Shortened, and grossly over-simplified: A biologist wrote some things about biology and they were not challenged. Then he wrote some things about dinosaurs, and they were reverted. If I understood correctly, the reason for the reverts was that it appeared to be original research (WP:NOR). And now the biologist is pissed off, possibly for a good reason, and wants his previous contributions removed, too.
This is a story that repeats itself quite often, with surprisingly similar details: an expert does some acceptable things, then doing some things that turn out to rouse controversy, then wanting to retire with a storm. I'm not implying that the expert is bad, absolutely not; I'm just noting a pattern. Whatever the details of the story are, it's not good and it may justify discussion. But as a meta-comment, it should be done on wikien-l or on wikimedia-l, and not on this list, which is called "wikipedia-l", but is not active in practice. -- Amir 2012/10/26 Thomas Dalton <[email protected]> > > TL;DR (Too long; didn't read.) > > Please provide a summary that makes clear what point you are trying to make... > > On 26 October 2012 11:55, John Jackson <[email protected]> wrote: > > Greetings – > > > > I hope this is a good place to send a weighty message to Wikipedia. > > You’ll want to read all through. > > > > I am a scientist who has always liked the Wikipedia idea, and I like > > your implementation. Lately I’ve started making contributions. > > Although I’m a cognitive scientist who taught biological psychology at > > degree level for several years and have done AI research since the > > ‘80’s, I’ve diverted for a decade or more to resolve a set of major > > evolutionary puzzles. > > > > Fairly peripheral but within the overall project was an investigation > > of bird breathing, and I decided to piece together the research into > > it, and deliver it properly to the public. Trust me, the finer > > details were obscure. On the way I discovered why penguins’ lungs > > don’t collapse even at 500m when whales’ lungs collapse by 100m; I > > found out what the neopulmo did (though not why) and why penguins > > don’t have it, and I changed our understanding of flow within it; I > > also resolved the old chestnut of whether birds had counter-current > > exchange in their lungs. That is, completely discovered, not just for > > myself. By careful editing and addition including the long overdue > > diagram the subject needed, I converted the two Wikipedia pages > > dealing with bird breathing from an incomplete mire to a place of > > revelation (though the German version needs starting afresh, and > > Duncker agrees). But it was an honour do so. > > > > More central to my overall project was cladogenesis, the heart of > > palaeontology and just the thing that I, as an MSc in info. sys. > > engineering would be expected to get into. I’ve written my own clad. > > software, invented and implemented my own heuristic version, proved > > the theorem in graph theory that resolves an issue in checking > > evolutionary trees by time and rooting them, and highlighted a serious > > statistical fallacy invalidating another major current of work in the > > time-checking of trees. > > > > In these activities I was almost entirely alone as regards other > > workers in the overall field, since that field, dinobird > > palaeontology, is notorious for its abuse of the lack of scientific > > and indeed academic constraint that all historical disciplines are > > prey to. Applicants for research positions into that biological > > science, which relies heavily on computer science and statistics, are > > usually accepted with just a geology first degree. Put succinctly but > > honestly, the standard of science amongst professional dinobird > > palaeontologists is crap, so much so that I’ve never taken the idea of > > publishing formally in the field very seriously. I do from time to > > time in AI, but any scientist with something sensible to say in > > dinobird palaeo will always be violating sacred errors and be blocked. > > Although useless, the field is very proud and stubborn. > > > > But there is a layer of humanity too stupid even to become > > professional palaeontologists – and guess what? They’ve established a > > self-aggrandising population in the basement of Wikipedia, grooming > > their egos by becoming gatekeepers. I’m sick of the sight of their > > pathetic award stars. > > > > I wasn’t surprised; in fact I’d been surprised by the ease with which > > my bird-lung editing had been accepted, which is why I’d turned my > > attention to another problem page that was actually even more of a > > mess. > > > > Most people, even those interested in the subject, have no idea why > > dromaeosaurs had such strange claws, teeth and tails. Many even doubt > > that the special foot claw was a weapon. And because they have no > > understanding of the vital importance of backtracking in knowledge > > engineering, they can’t escape the rut of believing dromaeosaurs were > > “pre” flight (“pre” of course being a very dodgy evolutionary > > concept). But solving this kind of thing was easy compared to related > > subjects, and other visionaries such as Paul and Osmolska had made > > their contributions and published some of the basics. The four-winged > > flight of volant dromaeosaurs was harder but I found a solution to > > that too (...though you’re not going to like it; even I didn’t). > > > > I know what you’re thinking – Original Work. But of course that was > > taken account of: much of the problem with the Velociraptor page was > > balance – some theories had been simply ignored, even though works > > mentioning them were already in the citation list. Other problems > > were solved by pointing out glaring illogicalities: ensuring the > > explanation of a difference between two things must be based on some > > other difference applying to them. Things like that don’t need > > citations, things that needed them were given them, and when necessary > > I cited my own book. That after all is very common in Wikipedia, and > > there’s no point frowning on the basic principle (especially when it’s > > a good book!). > > > > As you may have guessed or already knew, anyone bringing much-needed > > but unfamiliar and unwelcome science (i.e. any science) to dinobird > > palaeontology is automatically put on the hate list and from then on > > it’s just sociology. Pointing out that modern science knows better > > than to talk of “facts”, is the kind of thing that sets the idiots > > off, but is one essential principle Wikipedia needs to take on board. > > Luckily the pseudo-scientists usually give themselves away, as they > > did on the Velociraptor page most bizarrely. First, they insisted the > > tail couldn’t bend vertically, alongside a picture showing the last > > two-thirds bending up through 60º. Then they insisted its prey only > > had one leg whereas two could be seen even in the thumbnail. No > > accusations of original work at risk there. Nonetheless they kept on > > reversing EVERYTHING I’d written – the illogicality-busting, the > > theory-balance restoration, and even corrections to their crap which > > was contradicted by the images in front of their eyes. > > > > The result? Someone’s stopped the repeated reversals, and of course, > > they chose to stop it on the lunatic side. Irrespective of the > > “Protection is not an endorsement of the current text” message, this > > “temporary” status is a massive insult to science, which is why it’s > > important, and a massive insult to me which has ensured my action. > > > > I’m going to find the 100 most influential loud-mouthed Wiki-haters on > > the net, show them the crucial photos, and the illogicalities, and I > > hope I’m going to be able to say: “Look – some tiny-minded > > pseudo-scientists started to infect Wikipedia filling even science > > pages with blatant rubbish, but see how good it is? It put them in > > their place!” > > > > I know an organisation of your size won’t bother with anything that > > can’t affect it, and I haven’t time to dissolve you with charm. I’m > > considering removing all the good work I’ve done in the bird breathing > > pages, and their talk pages that explain it, as a token of what you’ll > > lose if you reward my kind of work with insults. I was happy to give > > it free but people can always buy the book. Put it back if you want, > > but if you don’t, the pages will lose a lot and if you do you’ll > > underline my value. And of course there’s the stuff above that could > > go one way or another depending on you. Much will be done before the > > election and as much as is necessary when it’s over. Don’t just hand > > this over to another of the dinosaur Wiki-wankers, and don’t let them > > keep spuriously using the word “source” to justify feeding the world > > crap. > > > > John V. Jackson. > > http://sciencepolice2010.wordpress.com/2010/12/02/sciencepolice2010-launches/ > > http://sciencepolice2010.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/sciencepolice-14-latest.pdf > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikipedia-l mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l > > _______________________________________________ > Wikipedia-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
