Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Alternative views

Retrocausality AfD

Retrocausality is up for deletion here. Tim Smith 20:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 18:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Electric universe (concept) AfD

Electric universe (concept) is up for deletion. Tim Smith 04:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Smith has an RfC

User:Tim Smith has been the subject of a new User request for comment. --ScienceApologist 19:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe

Discussion is ongoing here about whether Christopher Michael Langan's "Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe" deserves a section in his article. Outside input appreciated! Tim Smith 20:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Userbox

I propose that we should get Wikiproject userboxes involved to identify users. I also feel that we should expand our project page to make it more like other project pages. (example: related projects section)Lighthead 21:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for joining and for your input! I've started a "Related projects" section. I wouldn't mind a userbox, and an image on the project page would be nice. Do you have ideas for these? Tim Smith 17:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Photon Belt

I have proposed a deletion review of The Photon Belt if anyone wants to contribute their comments about it. -Eep² 09:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New project proposal

There is a new WikiProject task force proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Inter-religious content that is being proposed to deal specifically with articles whose content relates to several religious traditions. Any editors interested in joining such a group would be more than welcome to indicate their interest there. John Carter 15:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy Con AfD

Conspiracy Con has been nominated for deletion--even after extensive sourcing. Please give your comments/vote. Thanks. -Eερ² ^(t|c) 21:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New thing

Hi guys. I just wanted you to know I began a page today of interest to your project: Category:Alternative Views articles needing expert attention. This is part of the expert finding process. Goldenrowley 04:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Goldenrowley! Tim Smith (talk) 05:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment department is an essential part of a WikiProject

At least topic-oriented WikiProjects such as this one (and most all others as well). It is a well-proven mechanism for recruitment to the project, and it provides a central focus helping us to identify where specific work is needed. The basic form of an assessment department rates articles by quality (from Stub to Featured Article). Many WikiProjects also include an importance (or priority) scale. More advanced features such as requests for peer-review, photo, infobox and alerts for pages in particular need of attention can be added also. For more ideas about how we can shape this project, take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide/WikiProject. I have set up assessment departments for two other WikiProjects (Rave and Alternative medicine), and I will do it here also if this move is approved of. __meco 10:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have had similar concerns myself, and have also set up assessments for other projects. The only thing that has to date inhibited me from doing so is not knowing the specific "scope" of this project. In a case like this, where the project's goal is to ensure that what might be called the "minority opinion" gets fairly represented, I have trouble determining exactly which articles should and should not be included. I have a feeling that maybe the best way to go would be to set up a specific list of articles which the members feel are of importance to this project, and then tag them. But I am virtually certain that I as an individual am not qualified to address that sort of matter across the board. Having said that, I might be competent to deal with articles relevant to religion and philosophy. If anyone else could indicate which articles in that, or other fields, they believe require such NPOV representation, I think that would help immeasurably. I've started a page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative Views/Articles which can be used to indicate which articles are in need of attention by this project. That might be the best way to start. John Carter 14:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work and input, guys! Compiling and assessing a list of all articles relevant to this project could be a monumental task. Our scope is broad, encompassing alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. Of articles of interest to us, I think we can distinguish three groups:

1. Articles directly about alternative views, e.g. Marlovian theory, New Chronology (Fomenko), Aquatic ape hypothesis.

2. Articles about people, books, events, etc. largely concerned with alternative views, e.g. Terence McKenna, The Dead Sea Scrolls Deception, Conspiracy Con.

3. Articles not largely concerned with alternative views, but in whose context such views are notable enough to receive mention, e.g. Great Pyramid of Giza, Tunguska event.

It might be best to hold off on assessment for now and start simple, with a basic project banner that just lets editors know we exist. The banner could be added to articles in groups 1 and 2; articles in group 3 also deserve our attention, but wouldn't necessarily need the tag. I see our tasks as including the following. For groups 1 and 2, to create articles about notable topics, work to make such articles comprehensive, and prevent them from being deleted. For group 3, to give relevant alternative views due weight, but not undue weight. For all three groups, to make coverage of alternative views accurate, verifiable, and neutral. Tim Smith (talk) 05:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Related?

Goals of Rational Skepticism:

To create new articles relating to science and reason.
To create new Wikipedia articles regarding those topics not yet covered by Wikipedia, but which are covered by The Skeptic's Dictionary.
To place {Rational Skepticism} tags on articles related to Rational Skepticism, fraudster tags on articles concerning convicted fraudsters, and add to criticisms sections where criticism is due.
To identify cases of fraud and other unethical/illegal activities undertaken by religious and quasi-religious organizations, as they often go unreported.
To improve those articles which need help.
To serve as a nexus and discussion area for editors interested in doing such work.

Goals of Alternative views:

create articles about notable alternative views
work to make existing articles about alternative views factual and neutral
prevent articles about notable alternative views from being deleted
ensure that significant alternative views which are notable in the context of other articles
receive adequate, factual, neutral representation in those articles
assist in the formulation and clarification of policies, guidelines, and other project-space
infrastructure relating to alternative views
provide a support group and help forum for editors who are interested in improving Wikipedia's coverage of alternative views, but who may be unfamiliar with Wikipedia's rules and conventions

I see no relationship between the two, but different goals with very different ideas. Thus I am removing the Rational Skeptics from related. --Northmeister 12:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are clearly related, asserting otherwise is mere sophistry. __meco 12:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How so? I see contradictions and conflicting points of view. (Although, if members of this project wish to restore the linkage, it is their project and they have a right to do so. My wish is to inform members of this project, of a recent addition to related, from a conflicting project with very different goals.) --Northmeister 12:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True. It should however be noted that the changes to the "Articles" page, if that is what you are concerned with, were made by someone who is a member of this project. As there is no clearly defined scope to the project as it currently exists, that does serve as at least a basis for a start. John Carter 14:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My wish was to alert this community to the change - it is this projects discretion to reverse my decison as SA (originally a member of Rational Skeptics) has done. I have no qualms with this. I've stated why I made my decision to remove and if any member disagrees or the project as whole (better for many reasons) then that would be fine. I do hope this project succeeds in its stated goals, without uneccessary conflict of interest arising, and wish everyone the best in the project. --Northmeister 01:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The two projects aren't conflicting at all. I am a member of both projects and restored the link. ScienceApologist 15:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative views, particularly those involving paranormal phenomena, are a focus of skeptics and skeptical organizations; indeed, it is to examination of these views that scientific skepticism is in practice most commonly applied. When skeptical commentary on an alternative view is notable, it deserves a place in our coverage of that view. For that reason, the aim of improving Wikipedia's coverage of alternative views overlaps the aim of improving Wikipedia's coverage of skepticism, and projects with these aims are related.

That said, I and other users have expressed concern about WikiProject Rational Skepticism's factionalism, apparent entry condition, and resemblance to a "skeptic's club". Since then, the project has made some changes: it no longer casts itself as "the central hub for Skeptical Wikipedians to get together and work on improving Wikipedia" (my bold), and Category:WikiProject Rational Skepticism members is no longer a subcategory of Category:Skeptical Wikipedians, which was deleted. The project does, however, still host "Skeptic watchlists", a page "for skeptics to post their watchlist suggestions, or links to their watchlists" (my bold). The use of the term "Skeptic watchlists", rather than "Skepticism watchlists", and the phrase "for skeptics", rather than "for editors interested in skepticism", is a continuing cause for concern. Tim Smith 06:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this removal qualifies as a violation of WP:POINT and I have reported it here. Northmeister should know better. ScienceApologist 15:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please show fellow editors some respect and assume good faith. My intentions were the best, and it is the projects call. --Northmeister 01:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I personally have no reservations whatsoever to seeing any individual try to revert vandalism wherever he sees it, and thank you for your alertness. I personally have no doubt about your intentions, and thank you for also starting this thread explaining your edit. I personally wish all editors acted as well, because I think we all know several who don't. John Carter 01:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Northmeister made one edit, explained it, and when faced with disagreement, left the decision to the project, even inviting me to reverse his action if I and other members disagreed with it. Assuming good faith, I don't see a WP:POINT violation. Tim Smith 06:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Related new project proposal

There is now a proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Due weight for a group which would work to help ensure that our content complies with the principle of WP:Undue weight. One of its foci could definite be the so-called fringe theories, including fringe scientific theories. Any editors interested are encouraged to show their support there. Thank you. John Carter 18:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Martinphi-ScienceApologist Interview

What is the role of science in producing authoritative knowledge? How should Wikipedia report on pseudoscience? Veterans of numerous edit wars and talk page battles spanning dozens of articles across Wikipedia, User:Martinphi and User:ScienceApologist will go head to head on the subject of Wikipedia, Science, and Pseudoscience in a groundbreaking interview to be published in an upcoming issue of Signpost. User:Zvika will moderate the discussion. Post suggested topics and questions at The Martinphi-ScienceApologist Interview page. 66.30.77.62 (talk) 18:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]