|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| {{Menu|'''See also'''}}
| | Wow! Great thniknig! JK |
| *[[Homeopathy edit war/Where are they now|Where are they now]]{{hab}}Welcome to the research project about the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy Homeopathy] [[Wiki edit wars|edit war]] at The Big Wiki. Edit waring at [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Homeopathy other wikis] that is related to homeopathy is also relevant to this research project.
| |
| | |
| Homeopathy is a type of medical treatment usually performed by giving the patient an extremely diluted medicine. Homeopaths believe that these homeopathic medicines are [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficacious efficacious] even if they do not contain any molecules of medicinal substances. A homeopathic medicine is made by starting with a plant or mineral substance, but during preparation of the medicine any original plant or mineral molecules are usually diluted below a level that would allow for a conventional chemical effect on the patient. Homeopathy is controversial because conventional science cannot explain how such diluted homeopathic medicines might be of medicinal value beyond a placebo effect.
| |
| | |
| The Big Wiki article about homeopathy is about the 6,000th most visited article at Wikipedia. Large numbers of people use homeopathic medicine. [http://nostalgia.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Homeopathy&action=history The Wikipedia article about homeopathy was started in 2001], the year that Wikipedia was founded. The "proper" content of this article immediately became a matter of dispute with some editors trying to describe the practice of homeopathy and other editors trying to label homeopathy as a pseudoscientific scam. The conflict between editors with these two different points of view has never ended. Edit waring at the Wikipedia homeopathy page has resulted in editing sanctions (blocks and bans) being imposed on many editors.
| |
| | |
| This research project is an historical analysis of the homeopathy edit war. Can we learn how to avoid such edit wars and limit the damage that they do?
| |
| | |
| ==Origin of The Big Wiki article about homeopathy==
| |
| Is there an error in the database for [http://nostalgia.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Homeopathy&diff=prev&oldid=21868 this version] of the article? It says "December 12" and is shown before the version for "December 2".
| |
| | |
| ==First known edit==
| |
| Was [http://nostalgia.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Homeopathy&oldid=21869 this] the origin of the article? (21:54, 2 December 2001 by 192.146.136.xxx)
| |
| | |
| This contributor cited the [http://www.the-hma.org/ Homeopathic Medical Association]. 192.146.136.xxx was probably someone at the University of Warwick.
| |
| | |
| ==Second editor mentions NPOV==
| |
| [http://nostalgia.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Homeopathy&diff=21870&oldid=21869 20:23, 11 December 2001] by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sodium Sodium] (self-identified medical student in England)
| |
| | |
| Creates link to the article about "faith healing".
| |
| | |
| ==Third editor labels as pseudoscience==
| |
| [http://nostalgia.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Homeopathy&diff=21876&oldid=21873 Labeled as pseudoscience] by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Eloquence Eloquence], whose earliest visible edit at Wikipedia was to [http://nostalgia.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Junk_science&diff=prev&oldid=24078 Junk science]
| |
| | |
| "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Homeopathy&direction=next&oldid=41318 It is now up to the homeopathy folks to present an actual reasonable argument for homeopathy]"
| |
| | |
| ==Talk page==
| |
| When did "talk page" discussions start for the homeopathy article?
| |
| *[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Homeopathy&direction=next&oldid=41318 17:14, 12 December 2001] - this version includes a post that says Dec. 11
| |
| *([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Homeopathy&direction=prev&oldid=14491 21:27, 19 February 2002]) - reached by using the "Previous revision" link from the 12 December version...database error?
| |
| | |
| "I added the link to faith healing because both treatments rely substantially on belief (though not necessarily religious belief) in order for the treatments to work, as well as the rejection of modern medical techniques. Is this not relevant?" ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Homeopathy&direction=next&oldid=41318 see]) was probably the first talk page comment after Sodium's mention of "faith healing" in the article [http://nostalgia.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Homeopathy&diff=21871&oldid=21870 was removed] by an editor at 128.32.172.xxx, probably someone at the University of California, Berkeley.
| |
| | |
| '''Question''': was [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zundark Zundark] the person from England who started the article?
| |
| | |
| ==Partisanship==
| |
| "Please don't fight, boys. I also strongly disbelieve in homeopathy, possibly as strongly as LDC disbelieves in creationism. Yet the best way to show homeopathy up for the crock it is, is to give it the most sympathetic explanation possible; then, follow up with a concise paragraph explaining its unscientific basis." ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Homeopathy&direction=next&oldid=41318 see]) - [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ed_Poor Ed Poor]
| |
| | |
| *'''[[Homeopathy edit war/Where are they now|Where are they now]]? Ed Poor'''
| |
| | |
| "I am not a proponent of homeopathy, so I can't really give a fair treatment to this article, but it seems that this will not be an NPOV article, but instead critics of homeopathy will always get the last word in any discussion of the issues involved. I was attempting to make a feeble last gasp effort at introducing some balance to this article, but it is clearly a failed effort since Wikipedia is not a project committed to balance or NPOV." Was this comment from [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Egern Egern]?
| |
| | |
| Later, Egern raises the issue of how scientific homeopathy is. "If it is really true that homeopathy resists any investigation into new ways to apply, alter, or improve upon its method, then I would agree that it is unscientific."
| |
| | |
| [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19148710 Is Homeopathy a Science?-Continuity and Clash of Concepts of Science within Holistic Medicine]
| |
| | |
| ==="Sides"===
| |
| Traditionally, an edit war has two "sides", two groups of editors who are in conflict. How many "sides" have there been at Wikipedia editing the article about homeopathy?
| |
| | |
| 1) editors who want a balanced article that explains what homeopathy is
| |
| | |
| 2) editors who want an article that condemns homeopathy as a pseudoscience scam
| |
| *"[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Raymond_arritt/Expert_withdrawal&diff=186929089&oldid=186928911 I think that NPOV should be renamed. Called it 'Mainstream Point of View']"
| |
| | |
| 3) editors who object to having the homeopathy article turned into an article about objections to homeopathy
| |
| | |
| Those in category #2 often know little about homeopathy except that it needs to be condemned. Example: "At least in the US, homeopathy is tolerated as an "alternative" medicine without any oversight only because their preparations are known to be harmless (because they don't contain anything). If homeopaths started producing products that had actual effects and measurable amounts of active ingredients, those preparations would be considered normal medicine and would fall under regulation by the FDA, and homepaths wouldn't be allowed to dispense them." ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Homeopathy&direction=next&oldid=41318 see]) - [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lee_Daniel_Crocker Lee Daniel Crocker]. However, see "[http://nccam.nih.gov/health/homeopathy/#q6 the U.S. Congress passed a law in 1938 declaring that homeopathic remedies are to be regulated by the FDA]".
| |
| | |
| Generally the editors who know the most about homeopathy tend to fall into category #3 (above) and they are [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Homeopathy&diff=294792238&oldid=294761130 charged with unwanted advocacy] of their point of view if they speak openly of their support for homeopathy. In contrast, opponents of homeopathy have always been free to express their point of view and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Homeopathy&diff=294746684&oldid=294743438 advocate the condemnation of homeopathy], even when they do not know much about it.
| |
| | |
| [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JWSchmidt&diff=187745217&oldid=187743302 Alternative categories of editors]:
| |
| *1. Reasonable editors (whatever their POV). These are so rare, I think we should build a statue to them. They actually understand NPOV, undue weight, etc. Unfortunately, for articles such as this one, SPOV=NPOV, and many individuals don't understand that equality.
| |
| *2. Anonymous POV warriors who show up and argue tendentiously and uncivilly.
| |
| *3. Registered but SPA accounts who argue tendentiously and uncivilly.
| |
| *4. Registered accounts that have a one-track mind about Pseudoscience, that is, it works, we just don't understand.
| |
| | |
| ==Claim of authorship==
| |
| [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Homeopathy&diff=257992&oldid=257991 Talk page revision as of 08:19, 11 January 2002] - signed "Nicola" using the computer of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Enter_the_Dragon Enter the Dragon]: "I put in the original entry", "I am a 'proponent' of homoeopathy"
| |
| | |
| [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Homeopathy&diff=257894&oldid=257893 Related]? 212.135.1.xxx 08:41, 11 January 2002 Easynet Hostmaster London
| |
| | |
| I wonder why Enter the Dragon's contributions are gone? [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Enter_the_Dragon see]
| |
| | |
| ==End of 2002==
| |
| [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Homeopathy&oldid=593670 Homeopathy article]
| |
| | |
| Structure: description of homeopathy, Criticism of Homeopathy, Arguments by Supporters of Homeopathy, 2 external links and 3 references.
| |
| | |
| [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Eclecticology Eclecticology] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Homeopathy&diff=679715&oldid=41318 requests references] for double-blind experiments that disprove homeopathy
| |
| | |
| ==2003==
| |
| "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Homeopathy&diff=678979&oldid=677246 controversial]" put in the first sentence by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fubar_Obfusco Fubar Obfusco]
| |
| | |
| [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mkweise User:Mkweise] responds with "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Homeopathy&diff=679029&oldid=678979 the theory should *first* be properly explained, followed by arguements against it.]"
| |
| | |
| [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RK User:RK] responds with "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Homeopathy&diff=679031&oldid=679029 This entry is far too POV. Homeopathy is a fraud, a hoax, and can kill people. Let us not be PC about illogical pseudo-science]". "In the United States, all scientists, medical doctors and scientific institutions ascribe the effectiveness of homeopathic treatment to the placebo effect and dismiss homeopathy as a pseudoscience."
| |
| | |
| [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3ARK RK's block log] - what's left of it...how can an unblock be the first entry?
| |
| | |
| Mkweise [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Homeopathy&diff=679753&oldid=679715 responds to RK] on the talk page: "Several of the statements you made in the article are factually incorrect, and the rest are subjective and shouldn't be presented as fact, but as opinions of critics"
| |
| | |
| [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Homeopathy&diff=679764&oldid=679753 RK responds] "Homeopathy does ''not'' work"
| |
| | |
| [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Homeopathy&diff=679764&oldid=679753 Ed Poor warns RK about advocacy]
| |
| | |
| RK says [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Homeopathy&diff=680357&oldid=680053 Maybe I have been too caustic]
| |
| | |
| | |
| Someone from 128.193.88.236 (Oregon State University) shows up who actually knows something about FDA regulation of homeopathy. ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Homeopathy&diff=686388&oldid=686357 see])
| |
| | |
| [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Desertphile User:Desertphile] "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Homeopathy&diff=1174923&oldid=1119989 In a better world, this scam would be prosecuted as the fraud it is]" "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Desertphile&oldid=12492791 Starting in 1995 I focused my human rights activism on Scientology Inc.'s crimes and human rights abuses.]"
| |
| | |
| [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Homeopathy&oldid=2177793 End of 2003] - 7 external links, 6 references.
| |
| | |
| ==2004==
| |
| [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/RK Wikipedia:Requests for comment/RK]
| |
| | |
| [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mr-Natural-Health User:Mr-Natural-Health] --> [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3AJohn_Gohde User:John Gohde]
| |
| | |
| The interaction between "RK" and "John Gohde" seems to have been the first serious clash of partisans, but the "clash" was not centered on homeopathy alone. ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Homeopathy&diff=3161011&oldid=3160633 edit at homeopathy talk])
| |
| *[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Theresa_knott_vs._Mr-Natural-Health Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Theresa knott vs. Mr-Natural-Health]
| |
| *[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Mr-Natural-Health Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mr-Natural-Health]
| |
| *[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/John_Gohde Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/John Gohde]
| |
| *[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/John_Gohde_2#John_Gohde_banned Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/John Gohde 2]
| |
| | |
| Talk page comments:
| |
| *[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Homeopathy&diff=8202597&oldid=8041796 a call to re-think] - I think I wrote this soon after the first time I saw the homeopathy article. Was it a reasonable assessment?
| |
| | |
| *"[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Homeopathy&diff=4126364&oldid=4110690 That guy was either a troll or a moron]"
| |
| | |
| [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Homeopathy&oldid=9120117by the end of 2004] 10 inline references.
| |
| | |
| ==2005==
| |
| UNDER CONSTRUCTION
| |
| | |
| [[Category:Homeopathy edit war]]
| |
| [[Category:Wikipedia]]
| |
| <keywords content="edit wars, homeopathy, medicine, Wikipedia, Wikiversity, bans, banning, bias, medicine, pseudoscience, debates" />
| |
