Wikipedia talk:Academic bias

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This User Essay[edit]

Regarding this template:

I would implore anyone coming here to follow the suggestion on that template and get a "potential measure of how the community views this essay" by checking "[[What links here." (Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikipedia:Academic_bias) Please note that when this end-run around giving all significant POVs a fair shake was first proposed by essay author User:Tgeorgescu at the Village Pump (see archive 100 from "What links here", it was met with stiff disapproval and resistance from everyone at the Village Pump, many of whom basically stated that it was directly polarized against wikipedia's NPOV policy. Tgeorgescu proceeded to write the essay anyway. This should be part of the permanent record. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:45, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

There was a suggestion (not mine) to write this essay, besides some of the objections have already been integrated into the article (e.g. rehash of WP:VNT). Comments from an user who supported my initiative were also integrated into the essay. In both cases, with proper attribution. The main objection was not that my initiative would be wrong, but that it is kind of superfluous, since it already follows from other Wikipedia policies. I have answered this objection in the essay. In a way, saying that my essay is superfluous confirms that it meets consensus. But in fact I did not even pretend in the essay that it meets consensus, an essay is not required to gather consensus, since it is different from guidelines and policies. Basically, my essay is a generalization of WP:MEDRS, WP:HISTRS, WP:MEDASSESS and so on. It simply gives new users an idea of what it is practiced daily at WP:RSN. Anyway, I intended this essay as a shortcut of some arguments which I have often repeated on talk pages. I got somewhat tired of repeating the same old story, which should be obvious to anyone who knows the fundamental Wikipedia policies. The difference is that newbies don't know the fundamental Wikipedia policies, and this is the added value of my essay: it is educative, it is not a novel insight of what should be reformed on Wikipedia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:23, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
As pointed out, what you are doing is concocting a "No true Scotsman" definition of the English word "academic", one that does not appear in any English dictionary, as a wikipedia-original term to mean what you want it to mean, i.e. only those scholars who pass your POV litmus test can aspire to be granted the title of "academic" by you; others cannot. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:31, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
There is no POV-pushing in the quote above, unless you consider accreditation, tenure and publish or perish to be some sort of worldwide POV-pushing conspiracy. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:48, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
No, I consider that to be your own original redefinition of the English word "Academic" that appears nowhere else, you made it up yourself entirely and it demonstrates you will even try to reengineer the English language in your own terms in order to achieve the "bias" you say you want. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:23, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

The Bible is the voice of God, not the voice of scientists. If we want the voice of scientists, we ask the scientists. Most of them do advocate the Big Bang, abiogenesis, and evolution as the most visible means of how the world came to be. Whether or not this was God's doing is up to the reader to decide. If the scientists are mistaken, this has to be shown to them on their own grounds, which anti-evolution folks are not really doing, because they are not reading up on the same literature, they are not using the same standards and experiments, and they are not speaking in the same circles nor getting published in the same journals. If it does not walk like a duck, does not talk like a duck, and avoids ducks like the plague, there is little reason to assume its a duck. Or scientist, in this case. I'm not saying the anti-evolution folks are wrong, I'm just saying that they are not mainstream scientists. This is why they're not consulted for the voice of scientists. Now, they can be consulted for what they think if their views are notable.

Accusations of "Forum shopping"[edit]

Note: WP:FORUMSHOP. Original discussion is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive820#Tendentious editing at The Exodus. Please try to centralize the discussion there rather than on multiple forums. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:07, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Note I have moved the above accusation, which was misleadingly placed at the beginning of the previous section to give the false impression that I am indeed "Forum shopping" by creating this Wikipedia talk page. A careful analysis will reveal that I have done no "forum shopping" here; Guy indeed did open an ANI about me, but that does not constrain me from giving my observations about the attached User Essay as I have every right to do, independent of his accusations against me in ANI. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:24, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

"Forum shop?"[edit]

Please stop adding "FORUMSHOP" to this page. This is hardly a forum; this was a blank, unused page until today when I opened up discussion about the attached essay, as I believe I have a right to do that does not depend on your sufferance, sir. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:08, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Simple solution: stop forum shopping. Your "discussion about the attached essay" is a discussion about the exact same issues ("giving all significant POVs a fair shake" that is being discussed in detail at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive820#Tendentious editing at The Exodus. WP:FORUMSHOP is a Wikipedia policy. Please stop violating it.
Also, you are also not allowed to remove other editors comments. See WP:TPOC.
BTW, you are allowed to use any (unbiased) wording you wish on a section header, but you are not allowed to enter your comments without a section header. That interferes with Wikipedia's table of contents and article archiving systems. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:24, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
This is not a FORUM, I am not FORUM-shopping, I am discussing the attached essay, and your following my contribs shutting down all my unrelated discussions as "Forum shopping" consitutes WP:HARRASSment and WP:STALKing. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:28, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
You have removed one of my comments from this page (in the edit where you tell my to fuck off in your edit comment). Removing other editor's comments is against Wikipedia policy. Please self-revert your deletion. As for your edit comment, I refer you to the reply given in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:17, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Big Science[edit]

I've seen some reference to Big Science connected to this essay. How is this connected to main idea of the essay? Are freelance researchers papers excluded on grounds of not belonging to Big Science?-- (talk) 06:30, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Research is considered on the basis of WP:UNDUE. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:37, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Where this would not work[edit]

The article seems misguided in focusing on one hated group and seem oriented to 'who do we get to piddle on and ignore' reruns rather than to seek positive values. But mostly I am going mention instead some questions about the practicality of implementing this where trying to follow Academic bias seems difficult to apply or of low value and perhaps someone else can clarify the how or if such are handled:

  • Academic vs. Academic - the nature of publish or perish drives academics to take different positions, and professional and school rivalries sometimes become knee-jerk tendency to counter anything the other says. So how will an editor detect or sort between a Yale-vs-Harvard difference ? (Yale would presumably like to see CHOPS become CYOPS or at least be included in CHOPSY.)
  • When academics are interested parties - how would one detect and handle when academics are not disinterested parties? This is obvious for any topic related to education and schools such as campus rape and their dubious record of handling; or the value of a degree, or topics such PTA, and common core. Less obvious biases are stereotypical pacifism, social progressivism, intellectualism, and politics. Is the editor at Wikipedia to prefer the academic views in all cases or are there checks on this ?
  • Academics do not cover all topics or specifics - while there are thousands of academic institutions, they tend to convey many of the same topics and do so in generalities and at a large-scale. A few truly huge people of history or major battles or such get mentioned by everyone, but that just doesn't cover much of Wikipedia content. Wikipedia describes many biographies, locations, bits of history, sports items, music or pop culture, animals, and so forth that are small topics and giving specifics not found in any textbook. So what percentage of cases is there even a chance to use an academic bias, and what is an editor to do MOST of the time  ?
  • Academic not include Scholar, Professional, Legal, Journalist, Scientist, etcetera - 'academic' is a teaching role and institution, and while teaching one is not doing scholarly work or research to develop new information, nor is one a professional applying information or setting legal decisions or reporting on real-world applications and events. It is these professionals and their professional association that produces the bulk of printed learned material and association (e.g. JAMA, IEEE). It is the professional association that gives a RS source for finding the 'community' position. What would the academic materials provide in contrast to these as a basis to prefer academics over all other kinds ?

Hope these get some answers to address the practicalities .... Markbassett (talk) 06:12, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

So, rather than use the work of people who study the fundamentals, you would prefer Wikipedia uses the work of people-in-the-street who LIKE the current fad? Johnuniq (talk) 21:31, 7 September 2015 (UTC)