I see it that way too. It is sufficient that if such questions arise and are published, then we report on them.
On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 8:11 AM, <wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk> wrote: > mill...@gmail.com wrote: >> On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 08:54, ???? <wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk> wrote: >> > Quite right, the articles in other subjects are polluted with irrelevant >> > details so why not pollute this class of article too? >> > >> > Mention it if it is a major factor in some controversy. For example if a >> > number of research results are saying that X is useless for Y, and one >> > report by the manufacturer says X helps in 90% of cases of Y. Otherwise >> > as others have said who funds the research is noise. You might as well >> > add in the funding for any research in the Computer Science articles, in >> > the history articles, in the social science articles, etc, etc. >> > >> > Frankly if manufacturer research isn't providing correct data, for >> > policy makers, and other scientist to work from that is a major problem, >> > and probably illegal in some places too. >> >> It is hard to say that irrelevant details exist. It is just a matter >> of time when once irrelevant, details would become relevant enough for >> some article. I witnessed a number of times that one detail [inside of >> a Wikipedia article] was irrelevant at one point of time, while fully >> relevant a year or two later. > > > At which point add the detail. Information can have a positive and > negative effect on an article. Until it becomes relevant, given > proper weight, and can be synthesised into the article, odd bits > of data simply detract from the present real information. Its as > if you go home and your partner starts telling you about the events > of the day, minute details of their journey into work, the trip > to the supermarket, your brother died, details of how they selected > items from the shopping list, details of the journey back from the > supermarket. > > >> It is more about well or badly worded articles. And POV pushers have >> developed badly worded articles into the state of art, by pushing >> inside of, let's say, introduction the information which doesn't >> belong there. > > > And this stuff doesn't belong in the article space, putting it > there simple provides a handle for the POV pushers to hang stuff > off of. Shove it in some appendix or expansion of the reference if > it needs recording. But as someone said in the talk pages, primary > research does belong in the article space anyway. Let them POV push > in an area that few will look in. > > However, if you want to see POV pushing on drugs trying these: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mephedrone > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MDMA > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2C-T-2 > > where the molecules are being given cute little animations, > someone might just as well have stuck little smiley faces > on them. > > >> Connection between scientific studies and their sponsors is very >> relevant. It goes up to the point that it is important to know who is >> a mentor of some PhD student. Forcing students to build foundations >> for fringe theories of their mentors is a common practice. The only >> difference between the present and past practice is in the complexity >> of mathematics and amount of data behind the fringe science. > > > Perhaps one should have a credits listing at the end of each > article listing the sponsors all the references. Something like > the last 5 minutes of a Hollywood film? To avoid any possibility > of bias one would also have to ensure that the same thing happened > with every reference to every article, on every subject. After all > that reference might have been sponsored by Jews, Christians, or > Atheists. > > >> The fact that there are no independent researches behind some drug >> means exclusively that. Encyclopedia doesn't describe controversies >> exclusively, it gives useful information about described matter. And >> sponsors belong to the set of relevant information. >> >> Let's say, it is historically very important to detect Leonardo da >> Vinci's sponsors; or the fact that Tales of Milet was independently >> wealthy; or the fact that not just funds were important in Copernicus' >> decision to become quiet. > > > The point is that information becomes relevant in retrospect. At > the time it was news, which may or may not have been correct. One > needs to decide whether the point of the project is to fulminate > gossip, or to record facts. > > >> There are much more scientists and inventions today than in past, but >> it is equally important to detect context around them. >> >> It is sad to see that Wikipedians are showing the same kind of fear >> toward more information, as classical encyclopedists was showing in >> relation to Wikipedia. Again, there are no irrelevant information (or >> the most of information treated as so are not irrelevant), there are >> just well and badly worded articles. >> > > Its not fear of information, its concern that the addition of > minutia detracts from the main purpose of the article, and that > it provides a handle for some agenda pushing. In these postings and > on the talk page there are references to "Big Pharma". IOW some > are looking to add this stuff simply in order to POV push. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > -- David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l