Amir is right, without judging this specific case, the pattern describe here is a problem.
Especially the massive revert attitude , it's really a challenge for retaining new specialist editor. Charles ___________________________________________________________ Charles ANDRES, Chairman "Wikimedia CH" – Association for the advancement of free knowledge – www.wikimedia.ch Skype: charles.andres.wmch IRC://irc.freenode.net/wikimedia-ch Le 26 oct. 2012 à 13:43, "Amir E. Aharoni" <[email protected]> a écrit : > 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 _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
