wrote:
> Well, just to be clear, I have to confess that brion this time
> admitted to one of my bugs. What can I say, "it worked in testing".

My bug, your bug... They're all _our_ bugs, comrade! :D

> As brion said, however, I'm working on a better way to rebuild the
> link tables. I believe this approach to rebuilding the tables will
> allow us to iteratively repair it article by article over the course
> of several days, without any down time.

Which would be totally awesome.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20031125/7d69c187/attachment.pgp>


from_name: Viajero

body:
On 11/24/03  at 04:26 PM, "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> said:

> But in the debate over the environment, there is no consensus. Some
> scientists think one thing, while others think another. The viewpoint of
> the UN's climate panel, which was a plank in the Democratic Party's
> campaign, is that THERE IS A CONSENSUS FAVORING GLOBAL WARMING THEORY.

> However, this is merely a politically motivated claim. The asserted
> "consensus" does not exist. Many prominent scientists disagree;
> therefore, there is no consensus.

and on 11/24/03 at 05:12 PM he said:

> The only relation to global warming is the similarity in how the two
> ideas have been handled. In both cases:

> 1. There was never any scientific consensus.
> 2. Politicians rushed in, urging quick action.

This is complete and utter nonsense. In Europe, the debate is closed, it
is no even longer considered controversial. Global warming is considered a
given, and low-lying countries like Holland are considering in practical
terms what they will need to do to protect themselves as sea levels rise
ten or twenty of fifty centimeters over the next century. Although no one
pretends to understand the mechanism in all its detail, it is accepted as
a fact that the main cause of GW is burning fossil fuels, and as such
there is increasing interest in alternative sources of energy like wind
power.

In Europe as well as other parts of the world, the issue in American is
not perceived as it is in Ed's parochial vision as one of the Dems vs the
Repubs. Rather, we see BOTH the Ds and the Rs as intellectually dishonest
cowards beholden to corporate money who are not willing to jeopardize
their necks by telling their countrypeople they can no longer drive their
gas-guzzling SUVs.

This issue is not driven by politicians as Ed suggests, it is driven by
COMMON SENSE.

V.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Nasty Gareth, Mean Gareth

body:
On 11/25/03 11:13 AM, "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> wrote:

> Gareth,
>
> I asked you to stop calling me "dishonest". I offered the possibility
> that I had made a mistake.
>
> Yet you persist in your attack on my character.
>
> "Your representation of those figures is flagrantly dishonest."
>
> There's only one thing I can do in retaliation: I'm crossing you off my
> Christmas card list. So there!
>
Ed: Gareth made a serious, specific response to your complaint. He did NOT
attack your character, he attacked "your representation of those figures".

It's certainly possible that your intentions were good, but your actual
actions were bad. Maybe they were mistakes. But that doesn't mean they're
not wrong.

And while it's one thing to try to assume the best of people, your
"mistakes" regarding global warming have a consistent agenda behind them:
that is, making flat assumptions that there is more uncertainty and debate
in the scientific community about global warming than is true.

Gareth is calling a duck a duck.

And now *you're* the one engaging in direct, personal attacks, calling him
"nasty".

Do you dispute Gareth's specific argument against your portrayal of the
survey? Or not? That's the real issue.


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Enviornmentalism vs. Science (was: William
	Connolley a rational contributor)

body:
On 11/25/03 10:57 AM, "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> wrote:

>> Ed > It's basically Singer's POV vs. Connolley's POV. Lots of
>> Ed > environmentalsts side with Connolley, and lots of others side
> with
>> Ed > Singer.
>
> Cunctator replied to Ed:
>> Actually, it's "people who believe in science" vs. Singer.
>
> Mere POV.
>
> This is one of the most common arguments of enviromentalists. They claim
> their position on GW is "the scientific position", hence anyone who
> disagrees with their position is "unscientific".
>
> They bolster this position with their incessantly repeated claim that
> there is a "scientific consensus" in favor of GW theory.
>
> There are 2 logical errors with this POV, either of which is sufficient
> to demolish it. Anyway, it's their POV and should be labelled as such in
> Wikipedia articles, which is all I've ever asked for.
>
> 1. There is no scientific consensus. They just made it up. The IPCC's
> contributors, when polled, were split 50-50 on whether human-caused
> emissions were contributing to GW.
>
I'm TALKING ABOUT CFCs and the OZONE LAYER, not GLOBAL WARMING!

Stop changing the subject.

Even Singer has admitted he was wrong. Why don't you?


body:
Mark / Delirium wrote:

>Well, perhaps "comparatively few", but certainly not "none" or "almost
>none".  They've declined in number recently, but there are still a good
>number of "sceptical" papers being published.  There was one in Climate
>Research pushed just a few months ago (January 2003) by Soon and
>Baliunus that raised somewhat of a ruckus (abstract at
>http://www.int-res.com/abstracts/cr/v23/n2/p89-110.html, among other
>places).  Whether this paper or any others are accurate or not is
>another matter, but it is true that they're being published in
>mainstream peer-reviewed journals, by researchers at fairly prestigious
>institutions.

Although, it should be noted, the Soon and Baliunus paper suffered
from such "severe methodological flaws," according to the editor in
chief of Climate Research, that he resigned to protest its
publication, as did four other CR editors. See, for example, the
following URL:

http://w3g.gkss.de/G/Mitarbeiter/storch/CR-problem/cr.2003.htm

In any case, there are two issues here. The first is what constitutes
a "scientific consensus." Some people point to the existence of
people like Soon and Baliunus as evidence that there isn't yet a
"consensus" on global warming, which is true if you define consensus
to mean that "absolutely no one anywhere disagrees." By that
standard, though, you'd also have to say that there is no consensus
that tobacco smoking causes lung cancer or that the Nazis
exterminated Jews.

The question in a case like this has to be, "How much unanimity must
exist before you should call it a 'consensus'?"

Personally I would favor resolving the issue with some language
formulation that avoids the word "consensus" and instead says
something such as "overwhelming majority of scientists active in the
field of climate research." The problem is, Ed in the past has
blocked those sorts of formulations as well.

Allan Cross wrote:

>Hold on, hold on. We're not talking about excluding Theory X from the
>encyclopedia - Theory X in this case only appears on the article
>about [[SEPP]], as one of the claims SEPP makes or made. What we're
>talking about is how we phrase our description of the fact that
>scientists mostly reject Theory X. I'm happy to agree with Jimbo that
>we should be a bit more sympathetic, but the reader should be left in
>no doubt that scientists do indeed reject Singer's claim.

The problem here is that the stuff about Singer and SEPP _doesn't_
just appear on the SEPP and Singer article pages. Ed keeps pushing it
prominently into the global warming article and the ozone hole
article, accompanied by declarations that "environmentalists" are
"attempting to discredit" Singer while refusing to "answer his
scientific arguments." To judge from his edits, you'd think that
Singer (who hasn't published any original research since 1971) was
one of the leading scientists in the field.

Finally, Gareth Owen wrote:

>I don't care that you find it unpalatable.
>Your representation of those figures is flagrantly dishonest.

As someone who has clashed with Ed on this stuff in the past, I
understand Gareth's frustration. However, I don't think it's correct
to say that Ed is "dishonest." I think that with regard to the topic
of global warming, Ed is (1) strongly opinionated, and (2) lacks
competency, which robs him of the ability to recognize the absurdity
of some of his statements. I don't mean to disrespect Ed by saying he
"lacks competency." None of us is competent in all areas of
knowledge, and lacking competency in a specific field is not a sign
of poor character or low intelligence.

I've posted comments here previously giving examples of fairly gross
errors that Ed has made with regard to the topic of global warming. I
could summarize those and give other examples to illustrate my point
about his lack of competency, but that would probably spark another
flame war. My main point here is that I think we should avoid the
charge of "dishonesty." When someone makes an error due to lack of
competence, they're not really being "dishonest."
--
--------------------------------
|  Sheldon Rampton
|  Editor, PR Watch (www.prwatch.org)
|  Author of books including:
|     Friends In Deed: The Story of US-Nicaragua Sister Cities
|     Toxic Sludge Is Good For You
|     Mad Cow USA
|     Trust Us, We're Experts
|     Weapons of Mass Deception
--------------------------------


from_name: Peter Gervai

body:
Check these things on hu.wikipedia.org:

See [[H?v?zi-t? TT]] (you can find it in recent changes if you're not
accent-read), and check "Mi hivatkozik erre" ("who links here"). Nobody.

Now go to [[Magyarorsz?g term?szetv?delmi ter?letei]] (in the recent changes
as well), and look for the string "H?v?zi-t? TT", and you'll see: the
article contains link to the one before. However its link is "red" or
"question marked". If you click on it (create a non-existing article) then
you'll realise that it does exist, since the editor window contains the
actual text.

If I would edit and save the second article I'm sure it'd heal (preview
shows it healed) but I don't want to mess it up until someone check what the
bug is.

Brion? See anything?

(The article can be fixed, naturally, but the bug should be instead. :-))


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Quote me as saying I was misquoted

body:
Ed Poor wrote:

>Lindzen and Baliunas have repeatedly expressed their disagreement with
>environmentalists over the GW theory. I cannot recall Baliunas
>expressing ANY opinion on ozone depletion.

Baliunas was an ozone depletion skeptic, although (like Singer) she's
keeping quiet about it now. Here's the URL to a page that comments on
her ozone hole denial, and also provides a link to an essay that she
wrote about it back when denial was still fashionable:

http://mentalspace.ranters.net/quiggin/archives/001242.html

For those who don't want to bother reading the full thing and
Baliunas's paper, here's the gist of it:

>Reader Robert Parson, from the University of Colorado at Boulder,
>has kindly supplied a scanned PDF file of the hard-to-obtain
>Baliunas paper "Ozone and Global Warming: Are the Problems Real?",
>which I've posted here (2.6MB download) . It's a fascinating
>illustration of the contrarian technique at work. In particular,
>it's noteworthy that Baliunas uses almost exactly the same kinds of
>arguments on the two issues and, if anything, her case on CFC and
>ozone seems stronger. Of course, CFC regulation was a live political
>issue at the time, whereas action on global warming, such as Kyoto,
>was a relatively distant prospect.
>
>A highlight is  Baliunas' confident assertion that "the ozone hole
>cannot occur in the Arctic" - a claim that stood up for about three
>years .
>
>Only a few weeks after Baliunas testified before Congress that the
>science on all this was unsettled, the Chemistry Nobel was awarded
>to Paul Crutzen, Sherwood Rowland, and Mario Molina for their work
>on stratospheric ozone. Rowland and Molina were explicitly cited for
>proposing the CFC-ozone depletion theory. This killed Republican
>attempts (by the aptly named Reps DeLay and Doolittle) to stop the
>phaseout of CFCs, and Baliunas has been very quiet on the ozone
>issue ever since.

--
--------------------------------
|  Sheldon Rampton
|  Editor, PR Watch (www.prwatch.org)
|  Author of books including:
|     Friends In Deed: The Story of US-Nicaragua Sister Cities
|     Toxic Sludge Is Good For You
|     Mad Cow USA
|     Trust Us, We're Experts
|     Weapons of Mass Deception
--------------------------------


from_name: Arnaud G

subject: [Wikipedia-l] possible link rendering bug?

body:
Peter Gervai wrote:

We have the same prob on the french wikipedia. look at [[barite]] there
is a link in [[baryum]] but if you look in what link here it's empty

>Check these things on hu.wikipedia.org:
>
>See [[H?v?zi-t? TT]] (you can find it in recent changes if you're not
>accent-read), and check "Mi hivatkozik erre" ("who links here"). Nobody.
>
>Now go to [[Magyarorsz?g term?szetv?delmi ter?letei]] (in the recent changes
>as well), and look for the string "H?v?zi-t? TT", and you'll see: the
>article contains link to the one before. However its link is "red" or
>"question marked". If you click on it (create a non-existing article) then
>you'll realise that it does exist, since the editor window contains the
>actual text.
>
>If I would edit and save the second article I'm sure it'd heal (preview
>shows it healed) but I don't want to mess it up until someone check what the
>bug is.
>
>Brion? See anything?
>
>(The article can be fixed, naturally, but the bug should be instead. :-))
>_______________________________________________
>Wikipedia-l mailing list
>Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
>