Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ViXra

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sandstein (talk | contribs) at 20:02, 16 March 2012 (Closing debate, result was no consensus). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. There's agreement that this is a website of ... debatable scientific merit, but no consensus about whether the sources we have about it are sufficient for us to retain the article.  Sandstein  20:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ViXra

ViXra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This web site does not appear to have been covered by the multiple nontrivial third-party reliable sources required by Wikipedia:Notability (web); Google news archive search turned up nothing. As a result of the lack of real sources, our article has instead become populated with links to unreliable and pov-pushing sources (blogs, and sources directly associated with vixra) either attacking it or holding it up as an example of freedom, and none of which takes the neutral point of view required here. The remaining sources are either irrelevant (technical details about the moderation process at a different site) or violations of WP:SYN (fishing for examples of crankery at vixra to showcase here). I tried nominating it for A7 speedy deletion already, but that was declined. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:01, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment. ViXra performs a useful service for Wikipedia by sorting the sheep from the goats in terms of their place in or out of mainstream science. If a paper is in ViXra it is 90% likely to be a goat. This saves time in arguing with cranks who always insist that their work is in the mainstream. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:26, 8 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep - the article is an important fount of pseudoscience and is particularly important in that field, so therefore it should be covered. While it may not specifically meet notability requirements, it is an important component of the encyclopedia to give it a reasonable coverage. Also, there is a reputable source to somewhat help it meet notability: About cold fusion, but covers viXrA as a location for pseudoscience. Wer900 (talk) 23:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or possible merge to arXiv. In the course of this debate, only one news item was uncovered that seems to have nontrivial coverage of the site, and that one was from when it was first launched before anything about the site was even really known. It seems that that could be used to say that the site was launched, but doesn't seem to establish much towards its notability for an encyclopedia article. Maybe this item could be used as a source for part of a "criticism" section in the arXiv article, but as a single news item, it hardly rises to the level needed to justify an independent article. It's obvious to anyone with eyes that this site is basically dedicated to pseudoscience, fringe science, and junk science. Given that this is clearly the case, why is it so hard to find any reliable sources saying this? The answer is that it simply isn't notable (yet) as a host for such content, and so we cannot possibly have an article that conforms to WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:V. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:57, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Fringe science, junk science and pseudoscience are significant areas of contemporary culture. They often involve intellectual and psychological pathology, internet memes and other interesting cultural phenomena. As such, they are appropriate areas for coverage by Wikipedia. There is one golden rule though: these pathologies must not be allowed to masquerade as mainstream science. That is what the cranks who advocate them try to do all the time. I suggest to the contributors to this debate who feel that it is their mission to culturally cleanse Wikipedia of these subjects to have a look at articles such as Heim theory. This has been totally taken over by cranks, and any attempt to suggest that it is not mainstream science is summarily removed. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:28, 11 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
    • I, for one, have no intention of trying to cleanse Wikipedia of all of its coverage of cranks. However, per WP:NPOV, crankery needs to be clearly called out as crankery, and for that we need reliable sources calling them what they are. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • David has right of it. If, as you seem to believe, vixra is "fringe science, junk science and pseudoscience", why are there no reliable sources that attest to this? Suppose that we remove everything not attributed to a reliable source. This is what the article would look like. I might as well claim that vixra is just for misunderstood scientists! After all, that's what their website and every reliable source we have on them say. Do you still think it should be kept? Sławomir Biały (talk) 02:20, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edit. I removed references having nothing to do with the subject of the article. Sławomir Biały (talk) 02:50, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I have flagged the remaining references as unreliable. Unless there are some reliable sources forthcoming, I suggest that the article be deleted per WP:V: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Sławomir Biały (talk) 03:21, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe that the PhysicsWorld reference mentioned earlier in the AfD really is a reliable source. But that's only one, and doesn't really document the crankish nature of the site. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:44, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I mentioned this earlier. That appeared only to be an announcement of the site, which could be suitable for a source as a criticism of arXiv, but isn't really a good source for vixra. Anyway, if the article were rewritten based on this one source, what would it look like? Sławomir Biały (talk) 03:54, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep or redirect/merge to a section in arXiv. Even if just for its attraction of crank papers it has received sufficient attention, at least in the blogosphere, that something should be said about it. I have only learned myself about it a short time ago, and Wikipedia is/should be always a good starting point to find out what it's all about. Don't delete the article but delete material that is not supported by reliable sources, though keep in mind that there is nothing wrong with using a primary source as long as a statement is clearly attributed to that source: "According to Gibbs ..." or "The website claims that ...". Nageh (talk) 14:46, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    And another source of sufficient reliability to say something about viXra: blogs.nature.com. Nageh (talk) 15:14, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    There are a couple of blogs to be found that can be used to say something about the crankish nature of viXra, e.g., [1] and [2]. But when I was trying to find reliable sources outside of the blogosphere I found none; it seems as if viXra is largely being ignored otherwise, probably for good. Which weakens the argument that a separate article on it should be kept; possibly it is best to merge what can be said about it to a section somewhere into the arXiv article. Nageh (talk) 21:08, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Blogs are not reliable sources. Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:07, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer to use WP:COMMONSENSE. While WP:SPS says that such sources are "largely not acceptable" it does not completely rule them out. The same could be said about Internet phenomenons, which are largely circulated among blogs and not in highly regarded scientific sources. Anyway, as I said the lack of other reliable sources significantly weakens the argument that a separate article should be kept. Nageh (talk) 19:21, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the lack of sources has now been rectified. No other justification for deletion has been offered, other than irrelevant complaints that the contents of ViXra itself are crankish and sources on it are opinionated; but on that basis, you'd have to delete articles on the Bible, for example. Silent Key (talk) 17:46, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The lack of sources has not been rectified. We have two sources saying only "this guy is starting a preprint server" and nothing that will let us properly describe the pseudoscientific nature of the server. The article is arguably now in worse shape than it was at the start of the AfD, in that it conveys the false impression of respectability for the site rather than accurately (but without adequate sources) calling it what it is, a crank magnet. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:48, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is a crank magnet. That is why it is notable. (I cannot exclude the possibility that worthy papers have appeared on ViXra, I just don't know of any.) Xxanthippe (talk) 22:58, 13 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
I agree with you that it is notable enough to be mentioned on Wikipedia. However, the question to me seems to be how much there is to say about it. Does it warrant its own article? Or is a section in arXiv more appropriate? Nageh (talk) 23:54, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm trying to avoid commenting on another user, but I'm struggling to understand David Eppstein's complaint.
  • He began by saying the article should be deleted because there wasn't any neutrality. Now he says it should be deleted because there's neutrality.
  • He wants us to insert an editorial tone condemning ViXra as a crank magnet. That's against WP:NPOV.
  • The references say ViXra is unmoderated; he wants us to say it's actually moderated in favor of pseudoscience. That's against WP:NOR.
  • He claims the references are saying only "this guy is starting a preprint server"; in fact the Nature reference says: "viXra.org is a new site that wants your papers. All of them. Regardless of quality, quantity or sanity, the organizers promise they will post your paper to their site."
  • He seems to think the references should be more condemnatory, and that the fact that they aren't confers "respectability". In fact it's just proportionality; we're talking about a site that hosts unmoderated preprints, not child porn or beheading videos. Silent Key (talk) 18:40, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While we do have one reliable source for the existence of Vixra, we don't have any sources on which to base an article that conforms to our policies. One of the keep voters has said that the subject if the article is a notable crank site. While it is obviously a crank site, we don't have any reliable sources asserting this. Hence we shouldn't have an article about it at all. Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:11, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Quote: "While it is obviously a crank site, we don't have any reliable sources asserting this" - how's that for an oxymoron. And what "policies"? Silent Key (talk) 01:17, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You were asking for an explanation of things as they stand, but obviously are more interested in scoring petty points than reading the AfD debate and what I had actually written. The only serious keep votes until you came along had asserted that it is essentially a crank physics site and notable as such. I was pointing out that there are no sources indicating this: that argument had no basis in policy. Now WP:V demands that we have reliable sources that are independent of the subject. At present there is only the physicsworld article that simply announces the launch of the site. We simply don't have independent sources that address the subject in detail, period. Sławomir Biały (talk) 10:47, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, I wasn't "asking for an explanation of things as they stand", I said I was "struggling to understand David Eppstein's complaint", then I pointed out his errors. And no, you didn't merely offer an explanation, you also expressed a pro-deletion opinion based on an oxymoronic argument, which I rightly pointed out. Silent Key (talk) 10:12, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Another deflection. Obviously, I can't help you understand David Eppstein's comment if you're going to behave in this way. My advice: start from the top of the page and read through the entire discussion. Hopefully the context for the comments you are objecting to will be clear. If not, then that's too bad for you. Sławomir Biały (talk) 10:48, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am the founder of viXra.org so I have a prejudicial interest and would not edit the article myself because of my bias. I thank the people who support the entry and I wish to make some points here
I am not personally bothered about whether wikipedia has an article on viXra or not, but if it does it needs to be accurate and unbiased. The article as it now stands is biased against viXra due to selective editting to remove positive statements on the pretext that they are not backed up by reliable references. This needs to be corrected.
In supporting statements that begin "The viXra contributors contend..." it seems to me that a reference to articles on viXra.org would count as reliable references and I can't think why they have been marked otherwise. An indepedent and preexisting reference to authors who contend that arXiv has been biased against them would be http://http://archivefreedom.org/ where you can find many testomies including those of Nobel Prize winner Brian Josephson and a link to viXra.org
References to reliable news sources that reported the initial setup of viXra are
A reliable reference to the statement that viXra contains articles of dubious merit is http://arxiv.org/abs/1112.0788 , Mike Duff, Contribution to the Special Issue of Foundations of Physics: "Forty Years Of String Theory: Reflecting On the Foundations"
This needs to be balanced by a statement that viXra.org also contains many articles that have been accepted in peer-review journals. This could be supported by a reference to an example of such as article e.g. http://prd.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v85/i6/e065003
By its nature most references to viXra.org that support its notoriety would come from forums and individuals blogs which might not count as reliable according to the rules of wikipedia. There are other references but they are hard to find in a web search which turns up more mentions of the blog "viXra Log" . The blog is connected to viXra but is not really the subject of this article. A few other examples I found that might count are
I leave it to others to edit these references into the article as they see fit. Weburbia (talk) 10:20, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly dont think that the article should be nmerged with the arXiv article but some people might consider it appropriate to add a link from there. It could also be linked from preprint and probably other similar places Weburbia (talk) 11:13, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your post seems to be based on the false premise that positive statements were edited out of the article during the course of the AfD. Actually the opposite is true. The article was overwhelmingly negative before the start of the AfD. However, we had to remove statements that were on their face critical (such as the observation that there are clearly ridiculous papers on Vixra) because there were no corroborating independent reliable sources that had commented on the matter. The issue of "positive" versus "negative" largely disappears when there are reliable sources that address the topic in a substantial way that are credibly independent of the subject. Since such sources appear to be lacking (blogs and passing mentions aren't considered reliable) I'm of the opinion that we should not have an article. Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:37, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say that the deletions took place during the AfD but since you mention it I checked and indeed they did. I was referring to the deletion of the section about viXra articles being published in referreed journals that was deleted at 03:38 11th March 2012 by David Eppstein. This was supported by references to the viXra articles and corresponding journals articles. This counterbalanced the negative points and made the article quite balanced. Without them it has a strong negative slant. I have given other reliable references that are suitable for other places where citations are required. If I dont edit them in you will ignore them, but if I do edit them in you may claim the article is no longer independent.Weburbia (talk) 21:43, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That was an example original research by synthesis, just as was the part (also deleted) listing some of the wackier papers to be found on vixra. We need reliable secondary sources, other people publishing descriptions of what's on the site. Otherwise it's too easy to find what we want to find and let our opinions guide what we put into the article. And the lack of such sources is exactly why I put this article up for AfD: because in their absence, there is very little we can say about vixra. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:04, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is a fine line between "original research by synthesis" and the collection of well known facts that make up any wikipedia article, often not supported by any reference, or as in this case supported by links to where these facts can be clearly seen as true. You are requiring a higher standard for this article than others about eprint servers on wikipedia including the one about arXiv. The arXiv article makes many statements without references or supported only by links to pages on arXiv itself and even a dead link in one case. It is obvious that your motivation for this is that you regard viXra as a "crank magnet". You would like to find a reliable reference to that but you will obviously not find one. The best you can do is use the more reasonable statement in the Mike Duff article I pointed out. You have left in the statement that "viXra contains articles of dubious merit" with no reference, but you have deleted statements that viXra contains refereed articles which was supported by detailed links that showed it was clearly true. You have reduced the article to a fraction of its former size. I agree that some of what was there was incorrect and needed removing but you have left it even more unbalanced than before. You are clearly outnumbered here by people who wish to keep the article and you have sought to modify it during the AfD to try to strengthen your case under the pretence of trying to improve it, It is time to remove this AfD, accept that you are wrong and allow people to put the article back into a reasonable state using the references I have pointed out. Weburbia (talk) 08:21, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's a more specific reason I think it's a big problem in this case, not just general principles. In its pre-AfD state, we were holding vixra up to ridicule by picking out several pseudoscientific papers and saying "See? That's what's typical on this site". But how do we know those are typical? There's plenty of pseudoscience on arxiv, mixed in with the more conventional papers, so we could easily do the same sort of hit job on arxiv. I happen to believe that the pseudoscience really is typical on vixra and atypical on arxiv, but I don't think we can say so in the article unless we can back it up with proper sources rather than just a rogue's gallery. The same thing goes the other way for the journal articles — we were pulling out journal articles on vixra, saying they're typical for what one can find on vixra, when I have no reason to believe that they actually are typical. —David Eppstein (talk) 14:32, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The problem from my point of view is that the part about articles from refereed journals was deleted entirely while the part about dubious content was left in. If you had deleted both or neither it would have remained balanced and I would have been happy. The negative side can be supported by the reference to Mike Duff's article which makes a reasonable statement about it, while a single reference to an article that has been peer reviewed by a respectable journal is enough to show that it is not all pseudoscience. Nobody was claiming that such papers are "typical". It is important enough to show that they are there. It would be acceptable to either include both of these points or neither. Your opinions on the value of viXra are not relevant to this dicussion. I dont agree with them but will not be drawn into an off-topic debate on that. What matters here is whether viXra has enough notoriety to be in wikipedia. People have responded here to say they think it does. The references I have provided are reliable enough to show that too. Weburbia (talk) 16:46, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. With 128,000 hits on Google Search for "ViXra", an uncommon word, it is hard to argue that ViXra has not been noted by others. I suggest that user:Weburbia put back the references that have been removed in an Orwellian attempt to write ViXra out of history. He has fairly declared his COI and can be assured that any attempts to overly-promote his POV will be detected. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:22, 15 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Counting Google hits is not an argument to keep, not one that is routed in policy as far as I know. Also, as far as I can tell, Weburbia has not even edited the article. Certainly not since the last time you looked at it. Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:37, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say he did. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:07, 16 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ViXra&oldid=482249322"