Hi there, welcome to Wikipedia! :-) Thanks very much for your suggestion to add mentions of Liberty University to those articles. I (and others) will respond to your actual posts on the appropriate talk page, but I just wanted to let you know that proposing the change on the talk page is definitely the correct thing to do in this case. As a general rule of thumb, in controversial areas like ID, an editor (including the experienced ones!) should only make an unannounced edit to an article if it's "uncontroversial" (the term we use for this is "consensus"). Unfortunately, in Creationism/ID land, that doesn't allow for much editing without lengthy discussion :-) Let me know if you have any other questions! Thanks, Mildly MadTC 12:33, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
- But of course, one of the core principles of WP is don't be afraid to make edits!. The worst that can happen is you get reverted, and then you move to the talk page to discuss whether the edit should be included. Mildly MadTC 12:41, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 15:57, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Evolution vs. Pseudoscience
Reading WP:FRINGE is a good place to start--it's Wikipedia's key policy considering "Fringe Theories" (ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field)--an umbrella term that includes both conspiracy theories and pseudoscience. According to Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia must not become a source of validation for these types of theories. WP:FRINGE/PS defines what we are and are not allowed to label as Pseudoscience; creationism and ID fall squarely in to category #2.
How it applies to creationism/ID is like this: Evolution is the only view that is supported by scientific consensus (a.k.a. "reliable sources") in the relevant academic fields--the Argumentum ad populum is irrelevant, and the handful of counterexamples that are actually biologists (Michael Behe being the most prominent) have their arguments pretty roundly rejected by their peers. Additionally, groups like The Discovery Institute are only considered reliable when stating their own views; they are not properly qualified to state what is and is not science, and often quote mine and misrepresent peer-reviewed publications to support their positions. WP:NPOV comes in to play by stating that articles do not have to give equal validity to all viewpoints, but only that we fairly describe them according to reliable sources; this is why Intelligent Design, etc. are often accused of being "attack" articles. We also cannot give fringe theories undue weight in an article to make them appear as prominent or as widely accepted as the mainstream view, which is why ID and creationism only have 1 paragraph in the entire Evolution article.
If you are unable to convince people with this line of reasoning (a virtual certainty, if proceedings here are any indication), your next step would be to take the issue to dispute resolution; a request for comment would probably be the next step. Hope this helps! Let me know if you need any clarifications. Mildly MadTC 12:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Congrats... You asked an awesome question in the Teahouse!
Hi! Thanks for your great question about understanding article creation, sourcing, layout, and how to take your first steps into writing about a subject. It's really encouraging to see you asking for advice so candidly. Thanks for doing that!
|Great Question Badge|
|Awarded to those who have asked a great question on the Teahouse Question Forum.
There are no stupid questions, but some are excellent! Good questions are those that reflect serious curiosity about editing and help others learn.
The Teahouse Turns One!
It's been an exciting year for the Teahouse and you were a part of it. Thanks so much for visiting, asking questions, sharing answers, being friendly and helpful, and just keeping Teahouse an awesome place. You can read more about the impact we're having and the reflections of other guests and hosts like you. Please come by the Teahouse to celebrate with us, and enjoy this sparkly cupcake badge as our way of saying thank you. And, Happy Birthday!
|Teahouse First Birthday Badge|
|Awarded to everyone who participated in the Wikipedia Teahouse during its first year!
To celebrate the many hosts and guests we've met and the nearly 2000 questions asked and answered during this excellent first year, we're giving out this tasty cupcake badge.
- --Ocaasi and the rest of the Teahouse Team 22:23, 27 February 2013 (UTC)