User talk:168.../musings
On word meaning and POV
[edit]We really should agree on how to talk about this or we won't get anywhere. "The scientific method" can refer primarily to one of two things. 1) to a generalized description of what scientists do or 2) to more or less whatever real historical scientists do and have done to make knowledge advance. Most people use those words in sense 1, and their generalized description will minimally include elements such as observation, hypothesis, etc.. Anyone who uses "scientific method" with the intent to refer to both a particular description and to what scientists actually do (i.e. sense 1 and 2 at the same time) is making an implicit assertion that the description is accurate. But there has been no articulation of a scientific method whose accuracy is not regarded by a large group of scholars as having been thoroughly disproven or at least cast into doubt by historical and sociological case studies. So just to use "scientific method" in a certain way is to shut out or sh-t on that point of view. I think we really should all agree on the (accuracy of the assertion) "nobody doubts the scientific method exists." To me it's very clear that this article is foremost providing a generalized description of science (sense 1). Descriptions exist. What people doubt is that any adequate non-historical description can be proposed and/or they doubt the accuracy of descriptions that have been proposed so far and/or they doubt a description is accurate literally and all the time. 168... 07:40, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
On citing accusations in articles
[edit]From Talk:Dershowitz-Finkelstein_Affair
The letter doesn't really offer an explicit reason for their use of the term "Holocaust denier." The quotes aren't truly germane to that specific charge and the way the letter is structured doesn't make it clear to me that they think they are. Perhaps they issued an earlier statement about him? They say he is "known" to be one. 168... 04:29, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Well, it's been suggested that the label "Holocaust denier" is being used by the ADL as a "smear", meaning that even the labellers don't believe it to be deserved but are using it anyway to achieve the goal of discrediting their adversary, who they oppose for some reason other than that he is a Holocaust denier (and oppose instead, for instance, because he is setting back the cause of obtaining reparations). The suggestion is not a priori false. What evidence do we have against? If it's false, the labeller either has a good reason or thinks that he or she has a good reason for applying the label to the labelee. I don't think we've seen evidence from the desk of the ADL for either. 168... 05:26, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I agree that in a sense the letter is not evidence...that the ADL isn't using the provocative label of "Holocaust denier" consciously as a smear. Two questions one might ask are 1) Does their sincerity matter to whether we promulgate this extremely serious accusation that no one here seems to believe has a good basis? and 2) Should we perhaps just assume their sincerity, as we do with many accusations, in particular because sincerity is hard to prove or judge? I'm not sure of my own mind about either of these. But possibly relatedly, the first edit I made to the "affair" page is to change a sentence that called Finkelstein's accusation "plagiarism" to an accusation that "Finkelstein called 'plagiarism.'" That's because what Finkelstein would tell you that Dershowitz did--the actual motions he went through and the product that resulted--does not fit what the word "plagiarism" connotes to most people, and doesn't even count as plagiarism to some, for instance me. D has been accused of "plagiarism" in F-speak but in normal English it's hasty and tendentious to give the accusation that label. Likewise, I suspect the ADL is using ADL-speak when they call F a "Holocaust denier"--because I haven't seen anybody quoting F as denying the Holocaust. I'm just saying the same thing Leumi said earlier when he suggested they were using the word broadly. But what if I say I'm using "rapist" broadly or "child molestor" broadly when I refer to the neighbor who I say, by way of justification, that he steals my newspaper? I think it wouldn't be right for the paper to quote my accusation without pointing out that I had not specified any act of molestation or rape, only the newspaper theft. Otherwise, my neighbors name is raked through the mud while my reputation gets a boost for my demonstration of civic responsibility.So with this meditation I think I've answered my own questions at least to my own mind. I think we should give the ADL the benefit of the doubt but if we can't find them saying "he denied in this way" we should say they didn't explain their accusation. If you look at the way the letter is broken into paragraphs and moves from topic to topic, to me it offers no indication that the comments about the book are being offered as evidence for the label "Holocaust denier." Rather the letter suggests that it takes the fact as already having been established. Of course, there's such a thing in this world as bad writing. Maybe they structured their letter badly and weren't explicit enough about what they were offering as evidence for what. And maybe uses "Holocaust denier" in a broad way that made it seem obvious to them that their points about the book pertained to the label "Holocaust denier." Maybe they think everybody uses the term in this same broad way and so the structure of the letter is obvious to them too. Fine. Let's not doubt their sincerity. But then in this interpretation we must acknowledge that they are using the term broadly, just as I was using "rapist" broadly in my neighborhood hypothetical.168... 02:51, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
On Problem users
[edit]Made to Wikipedia:Conflicts between users
I find Lir impossible to deal with, and my impression is that this is a common experience. Meanwhile, although I haven't made a conscientious study of Lir's edits, among the ones I've seen I haven't regarded any of them as having improved the articles that Lir made them to. On the science pages I watch (e.g. Nervous system and DNA), Lir's edits sometimes create mistakes of fact where there were none before, and I have only seen Lir refuse to accept evidence that they are mistakes. I have read several other users on the talk pages comment angrily about the same phenomenon. I suggest Lir be banned. If Lir is not banned, I would be grateful if someone would explain to me what a user has to do to be banned. 168... 20:11, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
...
The main problem with Lir is an abundance of evidence of bad faith and, from the instances when Lir is willing to discuss things at all, a record of discussions that are acrimonious and irresolvable. I don't trust this person. Who does? Does anybody actually want this person around? If so, why? I think the burden of proof should be on people who want Lir around. Disagreeing with some others is natural and certainly not a crime, but if Lir can't reach agreements with anybody,' I don't think we should regard it as our obligation or responsibility to allow Lir to play here.168... 18:43, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
...
The record shows that, like above, Lir does not date posts, which enables Lir to come back four days after a discussion and edit a post to make Lir seem to have discussed a matter more reasonably than Lir actually did. Doing a thing like this makes Lir's behavior difficult to monitor. If Lir is not banned, then a requirement of any probabtion should be that Lir date all posts, so that Lir's conduct can be accurately assessed. Otherwise, there's no point to probabtion; not that I think Lir really deserves probation anyway. 168... 21:09, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Made to User talk:Jimbo Wales
- Philosophy of banning...Lir as a timely example
At "conflicts between users" I just posted this in the context of the (redundant I now see) discussion I started about banning Lir.
- The main problem with Lir is an abundance of evidence of bad faith and, from the instances when Lir is willing to discuss things at all, a record of discussions that are acrimonious and irresolvable. I don't trust this person. Who does? Does anybody actually want this person around? If so, why? I think the burden of proof should be on people who want Lir around. Disagreeing with some others is natural and certainly not a crime, but if Lir can't reach agreements with anybody, I don't think we should regard it as our obligation or responsibility to allow Lir to play here.
I have never nominated anyone for banning before, and now that I am going through the motions for Lir, I'm getting the impression that I'm thinking about banning differently than the norm, at least differently the norm that is suggested by the posted arguments and proposals I read. What do you think about the way I am framing the issue above, and about the way I suggest shifting the burden of proof to advocates against the ban, after ample to distrust has been demonstrated? I don't think it should be such a big deal to ban. Yes, we don't want to ban people on the basis of bad evidence, and I suppose reliable evidence takes a while or is hard to obtain, but I don't think the evidence should have to show a capital offence, just that somebody is a drag and doesn't add anything positive to the project. 168... 19:21, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Made to User talk:Lexor
In case you would like to say something one way or the other and haven't noticed the couple general notices I posted, I thought you might like to know that I have raised the question of whether Lir does anything around Wikipedia to deserve the continued liberty to post. A couple users besides me have responded at Wikipedia:Problem_users#User:Lir (again), but so far none that I've actually seen discussing things with Lir on biology pages have offered opinions. To my mind, the testimony of cool heads with a good track record would most help people to draw a conclusion--not that a conclusion is likely to be drawn ever--and so I think it would be great if you were to weigh in. To my mind, Wikipedia culture encourages us to tolerate an unlimited amount of uncivilized behavior, and I think this is ridiculous. As I think of it, this project is nothing nearly so grave as running a nuclear power plant or distributing life-saving drugs. I see it more or less like a club, and I think it would be crazy for us not to kick out people who make our lives miserable and pay no dues. You may not find these criteria pertinent to Lir, but they are ones I would love to win people over to (and I've tried to stimulate discussion about it at Wikipedia talk:Bans and blocks). 168... 07:04, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Caveat: I've been reading Wikipedia talk:Bans and blocks and discovered there's actually been a lot of fairly discussion I wasn't aware of (I actually made my post to the Village Pump and only discovered the bans and blocks page when someone transported it there). It may just be I have not invented a new philosophy....168... 08:05, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I take your point and recognize that what you describe might be the best approach in the current political climate here. Re: you finding it possible to work with Lir, I think that represents a valuable way to look at this issue, but my perspective is to ask "what is the point of this work?" After all, it's work--it's not easy, it's often not fun. Is this work for a purpose I am happy to pledge my energies to? I think walking away from a fight is in effect to answer "no." So actually, if you have ever walked away from a fight, I would say that you do not find everybody possible to work with. What makes a person impossible to work with? Are these qualities present at the times the person is just barely possible to work with? From interactions with Lir, for example, I have formed an idea of what these qualities are, and they make me dislike the prospect of having to work with such a person ever. It's obvious that Wikipedia's embodiment of a certain idealogy is a large part of what attracts people to participate here. If libertarianism, all-inclusiveness and anarchy are crucial elements of that idealogy, then we have to be willing to work with absolutely anybody anyhow. I am just a little surprised to find how strongly people cling to these elements given how marginally they are represented by the political parties of English-speaking democracies. Sure, I agree that they would be cool if they worked, I would like to see them work, and I like that Wikipedia provides a low-risk environment for trying them out, but I think we all have evidence that that they don't work, or at least that they now are working far from perfectly. I guess it's just less important to me to pursue this social experiment to the point of absolute conclusiveness than it is to produce a reasonable encyclopedia. I think producing an encyclopedia would be really cool too. At this point I would be happy to get there by a less than totally pure and simplistic ideological route. 168... 16:46, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Made to user talk:cyan:
- I was wondering when this would show up. Functionally, 168's protection changed nothing, as I was about to do so anyway. I have some simple questions for 168 that will determine my view of this matter. 168, if you were given the chance to change your actions with respect to protection of DNA, would you? If so, how? -- Cyan 03:26, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
At the moment I see no reason to regret my action or anything truly wrong with it. I suppose you might be able to persuade me otherwise, but you'd have to try.168... 04:42, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I have searched extensively for community support for Lir and met with nothing but silence. Perhaps I didn't search in the right way or in the right places, but I feel very strongly that I have done due diligence in this regard. While I'm inclined to trust your take on the community, because I see you get around, nevertheless I feel it is reasonable to take a position of skepticism regarding your claim that Lir has people who want him here who are themselves people who are wanted here. I am very much more skeptical as to what my reputation might be at this moment and how my protection of DNA might have changed it. That said, you might well rid me of my areas of skepticism if you showed me where to look for the evidence. Regarding the distinction between you protecting DNA and me protecting DNA, I certainly see it, and I think you draw the line in a reasonable place. The rule however seems to me to draw the line somewhere else--seemingly it says that if you have had any connection with the article ever, you are not allowed to protect it. That struck me as absurd and a principle that manifestly was not conformed to, most obviously because I knew you had made at least one edit to the DNA page and so were bound to have a preestablished preference for the status quo version. So I inferred that precedent existed for sys-ops using their judgement as to what is allowed when. I also inferred that there is precedent for direct democracy and for creating custom here by just doing things that haven't been done before. I am also not aware of a clear hierarchy of rules or of grades of rules or indeed of any rules here that are actually enforced except for the rules against vandalism and offensive names. I think we have something not so distant from anarchy going on here, and at the very least a fluid system of rules and government. When I see bad things going on, I feel like it's reasonable and indeed best for the community to just do what I think is right, irrespective of convention. I think if people scrutinize what I did, it does not represent a bad example. But I accept the reality of PR. If my action becomes a bad example, then I will feel bad about that. I just don't see it as having become that yet. Yet I made a remark to you before about martyrdom. I figured scrutiny of my action would bring more scrutiny on Lir and a realization of the cost to the community of tolerating people like Lir--"good people being driven to bad things"/"good people being driven away by the bad". I figured ultimately I might be run out of town, but even if that happened, I would have made some kind of dent in the community consciousness. Also I figured, if I'm ridden out of town for that, then good riddance to the town. The town has problems. It needs a system of driver's licenses and drunk driving laws more than it needs a clampdown on the police.168... 06:09, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Let me get this straight: Lir is tolerated because he hasn't been banned by Jimbo. Well, I have not been banned by Jimbo. Therefore I should be tolerated.168... 06:28, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
What specifically is the "due process" I violated and how did I deny Lir respect as an editor? I didn't ban or block him, which I think is what you said people objected to as a violation of due process. If I denied Lir respect as an editor by protecting the page, then I did the same thing simultaneously to everybody who might have wanted to edit or revert it, and you have done the same in the past. I don't think there is a due process, just a rule about who can do the protecting when, which is somewhat subject to interpretation. 168... 06:54, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
On group decision making processes
[edit]Made to Talk:DNA
Re: not being motivated to respond to the parallel track of negotation that I have unilaterally initiated in a way that casts aspersions on one of my fellow Wikipedians, I sympathize with your frustration with the extra trouble this represents and even sympathize with your frustration with me, that I should attempt to put you through this extra trouble (note though that really I'd like you all to quit dealing with Lir and think this would save you trouble in the long run). But if I feel people aren't willing to discuss 6 or 6.1 versus the version I like, it will be hard for me to resist the temptation of reverting 6 or 6.1 if it's posted. Some things are a matter of taste and so perhaps must be decided by majority vote, but I don't think everything distinguishing my favorite from yours comes down to taste. I have the patience to justify what I want and respond to your points. If you don't have the patience to really analyze the reasons why you like yours better, which means taking the risk that you will change your mind, then I think you are not bargaining in good faith. Yes it is EXCEPTIONALLY tedious to write an article this way--perhaps foolhardy even--but what choice do we have? I'm sorry that this inconveniences you, but I really care how this article comes out. 168... 20:37, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I don't like that plan (voting), and here's why
* I don't think Lir deserves to vote and will not recognize Lir's vote.
* We are a small and arbitrary set of voters, and we are liable to conclude something different than the entire electorate or a larger sample of voters would conclude.
* I don't see why we can't just discuss the relative merits. A small group of people letting themselves be governed by reason is liable to conclude the same thing as a large group doing the same, and the decision is likely to be reasonable.168... 16:51, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)