Also see:
Pseudoscience
Skeptic
Wikipedia Bullying Editors
Concerns with Wikipedia
Wikipedia Watch
Wikipedia Arbitration
Wikipedia content is policed with a hierarchy of editors within the bounds of editing rules. Disagreements among the editors can be brought to administrators and may eventually become arbitration cases. Particularly contentious relationships between editors may result in discipline and/or warnings which can have lasting effect. Policy and statements of intent may come form such cases.
Three arbitrations have had a particularly damaging influence on frontier subjects.
Wikipedia: Requests for arbitration/Fringe Science
From my experience 2006-20014, the section of Wikipedia concerned with paranormal-related subjects is controlled by editors I would describe as skeptics of the kind one finds on the Skeptical Inquirer website. They tend toward intellectual scientism with the belief that, if mainstream science does not specifically accept a subject, the subject is impossible and cannot be. That is, it is fraud, delusion or normal mistaken as paranormal. Anyone who thinks otherwise is guilty of supporting pseudoscience.
The Fringe Science arbitration was in 2009. The main findings are listed below. I have added notes in brown.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Fringe_science
Findings of fact
Fringe science
1) In this ruling, the term “fringe science” refers to matters which purport to be science, or use its trappings and terminology but are not usually regarded as such by the general scientific community; and to matters which do not claim to be scientific but nevertheless make claims that are normally considered within the purview of science.
This includes publications the dominant group of editors decides are “not usually regarded as such by the general scientific community.” The Journal of parapsychology, for instance, is a peer-reviewed journal typically including quality academic research reports. Knowing they are working at the frontier of science, parapsychologists are very careful in applying the scientific method. The Journal is considered fringe and would not be allowed unless it would support a skeptic’s argument to debunk.
Wikipedia: Requests for arbitration/Paranormal
The arbitration record concerning a 2007 Paranormal decision is at: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Paranormal
Here are the findings. I have added notes in brown.
Principles
Neutral point of view
1) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view regarding a subject. If there is controversy regarding the subject, all sides of the controversy should be fairly represented.
This must be understood as “inclusion of all significant points of view supported by the dominants editors.” If information that contradicts the dominant beliefs must be included, it may be included with appropriate wording and reference worded to show that it is not true.
Advocacy
2) Wikipedia is not an appropriate forum for advocacy, see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox.
-
- I was not allowed to edit the Electronic Voice Phenomena article because the opposing editors claimed I have a conflict of interest and might advocate for the ATransC. In fact, I had been careful to be a neutral editor to avoid just such a problem. As it turned out, simply supporting the inclusion of such phrases as “EVP are thought to be …” was rejected with the argument that such terminology might make it sound like EVP are possible.
Basis for inclusion
3) In addition to firmly established scientific truth, Wikipedia contains many other types of information. “The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth” (from Wikipedia:Verifiability).
This is an often abused rule. Every statement of substance in Wikipedia is supposed to be supported with a proper reference. If the Journal of Parapsychology is considered a fringe publication, and my reference is from that source, opposing editors can simply remove my edit because it cannot be verified.
Appropriate handling of epistemological status, no content
6.1) It is the responsibility of editors to appropriately handle any question regarding the epistemological status of a subject, that is, questions of whether something exists, is hypothesized to exist, general scientific consensus, etc. The goal is not arrival at the correct conclusion, but adequate treatment of any controversy.
Here “adequate treatment of any controversy” should be read as paranormal subjects should be described in a way that makes it clear to the reader that the subject is nonsense.
Adequate framing
6.2) Language in the introduction of an article may serve to frame the subject thus defining the epistemological status. Examples include “mythical”, “fictional”, “a belief”, and in the present case “paranormal”, “psychic”, “new age”, “occult”, “channeling”, or “parapsychological researcher”. “UFO”, “Bigfoot”, “Yeti”, “alien abduction”, and “crop circle” serve the same function. It should not be necessary in the case of an adequately framed article to add more, for example to describe Jeane Dixon as a psychic who appeared on TV says it all. “Purported psychic” or “self-described psychic” adds nothing.
This point came out of the tendency of skeptic editors to pile on a subject with derisive descriptors. It is one thing to say that a subject is not widely accepted as real. it is entirely different to reinforce that “unreal ” status in every sentence.
Editorial judgment regarding reliability
9.1) Determining the reliability of sources is a matter of sound editorial judgment informed by expertise. Exceptional claims should be supported by strong sources. Sensationalist sources, when used at all, should not be the sole sources for an article. Topics for which no reliable source can be found are not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia.
This is the source of authority claimed by the dominant group of editors. What is considered good “editorial judgment” and adequate “expertise” is decided by the dominant group. It is impossible to support “Exceptional claims” if “strong sources” are not allowed, even when they exist.
Conflict of interest
10.1) Wikipedia:Conflict of interest strongly cautions but does not forbid an editor from working in subject areas where the editor is strongly invested. Such editing must be done responsibly. Other editors are expected to respond diplomatically even when they believe a conflict of interest may exist.
This is the foundation of Wikipedia’s failure and why it has become a tool for skeptic propaganda. Wikipedia is well-known for being anti-expert. When I was an active editor, I was perhaps the most qualified amongst the editors to address many of the paranormal subjects, yet, I was usually not allowed to comment on such subjects as EVP and mediumship because of possible conflict of interest. To Wikipedia editors, expertise is equal to conflict of interest, even if there is no evidence of such.
Generally considered pseudoscience
11) Theories which have a following, such as various manifestations of the paranormal, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may, with adequate sourcing, properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.
“Pseudoscience” is a pejorative term coined by skeptics to characterize frontier science they think contradicts mainstream science. (See the next arbitration.) in effect, stating that a paranormal subject is pseudoscience is the same as proving that it is not real.
Wikipedia: Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience
This is the arbitration record concerning a 2009 Pseudoscience decision: wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience
Also see: List of topics characterized as pseudoscience – Wikipedia
Here are the findings. I have added notes in brown.
Principles
Neutral point of view
1) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of all significant points of view regarding the subject of an article, see comment by Jimbo.
“Jimbo” is one of the founders of Wikipedia. If balance was brought to the online encyclopedia, it would have to begin with him. The link associated with his name is to a statement of policy that begins with “Well, it’s against my role as ‘the Jimbo’ around here to call people crackpots, so I’ll avoid that word here. But you’ll all know what I mean anyway. ;-)” Read the statement. He goes on to explain why it is okay for Wikipedia to ignore frontier thought.
Following Jimbo’s example, skeptic editors commonly refer to people who study frontier subjects as crackpots, wackos and nutjobs — generally second class editors it is okay to insult.
Neutral point of view as applied to science
1a) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience.
Here, “significant” is decided by the dominant editors. Close examination of the way editors select supporting references shows that it is possible to find a refence to support any point of view. As I have documented elsewhere, if one does not exist, they simply get some mainstream notable person to say it in an essay.
Notability
2) There must be sufficient verifiable information from reliable sources regarding a subject for there to be an article about it, Wikipedia:Notability. Guidelines regarding notability have been developed for a number of areas, but not for scientific theories (The proposal Wikipedia:Notability (science) is based on principles elucidated in this case).
No original research
3a) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue weight quotes Jimbo Wales, stating “If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.” Following this principle, theories which have not been published in reputable sources should not be included in articles on mainstream scientific topics.
If the dominant editors can successfully argue that a science report is not “published in reputable sources,” it can be removed from Wikipedia.
Appropriate sources
4a) Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources require that information included in an article have been published in a reliable source which is identified and potentially available to the reader. What constitutes a reliable source varies with the topic of the article, but in the case of a scientific theory, there is a clear expectation that the sources for the theory itself are reputable textbooks or peer-reviewed journals. Scientific theories promulgated outside these media are not properly verifiable as scientific theories and should not be represented as such.
“Reputable textbooks or peer-reviewed journals” should be read as only mainstream journals.
Wiki process
6) As practiced on Wikipedia, the wiki process contemplates that any editor may edit any article provided they do not disrupt it.
Simply trying to make the point that something should be included in an article can be considered disruption if it is contrary to mainstream thought. This, even though it may be demonstrably correct. I was banned for life from editing in the Rupert Sheldrake article because I was arguing that his work should be given more neutral treatment. The dominant group of editors argued that I was promoting pseudoscience.
This notice that I was topic banned from the Rupert Sheldrake page was posted on my Talk Page March 2014 at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tom_Butler#Arbitration_Enforcement
The following sanction now applies to you:
Topic banned from Rupert Sheldrake in accordance with the terms at WP:TBAN
You have been sanctioned per this arbitration enforcement request
This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee’s decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions for that decision. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.
In effect, I was banned forever from arguing that the work of Rupert Sheldrake was valid science; not pseudoscience. The complaint was stated in terms of “Downplaying rejection by the scientific community” and “Further fringe promotion, rewording beliefs into ‘hypothesis’” It was brought to the sanctions enforcement court by User:Second Quantization, with the conclusion that “This editor has been problematic over a prolonged period in the topic area of pseudoscience and fringe science.”
Experts
7) Historically, although a perennial subject of discussion, see, for example, the rejected proposal Wikipedia:Expert editors and the brainstorming essay, Wikipedia:Expert retention, experts were accorded no special role or status on Wikipedia.
In fact, Wikipedia is well known for rejecting expert.
Content disputes
9) Restrictions are placed on users only in cases where their behavior seriously disrupts the wiki process or fulfillment of Wikipedia’s mission to produce an accurate and useful reference work.
As noted above under Wiki process, balancing opposition to biased edits is considered disruption.
Academically demanding subjects
10) In the case of subjects which require considerable academic or experiential expertise, some deference to experts is appropriate.
The phrase “some deference to experts is appropriate” is basically the same as use an expert when is suits the majority group of editors.
Experts are required to cite sources
11) Experts are presumed to have an adequate command of appropriate sources for information they add or positions they take. Bare assertions of expertise without supporting sources are unacceptable, especially if there is conflict with other users.
As a general statement, an expert would be expected to have a Ph.D. in an applicable field from a highly accredited university, be widely published in peer-reviewed, mainstream journals and say things that agree with the dominant group of editors. A biologists or history professor working as a parapsychologist would not be expert in the appropriate field. As a layperson, my BS degree in electronics would not normally be sufficient for any purpose. The fact that I am one of the better informed in a field does not matter.
The Rupert Sheldrake wiki-war was mostly about skeptic editors trying to hide Sheldrake’s Ph.D. in biology because the advanced degree might give his ideas more credibility than if he was simply a science writer.
Experts are subject to the no original research rule
12) Wikipedia:No original research applies to users who are experts in a field and who may be engaged in original research. The latest insights resulting from current research are often not acceptable for inclusion as established information as they have not yet been published.
There are hundreds of people researching and writing about mainstream subjects. In comparison, there probably are not a hundred parapsychologists. Just about everything in parapsychology is original research because there are too few scientists to replicate most research and hardly any “science reporters.” Even if a highly qualified parapsychologists tried to edit in Wikipedia as an expert in that article’s subject, virtually anything the person said could be construed as original research.
Conflict of interest
13) Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Self-promotion, a guideline, strongly discourages editing which promotes the editor’s projects.
I agree with this except for the problem that a resulting article my require the input from a person with direct knowledge for it to be correct and useful. It is always possible to construe an edit by a knowledgeable person as self-serving.
Serious encyclopedias
14) Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Wikipedia aspires to be such a respected work.
As you should understand by now, “in line with respected scientific thought” means what the dominant group of editors deem as “in line with scientific thought only they respect.”
Obvious pseudoscience
15) Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification.
To understand how restrictive “obviously bogus” might be, take a look at List of topics characterized as pseudoscience – Wikipedia
Generally considered pseudoscience
16) Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.
Questionable science
17) Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized.
Alternative theoretical formulations
18) Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.
I have to say that “Alternative theoretical formulations” is exactly what parapsychology is all about. To understand that relationship, one must be sufficiently well informed. The skeptic editors are not known for their understanding of parapsychology.
Implications
Wikipedia has the potential of being a valuable source of knowledge, but in practice, it has become a potent tool for anti-frontier science propaganda. Because the average person does not have the necessary information to know what is propaganda and what is safe information, the online encyclopedia is producing a generation of people who believe what the skeptics believe.
Consider the way conspiracy theories have dominated the thinking of nearly half of the USA. As it turns out, people are prone to accept information as truth if it is couched in an authoritative formation like Wikipedia. My fear is that the effect will eventually be to suppress open study of things paranormal while furthering belief-based “truths” and scientism.
Using referencing a Wikipedia article as a source of further reading, proof or to add credibility to an argument, tells me that the person is intellectually naïve, lazy and not as knowledgeable about the subject as claimed. It is fine to use the references in a Wikipedia article as a guide for further study, but based on the above arbitrations, virtually all of the references from better informed people will be missing.
