Proposal:

• I agree. In fact, I suggest that we should start a movement where we encourage scientists or pro-science editors to post the above notice or a similar notice on their user pages and talk pages as a signal to a system that is refusing to listen. Comments?--Filll (talk) 05:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• I basically agree, but with modifications. How about proposing a one month moratorium? All pro science editors simply stop editng for one month and abandon Wikipedia to the mob. If the result doesn't make the front page of the New York Times I'll bet..... It should cause the ArbCom members and Jimbo himself to stop and take notice. They need to take this matter seriously enough to establish an ArbCom Science Committee that can deal with questions like "Is homeopathy pseudoscience?" IOW a high level RfC that has binding consequences and creates policy. Such questions need to be settled. Then methods of effectively and quickly dealing with pushers of fringe POV who violate NPOV need to be developed.

May others propose other wording here? I'd like to see other versions on this page and then we can take a vote and begin to use the one we choose. -- Fyslee / talk 05:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Propose whatever you like. No rules, no deadlines, no preconceived outcomes. This was meant to be open; I'm curious to know the views of other science-oriented editors. Raymond Arritt (talk) 06:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Wikipedia would go on without experts; it would be qualitatively worse, but it would still be at the top of most Google searches. I can only speak for the U.S., but many of the scientific "controversies" of the day (intelligent design, global warming, medical scams, etc) have their roots in widespread scientific illiteracy. Wikipedia is an incredibly powerful medium to counter that illiteracy. I would propose something diametrically opposite: Given the level of dysfunction that has come to prevail on Wikipedia, the most appropriate course for a principled scientist is to impress upon all of his or her colleagues the importance and value of participating in a medium like Wikipedia. Scientists are busy; they have to publish or perish, and ever since - I dunno - 22 January 2001 or so, this country's research investment has shrunk dramatically and it's not easy to keep an investigative career going. Wikipedia is free, volunteer work, but the more the inmates appear to be running the asylum, the more important it is for scientists and experts to volunteer their time and put up with the BS. Just my 2 cents - it's late, and I've had a few gin and tonics, so take it with a grain of salt. MastCell ^Talk 06:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Motion to move to Citizendium. ~ UBeR (talk) 06:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• The main reason I stay is whatever I write shoots right up to the top of Google. I feel it is my duty as an expert in my field to put accurate information in that spot. But I sure as hell sympathize with you, and my field is not nearly as overrun with kooks and nutjobs as is any one of the sciences. Just my opinion, and I'm no more sober than MastCell. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 06:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Good example of a defeatist attitude. --Merovingian (T, C) 06:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, that approach would be defeatist. Do you have a proposal for how to address the situation? Or do you feel there is no problem to be addressed? Raymond Arritt (talk) 06:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Experts should be given some leeway when dealing with topics in which they are well-versed. --Merovingian (T, C) 06:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Merovingian, I don't see that you are a regular contributor to scientific or healthcare articles, much less controversial ones. In spite of that, as an experienced admin, I'm hoping that you have an angle on this that might be enlightening to us beginners. What is your interest in this matter? -- Fyslee / talk 06:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• No, I am not an expert on anything in particular, not that that should exclude me from this conversation. I believe it is important to retain experts on real-life subjects. This issue should go beyond science, as well. They have the kind of knowledge and experience that is not easily duplicable. Calling for some kind of withdrawal or boycott is naive, frankly. Boycotts do little to help a problem; rather, they prolong any solution. On the contrary, more participation or active lobbying on the part of experts would be more helpful. --Merovingian (T, C) 06:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• You are definitely welcome. I am hoping you have some suggestions for a solution. These concerns aren't coming out of nowhere. We need some fundamental policy changes and enforcement provisions. Wikipedia needs to decide if it will become an authoritative resource, or remain an unreliable one. -- Fyslee / talk 06:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• As I said, experts should be given some more clout, if you will. Exactly how to do this cannot easily be defined without being inherently arbitrary. A side issue is identity. Not all users disclose their real identities, and maybe some experts wish to as well. Any policy to have experts put in a more powerful position (the word "powerful" being relative here) would be hard to enforce without some type of vetting system, so we don't have to deal with another Essjay controversy. But for the experts we do have and have verified, they need to be respected and listened to. To play the devil's advocate for a moment, however, this is not to say that they should have the final word on a given subject. Any expert scientist has his or her own motives, that much cannot be denied; we are all human, and most of us still have to make a living. They will still be subject to core Wikipedia guidelines, and I feel that that includes NPOV as well. If a fringe theory receives enough attention by credible sources, there is no reason to deny it space on Wikipedia simply because it is not a mainstream theory. Perhaps a structured type of group of experts meant for discussing certain fields should be set up. Obviously we'd need to get in touch with the Foundation, as I believe they are best able to coordinate something between online and real-world cooperation. --Merovingian (T, C) 07:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• I've read some horrible stories about "experts" who were really hurt by off-Wiki attacks by the POV zealots out there. If I have to give my private information to edit here, I'm not going to edit. Think about the Scientology article. Who here would even dare go over there to clean up that mess? Not me. They are scary. And think about the sociopaths that inhabit Creationism, Abortion, and numerous other articles. If they knew who we were, they'd not stop at harming our reputations or worse. Not to sound paranoid, but these people ARE sociopaths. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 15:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think my motion is a defeatist attitude. I see it as an evolutionary process, if you will. Just as Nupedia transformed into Wikipedia, so should Wikipedia transform into Citizendium. The problems over which we quarrel today do not exist there. There's no need for a revolutionary process or profound changes to a dysfunctional system and its policies--just a simple move for those dedicated to providing accurate information. ~ UBeR (talk) 07:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• UBeR, I don't think M. was responding to you but rather to the original proposal. Raymond Arritt (talk) 07:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• That would amount to abandoning the highest profile source to the cranks. Citizendium is a noble idea that will never begin to compete with Wikipedia for the top spot in searches, and that's what the public uses. This is a much larger vehicle that just needs fixing. No need to build the (much smaller) bridge all over again. -- Fyslee / talk 07:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• As a finance professional, please change "scientist" to "expert." There are experts in fields that are not hard-sciences. PouponOnToast (talk) 15:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It definitely needs tweaking and shortening, so make Proposal 3, 4, 5, etc... -- Fyslee / talk 06:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The ArbCom does not exist to dictate content disputes. --Merovingian (T, C) 06:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It's about time it consulted scientists and got involved. The reputation and atmosphere of Wikipedia are at stake. We are driving away excellent editors, while kooks are a dime a dozen, and they are protected. -- Fyslee / talk 06:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Kookery generally can't stand up against the necessity for good referencing. Even without experts, most editors (be they administrators or not) should be able to enforce our core guidelines. --Merovingian (T, C) 06:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I definitely agree. The problem is that it isn't working, or at least it is so difficult that good editors get burned out, while some admins protect the kooks, even unbanning them, adopting them, and then protecting them. -- Fyslee / talk 06:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

So, the development of processes to deal with fringe theories and their proponents and their proponents' behavior (not to mention the behavior of Wikipedia members such as admins that would condone unwarranted attention for such things) does need to go forward, but I highly doubt that a boycott by experts in those fields will help. Bringing attention to a discussion should give as many users a chance to comment as possible, not that everybody will care, but some fresh ideas can be culled. --Merovingian (T, C) 07:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

As you can see from my link to the "Is homeopathy pseudoscience?" discussion, we have no high level place to discuss such matters. An ordinary RfC doesn't cut it. Science isn't bound by consensus, and in such matters science needs to be given the deciding vote whenever it is feasible. Seriously doubtful situations are another matter, which is not the subject here. -- Fyslee / talk 07:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I would see nothing wrong with establishing a place to discuss that. Please see my longer post in the first section for more. In short, some serious work needs to be done to set something like that up. --Merovingian (T, C) 07:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

As a way to draw attention and more eyeballs to this discussion, I have posted a version of the "notice" to my user and talk pages and invited others to do so as well, with a link back to this page. I think some other mechanisms, like a special Science Committee with administrative powers and input to the Senior levels of the Wiki hierarchy might be helpful. I am not sure a boycott will be necessary, but a widespread threat of a boycott might be enough to get someone's attention. We need to brainstorm to think of ideas on what to do. Here are some:

• a high level committee to deal with science issues and pseudoscience issues or disputes
• renaming NPOV as something else so that people do not mistake NPOV as being neutral, and therefore supportive of pseudoscience
• rewriting the NPOV guidelines to make it more clear that Wikipedia will not and can not be a platform for the promotion of pseudoscience over real science
• mechanisms to encourage pseudoscience proponents and trolls etc to go to related Wikis such as Paranormal Wiki where they can promote their material without restrictions that they view as unfair, such as NPOV or interaction with real science and real scientists. Note: the Paranormal Wiki might need to be renamed to accommodate alternative medicine and some other WP:FRINGE science areas, which might object to be classified as "paranormal"
• possibly some sort of special expert status, possibly from vetting, potentially confidential so that people who want to remain anonymous can still have that benefit but be recognized as experts (I have a few graduate degrees in the sciences, but I am loathe to drop my anonymity and I know several others in the same boat)

Here is my proposed viral marketing notice for this page. Please feel free to copy it to your user and talk pages:

--Filll (talk) 14:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The problems are not confined to 'science'. 'Philosophy' has long since been abandoned to the wolves. 'Religion' is near hopeless. The Christianity article devolved from an FA article, to GA, to barely B-class because of in fighting, POV-pushing and nonsense. I spent 2007, in that part of Wikipedia and — by reputation — had thought the 'science' side was the bastion of sanity. Even outside reviewers have written that the 'science' articles were superior: for example, the infamous 'Nature' comparison to Britannica. To a very productive editor who left Wikipedia over the destruction of the Christianity article, I said as - a parting comment - that:

Wikipedia eats its young, no doubt about that. I do not know if it will survive in the long term. I'm afraid I spend time at Wikipedia with a cheerful apathy and yet I'm endlessly surprised by the destructive behavior: if Wikipedia were a person, I'd say it had a severe personality disorder.

Now, I find the same problem exists with the science articles. Having spent a month on the science side, my preconceptions have been shredded. Science is in worse shape; my opinion, but also my observation. I agree with Filll (talk · contribs). Everyone take a wikibreak for a month. The project is entirely volunteer-driven, and everyone deserves a vacation. Nevertheless, I don't think it will cure the problem. I think Wikipedia hit its peak in 2007 and will begin its decline this year. Like so many Internet fads, this one will pass. Yahoo and AOL are imploding. MySpace and Facebook will peak this year. Wikipedia will have company. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 14:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Anything about finance or economics is overrun with goldbugs and other sorts of fringe wierdness. PouponOnToast (talk) 15:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)