User talk:Woonpton

Welcome!

"The more limited your understanding of science, the more scientists resemble masters of the occult, and the more paranormal phenomena seem likely to reflect undiscovered scientific truths." -- Wendy Kaminer

"The annals of science are littered with the names of once-celebrated scientists whose wishful thinking forced them to jump into the fringe. If their pet theories become resistant to contrary evidence, if their logic resists criticism, if their peers suspect that they have fudged results, they are expelled from the scientific community. Pons and Fleischman were at the brink days after they went public. Almost immediately they were told that their peak was in the wrong place. They had to make a decision: retreat or press on despite the damaging evidence. In the end, they leaped into the void and will never rejoin the ranks of mainstream scientists." --Charles Seife Sun in a Bottle: the strange history of fusion and the science of wishful thinking. Viking, 2008.

"The wishful thinking about fusion extends far beyond a handful of shunned individuals. Individuals ... do little damage once they are excluded from the community. The real danger comes not from these individuals but from the wishful thinking at the very core of the scientist [as human]. This, and not a threat from a handful of renegades, is what makes the dream of fusion energy so dangerous. --also Seife

"The burden of proof, as always in science, is on those who claim extraordinary things. It is their responsibility to perform an experiment so well that it forces the scientific community to accept the results."

Editing Wikipedia

I saw your statement on the Abd/WMC case talk page and thought I would give you my thoughts on it. I've noticed that one of the most contentious areas in Wikipedia concern science articles, especially science topics in which a lot of people apparently have money or reputations at stake. The wiki model does not handle these kinds of issues very well. There are large areas of Wikipedia, however, such as military history, which are relatively free from intense editor conflict and enjoy a congenial atmosphere of collaboration and creativity. If you have any interests outside of Cold Fusion and similar subjects, perhaps you might try editing in another area? I have personally found building quality articles in non-contentious topics very rewarding. Cla68 (talk) 05:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your taking the time to advise me; however, I think you may have missed my overall point, maybe because I didn't articulate it well enough. I'm not at all interested in editing noncontroversial areas of the encyclopedia; someone else could handle those equally well. It's not that I'm looking for something to do to fill the idle hours of my retirement; I have more to do than I have time for as it is. I'm writing a book and have major landscaping and home improvement projects to finish; I'm not looking for things to do. But I am very concerned about the promulgation of misinformation, and since Wikipedia has become an important source of information, it has concerned me that there is so much misinformation in Wikipedia, especially in the areas where superstition and science collide. You're exactly right; Wikipedia doesn't handle those areas well, and especially where money is at stake, Wikipedia too often takes the path of least resistance and encourages the promotion of dubious and even fraudulent schemes and ideas. Gullible folks are sinking their life savings into cold fusion and other "free energy" schemes, and Wikipedia is (not deliberately, I'm sure, but obliviously) providing free advertisement and promotion for the sellers of those schemes. The same for multibillion dollar new age institutions that are misleading people by asserting that their ideas are based in science rather than in faith, as well as the various dubious "alternative medicine" scams that tempt people into spending money for snake oil and useless gadgets. This worries me, and it should worry others who care about Wikipedia.

No, I have no interest in editing needlepoint articles or whatever for the sake of editing Wikipedia; my interest was in hoping to slow the accelerating handover of the encyclopedia to fringe interests of all kinds. Now that I see that there's nothing I can do about that, and that there's no will to do anything about curbing that trend, there's no reason for me to stick around. Some day someone who lost hundreds of thousands of dollars in a scheme that was given credence by Wikipedia's positive coverage of nonsense will make a big stink in the press about it, and then maybe the powers that be in the encyclopedia (if there really is such a thing) will take steps. I've done what I can. Woonpton (talk) 15:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Well I wish you the best. I'm sorry that something like this has driven off another editor who only was here to help this project. Good luck with what you do and I hope a time comes when you might feel comfortable about coming back. I do understand though how you are feeling. --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I try, but don't always succeed, at trying to remove my feelings from the topics we write about here, if for no other reason to try to comply with NPOV. Since we're supposedly trying to build an "encyclopedia", then it should mean that we're not supposed to, at least outwardly, care at all whether the information here is actually true or not. We're supposed to simply report on what people have said and done related to the topics we have articles on. If someone is here to try to "save" anyone or anything from disinformation, hucksters, or conspiracies, then that person will inevitably become quickly disillusioned, because Wikipedia is not set-up for that type of effort, nor is it Wikipedia's mission. I would not worry about if anyone loses their shirt by investing in Cold Fusion. That's not our problem. We simply ensure that the information in the articles complies with policies such as RS, NPOV, BLP, etc. As far as truth goes, we leave that to our readers to decide for themselves by checking the sources used. Cla68 (talk) 01:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for making my point and demonstrating, yet again, the utter disregard on the part of Wikipedia insiders for the reader or consumer of information. Wikipedia doesn't care if people lose their shirts or are beguiled into buying worthless gadgets or following crackpot theories as a result of misinformation contained in Wikipedia articles, you say. That's quite obvious, that's what I've been saying, and that's why I'm abandoning the project, but it seems rather astonishing that you would be so proud of it. Readers/consumers care about the accuracy of the information in the sources they consult; when they realize that the information is routinely skewed by interested parties, they will no longer consult Wikipedia. I think our conversation is over, was over a long time ago; it seems rather overkill to keep kicking me on my way out the door to make sure I really really really get the message that I'm not welcome here. I knew that already; it's time to put the stick down and quit beating me up about it and go on about your business. Why it would be so important to you to press the point beyond courtesy or collegiality is quite beyond me. I accept that Wikiipedia has accepted and perhaps even embraced the role as the platform of choice for promoters of dubious ideas and products; I accept that and am leaving because I don't agree with that role for the encyclopedia; I think it will be Wikipedia's downfall in the end. We obviously disagree about that, but I'm not sure why you feel the need to continue to harangue me about it. We're done. Woonpton (talk) 01:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a community project and it ultimately will get the kind of articles that the community wants. If the community wants articles that reflect the state of scientific knowledge on some topic, with appropriate weighting of all views according to their prominence, then it's likely to get those sorts of articles. I'd be glad to participate and to help create articles like that.

But many in the community don't want articles like that. You've already mentioned alt med and such. In my own field of climate there are many -- including certain "respected admins and content creators" -- who want articles full of nonsensical junk about how earthquakes cause El Niño and the rise in CO2 over the past few decades is from natural sources and so on. And if the community wants articles full of nonsensical junk, it will get articles full of nonsensical junk. GoRight, Cla68, Thatcher and the rest may eventually be able to twist the climate articles their way but any victory will be short lived. Wikipedia is closely watched and outsiders who know what they're talking about will point out that Wikipedia is full of nonsensical junk. People will stop using it, and the problem will solve itself. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Sine Die

In fact, I thought it made so much sense, I did it before you posted you comment. Cool Hand Luke 23:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

CB

Rumour has it that [1] is at your request. Did you so request? I would prefer the full record of arbcomm's incompetence to remain on public display and searchable, and have told C so User_talk:Carcharoth#CB William M. Connolley (talk) 07:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. My specific request referred only to the material contained in Abd's userspace, the page Abd/Cabal that was nominated for deletion; I said if the entire page wasn't blanked, then I'd prefer that at least the section referring to me personally be blanked. I made that request beause an arbitrator (I honestly don't remember which one, and don't have time to search the history of t:proposed decision to find it, but maybe Vassyana?) in responding to my outrage about the lies and total distortions of fact about myself in the case pages, suggested that if I felt strongly about misrepresentations of fact, I could request to have the material blanked. Since the offending material was liberally sprinkled throughout the case, I didn't see any way to remove the bulk of it, but I felt within my rights to request that the discrete section with my name on it, on Abd/Cabal, be removed. I wasn't requesting for the entire case to be blanked; I wouldn't have thought that was even an option.

Concurrently, there was a discussion going on on the MfD where Hippocrite had blanked the Abd/Cabal page, Cool Hand Luke had restored it, Hippocrite again removed a part that referred to Crohnie, GoRight restored it, Hippocrite asked CHL to reconsider restoring the material because the material had caused Crohnie so much grief. CHL apparently did reconsider, because he reblanked the page, commenting that the entire case was to be courtesy blanked "probably on behalf of multiple users" anyway.

I was glad at first, although rather astonished, to see that the case was being blanked; my first thought was that the case was such a terrible mess and did so much harm to neutral editors that it seemed to me it would be just as well to blow it into oblivion, especially since from now to the end of Wikipedia, that case would be used as "evidence" for the existence of a cabal, and that my name would be associated with that cabal, forever. That's the main reason I'm leaving Wikipedia, because the case was used as an excuse to discredit me (without credible evidence) so thoroughly that it's no use continuing here; those false accusations would stalk me and hamper my relationships with other editors forever if I stayed. But removing the case isn't really going to change that; the damage has been done and can't be undone. People now have a false impression of me that simply doesn't fit with the actuality of who I am and what my position is, and that false impression will remain, regardless of what happens to the actual case material. And at the same time, I've come to see the merits of the argument for keeping the case intact so there will be a record of the complete chaos it was.

P.S. Now, I see that Carcharoth says that the case was blanked in response to my comments (I guess that's what you meant when you said, above, that "rumor has it"). This blows my mind, actually. For two months, my concerns (and Crohnie's) have been completely ignored and dismissed by ArbCom, by the clerk, by everyone, and now all of a sudden my wish is ArbCom's command? It makes no sense, especially after Carcharoth's comment day before yesterday, saying that my "reaction to the case" had had the effect on him that "the end result is that you may have made one member of ArbCom less responsive." So I guess I don't really understand what's going on with this. That's absolutely everything I know about it. Woonpton (talk) 15:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)