From his user page at Wikipedia:
I am the 188th person to create an account at Wikipedia1, and I used to be a big wheel around here2: mailing list admin, developer, first elected bureaucrat, etc. I started over 1,100 articles which are still being worked on3. I got Tim Starling to create parser functions, so that my {{Age}} template could run quickly - it's on over 50,000 biographical articles4. I also got the developers to let blocked users edit their own user talk page, so they could make their case while in exile.
* It is very difficult for any contributor to write neutrally on controversial topics. The difficulty seems to be even greater for those with strong opinions. Sometimes the article talk page becomes inflamed with advocates insisting that their POV is correct, and that opposing POV should be marginalized. But I'm hoping that won't happen here.5
One of my major interests is the development of novel ideas, particularly scientific theories. How do people come up with new ideas about the world, and what sort of reception do these get from other people? What does it take to prove that an idea is right or wrong?
I became less active a couple of years ago, a group of tag team editors discovered they could pin a false accusation of POV pushing and "undue weight" on me and got me banned from the Intelligent Design article. Ironically, the result is that the article condemns ID instead of being neutral.6 Note: I don't want the article to endorse ID - to be neutral on a controversial topic, a Wikipedia article should neither endorse nor condemn any viewpoint.
See my definition of POV pushing and decide for yourself who's neutral and who's biased. (Perhaps it depends on the difference between objectivity and neutrality.)
* It is very difficult for any contributor to write neutrally on controversial topics. The difficulty seems to be even greater for those with strong opinions. Sometimes the article talk page becomes inflamed with advocates insisting that their POV is correct, and that opposing POV should be marginalized. But I'm hoping that won't happen here.5
One of my major interests is the development of novel ideas, particularly scientific theories. How do people come up with new ideas about the world, and what sort of reception do these get from other people? What does it take to prove that an idea is right or wrong?
I became less active a couple of years ago, a group of tag team editors discovered they could pin a false accusation of POV pushing and "undue weight" on me and got me banned from the Intelligent Design article. Ironically, the result is that the article condemns ID instead of being neutral.6 Note: I don't want the article to endorse ID - to be neutral on a controversial topic, a Wikipedia article should neither endorse nor condemn any viewpoint.
See my definition of POV pushing and decide for yourself who's neutral and who's biased. (Perhaps it depends on the difference between objectivity and neutrality.)
1: For some reason he seems to think that joining early is particularly worthy.
2: He was a big wheel until he was sussed by the other big wheels.
3: True; he did start a load of articles, most as one sentence stubs.
4: This is a good example of Ed "starting" an article The differences between how Ed last edited and how it currently looks: . Ed didn't even try to include any instructions.
5: He is apparently unable to see that due weight should be put on alternate POVs, by his logic it is enough for one person to think something for it to be given equal billing with the mainstream view.
6: He was barred from editing ID because he was either inserting obvious claptrap, questioning the deletion of obvious claptrap or denying that there was any virtue in the mainstream view.
2: He was a big wheel until he was sussed by the other big wheels.
3: True; he did start a load of articles, most as one sentence stubs.
4: This is a good example of Ed "starting" an article The differences between how Ed last edited and how it currently looks: . Ed didn't even try to include any instructions.
5: He is apparently unable to see that due weight should be put on alternate POVs, by his logic it is enough for one person to think something for it to be given equal billing with the mainstream view.
6: He was barred from editing ID because he was either inserting obvious claptrap, questioning the deletion of obvious claptrap or denying that there was any virtue in the mainstream view.
He's a joker:
I probably shouldn't bother, because I'm not really interested in showing off. But just to "try them on" ...
Oh and on Wikipedia he signs himself: "Uncle Ed"
To be continued ...
No comments:
Post a Comment