Wikipedia talk:Academic bias
This User Essay
Regarding this template:
|This unofficial guidance essay contains comments and advice of one or more Wikipedia contributors. It is not a Wikipedia policy or guideline, though it may be consulted for assistance. It may contain opinions that are shared by few or no other editors; potential measure of how the community views this essay may be gained by consulting the history and talk pages, and checking What links here.|
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)
|“||An academic has:
- 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"
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)
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)
- 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)
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?--188.8.131.52 (talk) 06:30, 9 June 2015 (UTC)