User:Ed Poor

I live and work in New York City as a software engineer and am interested in science, history, music and religion. I am a member of the Unification Church and believe there is an absolute truth including an absolute standard of right and wrong. Nonetheless, I am an "open-minded absolutist".

Global Warming Hypothesis

I would like to NPOV the global warming article.

• Many scientists disagree with viewpoint of the IPCC
• For example, search the Science@NASA website for "global warming"

I do not make changes by stealth. A glance at the History of the various articles I've touched shows that I usually summarize my contributions in an eye-catching and accurate way. Please let me know if any change I make is unclear, incorrect or "stealthy". I will be glad to acknowledge my error.

The following graph shows (in part) why I feel the article needs balance:

http://www.oism.org/pproject/fig11.gif

---

After comments by SR and April, I temporarily postponed any edits to controversial topics such as sex education and the CFC-ozone depletion-UV-skin cancer issue. My own ethical principles forbid me to entertain a double-standard or otherwise to act hypocritically. I need some time to sort this out.

---

I like to create stub pages. They're better than nothing, and they attract writers.

I like debate, especially if it helps us reach consensus. I don't mind if people call me names, but I try to avoid returning the favor. Sometimes, however, I have concentrated more on "winning" the debate than on improving the article about which we are debating, which is counter-productive.

I have frequently made sweeping generalizations and often have failed to attribute a point of view to its proponent, giving the impression that it is a generally accepted viewpoint (when it's merely my own belief). This is an error on my part, and I would appreciate any corrections. But please don't delete something just because it's different from your beliefs.

---

Nice catch on Sergio Aragones last week, by the way. RjLesch

---

From old Ed Poor article

I've decided that my bias is not an insuperable obstacle to my participation in Wikipedia.

However, I no longer think that the Wikipedia can be a useful resource for resolving controversies. At best, it can be a starting point for someone researching a controversial subject such as global warming or evolution. If my fellow Wikipedians will allow me to link from articles on "settled" issues to other articles outlining objections by skeptics, I will be satisfied.

I do not wish to place the Wikipedia imprimatur on my viewpoints or to abuse the Wikipedia for advocacy. But I think it's useful to the general reader if viewpoints, even if wildly different and seemingly false are described. The alternative is censorship.

---

Perhaps one effective way to incorporate veering points of view such as creationism or environmental skepticism is to link from main articles (e.g., evolution and global warming) to articles about alternative views. We did that successfully with feminism and masculism -- at least, the vandalism of feminism stopped. This way, the main article on a belief would be from the point of view of its adherents, and articles about alternative beliefs would also be included. Thus global warming can keep its "scientists generally believe" viewpoint, while another article, possibly entitled environmental skepticism, could outline objections to the generally accepted theory. -- Ed

---

Deprecated:

I am suspending my participation in Wikipedia indefinitely, due to a conflict of interest. I think I may be abusing the concept of NPOV to cloak my own desire to advocate the points of view I believe to be right.

Now, I might actually be right on several or even all of the points I advocate. The question, though, is not whether I am right but whether my advocacy of these points fits in with the purposes that Larry and Jimbo have in mind for the Wikipedia. -- Ed Poor

---

Software Engineer, father of two. Interested in philosophy, science, pizza, music, children, and world peace -- not necessarily in that order.

---

Mistakes I've made (thanks for catching 'em!):

I made a mildly offensive joke in a discussion with Wesley, who graciously and patiently explained my error. Thanks, Wesley. (I guess the lesson for me is not to be such a wise guy, especially if I have a "poor" sense of humor.)

I erroneously wrote that the New Yorker was known for its leftist bias. I guess that would be like saying sharks were "known" for being wet. Thanks, Larry, I stand corrected.

---

Stubs I started (which then blossomed due to others) include:

Bible stories

Among my contributions are:

Unification Church, Sun Myung Moon, deprogramming,

---

---

sexual orientation

I have mucked around with:

Evolution, Falsifiability, Intelligent Design, Creationism,

Homosexuality

Global warming

I love science but am only a layman.

Articles I'm trying to write or edit:

SEPP

---

I try to remove "bias" from Wikipedia articles on controversies dear to me, but I recognize that what I call "bias" may merely be ideas I misunderstand. I may in some cases also fail to distinguish between personal belief and documented fact, whether through wishful thinking or sheer sloppiness. Feel free to set me straight at any time. When I feel I've absorbed the lesson, I'll add it to my Learning page.

I respond to praise, reason, and pizza -- not necessarily in that order!!

---

---

Hi Ed, I just wanted to say welcome to Wikipedia, and tell you not to be discouraged by criticism of your contributions; its par for the course around here. You don't seem to be taking it personally though, and that will take you far around here. :) --STG

---

Hi Ed, If you are going to make "Race and Intelligence" a separate article, couldn't you provide a link in the "race" article to that new one? I just skimmed over it and didn't see it -- if it is there and I missed it, I apologize. I didn't put it in myself because I think it should come sooner than the list of links at the end, but I am not sure where would be most appropriate. Can you remember where the "race and intelligence" section used to be, write a sentence calling attention to the debate (it is a big part of race, however you look at it -- scientifically, racistly, whatever), and providing the link? SR

Talk

---

Ed, I agree that more specificity in the Sexual ducation article would be a good thing. But otherwise I think you are missing my (and perhaps others') point:

1) it is wrong for you or anyone to assume that because someone rejects your version of morality, that they reject morality. Many people do what they do because they believe it to be right; if what they do is different from what you do, it doesn't mean that they do what they believe to be wrong, it means that you and they disagree over what is right.

2) here is what I would beg you to do: be consistent in your use of the word "morality." In many of your contributions you start off qualifying the word morality ("traditional morality" or "conservative morality." But as soon as you begin writing about the people you disagree with, the qualifying term drops out; thus, you write sentences like "They regard morality as confining and restricitive" (in the sexual morality article). Do you not see what your inconsistencey implies? Why do you not write "They regard traditional morality as confining...?" What you do write implies that these people are simply immoral, and not that they have a different moral standard than you. This is the lack of NPOV. My advice to you is to go over your previous contributions, and wherever you use the word "morality" you qualify it, somehow, so that it is clear that you are not suggesting that some people are moral and others immoral, but rather that people are arguing over what the moral thing to do is. SR

SR, you're spilling a lot of ink (or darkening a lot of phosphor) to no avail. If my articles need editing, just edit them. Anyone would get the impression you don't believe in absolute values. I won't compromise with the destroyers of morality and goodness -- not one little bit. That said, if the wikipedia editorial policy requires a qualifier, please just stick it in. And if there is information missing about other points of view that you think readers will want to see, please add it. -- Ed

Sorry Ed, but to participate in Wikipedia you must compromise with others, regardless of your estimation of their morality. I too stand utterly opposed to the destroyers of morality and goodness, and yet I am trying to engage in a constructive dialogue with you, so you see, I am capable of minimal compromises.

NPOV may be the outcome of a constant process of negotiation and modification of articles. But I take it as a given that people should come to Wikipedia in good faith and not make contributions that are blatantly NPOV. Otherwise, as JHK has observed, they are wasting people's time and undermining the value of the project. Do you come to Wikipedia in good faith? That is what I assumed when I tried to offer you some simple and constructive advice. I promise I will not spill any more ink over this -- if I haven't made myself clear by now, I don't know that I ever will. Perhaps you think you have been clear, but your stated committment to NPOV and Wikipedia contradicts the language of your own contributions. Frankly, you sound a bit confused. That's natural, because evi

---

l's best weapon is confusion. I just wanted to give you a bit of guidance; that's what I am here for. ;) SR

Thanks for the humor :-) I think I've shown my good faith by not re-re-re-reverting sex education after you re-re-reverted it.

If there's anything specific you want changed, please just change it. I may be a slow learner, but I learn best from example: edit my contributions into an acceptable form, and I will do my best to adhere to that form in the future. --Ed

---

Ed, I was impressed with your ability to compromise in various articles (specifically in the case of [Irreducible complexity]]. However, I have one suggestion. If you want to start an article, ask yourself if you are doing it to present a moral viewpoint or to provide a NPOV. If you are doing it to point out your version of morality/immorality, then it isn't in the spirit of the Wikipedia. It is not fair to say, "Well, if people think it's not NPOV, they can merely add to it." People who might be qualified to edit the article might not ever notice it. Contributors should attempt to be NPOV from the start. If you're doing it to point out an opposing viewpoint in a factual manner, on a topic that needs it, then go ahead. The only reason I point this out is your Summary field in a couple of your recent topics seems to indicate that you're writing the articles because you want to present a moral viewpoint, not because you want to present a NPOV (link to a site promoting immorality in teens; teens can make wise decisions??). My two cents. --Rgamble

I think I've been pretty open about my intentions from the start. There is nothing "subtle" about my approach, Dr. Kemp's opinion notwithstanding.

I want to ensure that good and true points of view are included in the Wikipedia. It's as simple as that.

Now, I realize that Larry and Jimbo have an NPOV policy, and I applaud that. It's actually quite necessary, lest he who speaks loudest and longest win each debate. It's rather daring of them to permit such near-anarchy.

It's true that I sometimes (often?) forget to qualify my contributions. I'm a terrible writer, I admit it. Yet it's rare for anything I've contributed to be really need to be deleted from an article; it just needs proper wording.

Perhaps it's inherently hard for authors to be their own editors. Other wikipedians have asked me for advice on how to attain NPOV, and I've been thanked repeatedly for finding NPOV solutions to apparently intractable raging feuds. (Remember Bible Stories?) I ask you all to return the favor, as needed. -- Ed Poor

I agree with Rgamble on the general principle - but others are far worse at this than Ed. But we all need to be reminded once in a while that we must rise above our personal feelings on a subject and present it fairly. That is not to say the we should include every idiosyncratic line of reasoning - all it means is that we must include good arguments on the most prevalent viewpoints on an issue. For example, it would be ridculous to include anything more than a single sentence on flat-earthers on an article about the earth. --maveric149~

• To clarify, I do not mean to say that I think Ed is a terrible writer, nor do I believe he is not a good contributor to the Wikipedia. I merely wanted to point out that if he is worried himself about not always putting forth a NPOV (and he does seem to state this in previous comments) that he should merely ask himself (as I do also when I write an article) whether it's to provide factual information or another viewpoint about something, or whether it's to promote or sway others to a moral viewpoint. Subtle distinction but I think if a Summary indicates strongly that the writer feels the item being discussed is immoral, then it's not being written strictly to provide a NPOV. Just a suggestion, and one I follow myself. --Rgamble

---

Ed, since you changed interval to interval (mathematics), could you please change all the links pointing to interval from the math pages to interval (mathematics)? AxelBoldt, Monday, April 15, 2002

It's April 17, and I have completed the correction. I don't think Ed has contributed a single link change... (sigh) -- Miguel

---

re: Talk/ Chomsky and anti-semitism: Well put, Ed. SR

---

---

---

debate here moved to incest taboo/talk

---

Hum, I'm not sure if Doug has a userpage - I can't find it if he does. I also don't know if he knows how to use meta -- although in this case I don't think it really will be needed. I think it will be possible to infuse the RS of T article with enough NPOV to make it obvious to non-scientists that RS of T is considered to be quackpotery by the vast majority of the scientific community. I've already worked on the introduction section and found it relatively easy to qualify the RS statements -- which are mostly shallow.

For example, the statement trying to legitimize RS of T by saying that "The International Society of Unified Science" promotes the ideas of RS of T -- well a little digging uncovered that advocating RS of T is the only thing they were formed to do and this is their only stated goal. And of course there are the two assumptions that the entire "system of theory" depends upon -- the first is easily enough qualified by stating that there is no scientific, mathematical or logical basis to assume the universe is composed of only motion. This in fact is a fatal flaw of this "system of theory" -- even though RS of T supposedly is able to make some predictions based on this. Hell, give me the answer to a calculus equation and I can rig a way to come up with an answer that will only work for that special case. Science doesn't work this way. It might also be good to note that the type of assumptions made should not be compared or confused with valid mathematical postulates, which are starting points that must themselves be logical or in some way self-evident (such as assuming that the concept of zero - nothing - exists at least in a mathematical sense, or that the two right angles in _|_ are equal and are 90°).

My plan all along was to use the talk and old talk of the article as resources of what critics are saying, do a little Googling to find out more in-depth criticism and compare RS of T to what my Physics textbook says. I wouldn't give up on this just yet -- I'm sure a little Googling will yield what you need. --maveric149

---

How did you do that trick with the ISBns on the Nigger page? -- Zoe

You make a ISBN 2983492837 link by typing ISBN 2983492837 --Ed

Thanks, Ed. I've been doing it slowly. So far about a dozen random presidents have them. I just wish the articles had more info. Danny

---

Hi, Ed. I am glad you liked my contributions to the Palestinian conflict. I agree with you that it is wrong for Wikipedia to take a pro-Israeli stance (though it should obviously not be anti-Israeli either, but rather neutral). Unfortunately, Uri Yanover reversed every single one of the contributions (as usual). /Aloha