|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| The first thing that comes to mind is that Wikipedia could have a page for "[[w:Wikipedia:Blocking policy|block]] review". Wikipedia has many pages for review of actions such as page deletions ([[w:Wikipedia:Deletion review|Wikipedia:Deletion review]]), so why not a similar organized system for the review of blocks? Currently there is [[w:Wikipedia:Appealing a block|Wikipedia:Appealing a block]] and [[w:Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks|Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks]].
| | {{wh}} |
| | |
| '''Study question'''. Should editors of biographical pages be required to reveal their real world identity?
| |
| | |
| I want to write a very short account of how Moulton got into the mess he is in. First I need to make sure I have the facts clear.
| |
| | |
| ===John orders his thoughts===
| |
| '''How I came to know Moulton'''. I have been busy in the real world and only became aware of [[User:Moulton]] on or about 4 August 2008, even though [http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User:Moulton&diff=prev&oldid=292390 he came] to Wikiversity on 9 July 2008. Since then I have been gradually learning about Moulton's editing history at Wikipedia. When I first saw [[Ethical Management of the English Language Wikipedia]] I [http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Topic:Wikipedia_studies&diff=prev&oldid=302545 linked it to] an existing Wikiversity topic, [[Topic:Wikipedia studies]]. At that time I did not have any knowledge of Moulton's editing history at Wikipedia. As someone who has been learning about that editing history during the past few weeks, I hope to be able to help construct a short narrative of events. This exercise is important because Wikipedia has a problem with [[w:Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons|biographies of living persons]] and Moulton's editing history at Wikipedia is an interesting case study related to that larger problem. By understanding what happened to Moulton we might be able to improve Wikipedia. The basic problem is that anyone can start a biographical Wikipedia article and write it in a biased way that does not follow the Wikipedia rules that are designed to lead to the creation of fair and balanced biographies of notable people. The additional problem is that some of Wikipedia's biased biographies are created and [[w:Wikipedia:Ownership of articles|owned]] by editors who are pushing a particular agenda. Moulton crossed paths with some dedicated editors who behaved as if they owned a set of biographical articles and could use those articles as part of a protracted edit war that is roughly centered on the [[w:Creation-evolution controversy|Creation-evolution controversy]].
| |
| | |
| '''Study questions''':
| |
| | |
| 1) Has the [[w:Wikipedia:WikiProject intelligent design|Wikipedia:WikiProject intelligent design]] attracted a group of editors who damage Wikipedia by trying too zealously to defend Wikipedia against creationists and other editors who question evolution by natural selection?
| |
| | |
| 2) Is Moulton an example of a Wikipedia editor who was unfairly treated by editors associated with the [[w:Wikipedia:WikiProject intelligent design|Wikipedia:WikiProject intelligent design]]?
| |
| | |
| 3) Is there something we can do to prevent this kind of problem in the future?
| |
| | |
| ====Timeline of events====
| |
| '''2005'''. [[w:Wikipedia:WikiProject intelligent design|Wikipedia:WikiProject intelligent design]] was started 13 July 2005 by [[w:User:Dbergan|User:Dbergan]].
| |
| | |
| '''2006'''. The [[w:Rosalind Picard|Rosalind Picard]] article was made (8 March 2006) by copying her online [http://www.media.mit.edu/people/bio_picard.html Faculty Profile] and adding a section called, "Intelligent Design Support". It is clear that the purpose of [[w:User:Tempb|User:Tempb]] was to create an article that labels Dr. Picard as a supporter of [[w:Intelligent design|Intelligent design]] and as "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rosalind_Picard&diff=prev&oldid=106946225 anti-evolution]". Page section title was changed from "Anti-Evolution Petition Signatory" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rosalind_Picard&diff=149979951&oldid=148195728 to "Darwin dissenter"] by [[w:User:Filll|Filll]].
| |
| | |
| 24 March. Some [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rosalind_Picard&diff=45293537&oldid=43366412 corrections] to the blatant POV of the originator of the article were made from IP 136.167.158.77 (Boston College). Someone from IP 209.6.126.244 also tried to make similar clarifications. Someone from IP 65.96.63.33 reverted to the POV formulation ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rosalind_Picard&diff=47622524&oldid=47615968 8 April]). May 10: first talk page comment is about the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rosalind_Picard&oldid=52518100 reverts of the article] (section heading, "anti-evolution").
| |
| | |
| '''August 2007'''. Before 21 August 2007, [[w:User:Moulton|User:Moulton]] was a typical Wikipedia editor, having made several dozen edits to various articles over the course of a year and a half. When Moulton followed a link from [[w:Affective computing|Affective computing]] to [[w:Rosalind Picard|Rosalind Picard]] he found a biographical Wikipedia article that was in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rosalind_Picard&oldid=152465684 a particularly bad state]. The Wikipedia article about Rosalind Picard is in some ways a "typical" Wikipedia biographical article. The subject of the article, Dr. Picard, is a professor at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Wikipedia has many other biographical articles about university professors, many of which are autobiographical, having been started by the subject. The [[w:Rosalind Picard|Rosalind Picard]] article is unusual in that it was [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Tempb started by an editor who had an ax to grind].
| |
| | |
| ====Is there an "anti-Intelligent Design Cabal"?====
| |
| '''Study questions''':<BR>
| |
| 1) was there an organized effort to create biographical articles for signers of the petition that was released under the title, "[[w:A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism|A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism]]"?<BR>
| |
| 2) was there an organized effort to prevent those articles from being made more balanced and accurate?<BR>
| |
| 3) is there a coordinated group of rude and abusive anti-[[w:Intelligent design|Intelligent design]] editors who prevent the creation of more balanced articles related to intelligent design and creationism?<BR>
| |
| 4) Is this a good summary: "[http://aggieblue.blogspot.com/2008/06/moultons-answers-to-fillls-8-questions.html a group of editors was so caught up in their crusade against ID-on-Wikipedia that they couldn't recognize valid criticism, and moreover, that many of those editors resorted to despicable tactics in order to get their way]"?
| |
| | |
| '''terminology'''. "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kansas_evolution_hearings&diff=prev&oldid=66549070 IDiots]" used to refer to creationists in edit summary by [[w:User:General Nolledge|User:General Nolledge]], creator of [[w:Granville Sewell|Granville Sewell]] (8 October 2006 ), an early "single purpose" biographical article linked to from [[w:A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism|A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism]]....example of creating a biography just to make connections to the person's stance on ID.
| |
| | |
| '''single purpose biographies'''. Just how many "single purpose" biographies like [[w:Rosalind Picard|Rosalind Picard]] were created? By who? For what purpose?
| |
| *[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_intelligent_design/Assessment long list of biographies towards the bottom]
| |
| *discussion of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:A_Scientific_Dissent_From_Darwinism&diff=prev&oldid=139446406 creation] of a "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:A_Scientific_Dissent_From_Darwinism&diff=prev&oldid=139511599 Signers Category]", (ConfuciusOrnis 15:08, 20 June 2007 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . m Category:Signatory of "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" (creating Cat)), the category was deleted and replaced by a list: [[w:List of signatories to "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism"|List of signatories to "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism"]]
| |
| **Is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arthur_B._Robinson&diff=163811885&oldid=148195281 this good wording]? Looks like the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_signatories_to_%22A_Scientific_Dissent_From_Darwinism%22&oldid=156235625 list was built] before each person on the list was tagged.
| |
| | |
| A recent list of problematical biographies from [http://aggieblue.blogspot.com/2008/08/perplexing-ethical-conundrum.html Moulton] lists:
| |
| *[[w:James Tour|James Tour]] - fairly normal short biography, then added to category [Signatory of "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism"] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Tour&diff=139541572&oldid=134798298 by ConfuciusOrnis] on 20 June 2007. Then a page section [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Tour&diff=next&oldid=149732896 Anti-Evolution Petition Controversy] was added by [[w:User:Filll|User:Filll]] on 26 August 2007, doubling the size of the article in order to make the single point that he was a signatory to the petition. Is this an example of [[Wikipedia:Undue#Undue weight|Undue weight]]?
| |
| *[[w:David Berlinski|David Berlinski]] - The day after The New York Times published "Few Biologists but Many Evangelicals Sign Anti-Evolution Petition" by Kenneth Chang, [[w:User:FeloniousMonk|User:FeloniousMonk]] performed new [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Berlinski&diff=prev&oldid=40739672 categorization] on the "David Berlinski" article. Later, there was excessive [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Berlinski&diff=42892476&oldid=42862265 biography weighting] by [[w:User:FeloniousMonk|FeloniousMonk]] on 8 March 2006.
| |
| *[[w:Guillermo Gonzalez (astronomer)|Guillermo Gonzalez (astronomer)]] this article was subject to a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Guillermo_Gonzalez_(CSC) discussion about deletion] soon after its creation (26 February 2006). This short discussion provides an interesting window into the give-and-take at Wikipedia over biographical articles related to evolution/creationism. The article was originally created by [[w:User:King aardvark|User:King aardvark]] and called [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Guillermo_Gonzalez_(astronomer)&diff=75316276&oldid=74343991 Guillermo Gonzalez (CSC)], making explicit reference to the [[w:Center for Science and Culture|Center for Science and Culture]]. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Guillermo_Gonzalez_%28astronomer%29&diff=74343991&oldid=73577073 Category:Intelligent design advocates]
| |
| | |
| ===Blocking Moulton at WikiPedia===
| |
| [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3AMoulton block log]
| |
| | |
| ====repeated personal attacks====
| |
| 24 August 2007 [[w:User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] (Talk | contribs) blocked "Moulton (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Moulton&diff=prev&oldid=153398366 repeated personal attacks]) at [[w:Talk:A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism/Archive 2#The section whose name Moulton keeps changing to "User:Hrafn42", but is really about Rosalind Picard|Talk:A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism/Archive 2]] <-- this really has to be read in its entirety to understand the dispute between Moulton and Hrafn.
| |
| | |
| [[w:User:JoshuaZ|Pages I (JoshuaZ) have made: 1. TalkOrigins Archive]] (Conflict of interest?)
| |
| | |
| [[w:User:Hrafn|User:Hrafn]] states that he believes anyone who says, "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged" is "anti-science". Why is it anti-science? "they knew that they were expressing an opinion in contradiction to the scientific consensus". ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:A_Scientific_Dissent_From_Darwinism&diff=prev&oldid=153135741 see])
| |
| | |
| [[w:User:SheffieldSteel|User:SheffieldSteel]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:A_Scientific_Dissent_From_Darwinism&diff=prev&oldid=153151000 raises the issue of "personal attacks"]. (13:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC))
| |
| | |
| [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Hrafn&diff=237876050&oldid=233390494 Hrafn retiring]
| |
| | |
| ====Is the truth a "Disruptive POV"?====
| |
| 11 September 2007 [[w:User:KillerChihuahua|KillerChihuahua]] (Talk | contribs) blocked "Moulton (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Disruptive POV OR warrior with no interest in writing an encyclopedia. See Rfc.)
| |
| | |
| [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Moulton&oldid=157221709#Blocked blocked for "abuse of editing privileges"] - Why did KillerChihuahua not post the real reason for the block? Why was [[w:User:Yamla|User:Yamla]] so willing to support this bad block?
| |
| | |
| [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton#Enough User:MastCell's participation]
| |
| | |
| | |
| ----
| |
| KillerChihuahua blocked with the reason given as "Disruptive POV OR warrior with no interest in writing an encyclopedia. See Rfc." Then, 10 minutes later, [[w:User:MastCell|MastCell]] made [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Moulton&diff=next&oldid=157213483 this edit] which used a standard Wikipedia template for extended blocks (Template:uw-block3) "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Moulton&oldid=157214521#Blocked indefinitely blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges.]" The text "abuse of editing privileges" linked to [[w:Wikipedia:Vandalism|Wikipedia:Vandalism]]. So, there was no notification given on Moulton's user page of the reason for an indefinite block. Why did MastCell get involved? Why did MastCell post the wrong reason for the block? Why did KillerChihuahua never make sure that the reason for the block was posted to Moulton's user talk page?
| |
| | |
| ----
| |
| | |
| | |
| [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20070915202043&limit=500&contribs=user&target=KillerChihuahua&year=2007&month=9 KillerChihuahua] - preparation for the block
| |
| | |
| [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMoulton&action=history&year=2007&month=9 Moulton's talk]; see [[w:User:Baegis|User:Baegis]]
| |
| | |
| ===Requests for comment===
| |
| [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct&diff=155671068&oldid=prev Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct] (4 September 2007 , by Filll] "Personal attacks, Disruptive editing, conflict of interest, failure to understand NPOV"
| |
| | |
| [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Intelligent_Design Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Intelligent Design]
| |
| | |
| ===Requests for arbitration===
| |
| [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&oldid=177205578#Statement_by_Moulton Statement by Moulton]
| |
| | |
| [http://static.wikipedia.org/new/wikipedia/en/articles/f/e/l/User_talk~FeloniousMonk_Arbcom_evidence_4828.html#Moulton FeloniousMonk/Arbcom evidence] (note: see how this page was deleted ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV red link]) after being placed in an Arbitration Committee case by FeloniousMonk)
| |
| | |
| ===Conflict of interest===
| |
| '''Study question''': Does Moulton have a conflict of interest? ([http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User:JWSchmidt/Moulton&diff=310752&oldid=310736 as claimed here?]) "incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor" (source: [[w:Wikipedia:Conflict of interest|Wikipedia:Conflict of interest]]). Documentation of the claim that Mouton's aims as a Wikipedia editor are in any way contrary to or incompatible with producing a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia:
| |
| <BR>1) Evaluate [[User talk:Moulton#One change]]
| |
| <BR>2) Evaluate [http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Moulton&diff=313459&oldid=313456]
| |
| <BR>3)Alternative hypothesis: Moulton's actions were correct and [[w:Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Defending interests|explicitly protected by Wikipedia policy]], "In a few cases, outside interests coincide with Wikipedia’s interests. An important example is that unsupported defamatory material appearing in articles may be removed at once. Anyone may do this, and should do this, and this guideline applies widely to any unsourced or poorly sourced, potentially libelous postings. In this case it is unproblematic to defend the interest of the person or institution involved."
| |
| | |
| '''Note on Semantics:''' "Conflict of interest" is used in three senses. All of which have, at times, been Wikipedia's "official" definition as stated at [[w:WP:COI]]. The first sense is that there exists a ''potential'' for an actual COI behavior. E.g. he is writing about his employer. If the information is known, this is the most objective of the senses to use. The second, quoted above, is that the potential has risen to the level of a ''goal''. Distinguishing between conscious and unconscious goal would yield four senses. He may consciously wish to say something nice about his company, but unconsciously resent it. Asserting statements about another's goals seems not the best way to discuss the issue. The third is that a COI is in fact the COI behavior itself and short of that behavior a COI is said to not exist. Absent knowledge about a contributor's identity, this last is functionally equivalent to saying someone is POV pushing against NPOV policy and perhaps should have their real life identity investigated, e.g is the IP address from that company. Any clear discussion of whether someone has a COI must be clear about what sense is being used.
| |
| | |
| ===How do we clean things up?===
| |
| *[http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SB_Johnny&diff=prev&oldid=309913 Ottava Rima]: expand the biased biographies into balanced articles
| |
| ::'''study question''': what if the only published information is biased and misleading, leaving Wikipedia editors with no way to produce a balanced Wikipedia article?
| |
| :::In the specific case of the [[w:Rosalind Picard|Rosalind Picard]] article, might it be possible to find a journalist who would investigate, document and publish in a reliable source an account of the events (''exactly'' what Rosalind "signed", when she signed it, what she was thinking when she signed it)? Wikipedia could then cite this article.
| |
| *[[Ethical Management of the English Language Wikipedia/Change BLP policy]]
| |
| | |
| ====Participate at [[w:Talk:Rosalind Picard|Talk:Rosalind Picard]]====
| |
| There had been long discussion about how to describe Picard's views in the context with her agreement with the statement: "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged". Picard's Wikipedia biography article has a section called "Religion and science".
| |
| | |
| '''study question''': What is the best way for Wikipedia to include in her biography the fact that Picard has made public statements about natural selection?
| |
| | |
| *My [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rosalind_Picard&diff=234989099&oldid=234987649 first suggestion].
| |
| | |
| ====Participate at [[w:Rosalind Picard|Rosalind Picard]]====
| |
| In [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rosalind_Picard&diff=prev&oldid=213500787 this edit] by [[w:User:Guettarda|User:Guettarda]], a description of some content from the "[http://news.therecord.com/article/264978 A scientist who embraces God]" article (cited in the Picard article) was replaced by "She is dismissive of [[w:reductionism#In_science|scientific reductionism]]". Scientific reductionism is not mentioned in the article called "A scientist who embraces God". At [[w:Talk:Rosalind Picard#Limits of science]] you can see the "reasoning" by which Guettarda tried to justify the use of "She is dismissive of scientific reductionism" even thought Picard never actually dismissed scientific reductionism. So "She is dismissive of scientific reductionism" is Guettarda's imagined interpretation of Picard's thinking. It looks like an orchestrated move to depict Picard as anti-science. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rosalind_Picard&diff=235130619&oldid=235109466 My request] before I found the thread at [[w:Talk:Rosalind Picard#Limits of science]].
| |
| | |
| [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rosalind_Picard&diff=235146855&oldid=235130619 This edit] by [[w:User:dave souza|User:dave souza]] again failed to create an accurate and coherent summary of what Picard said. [[w:User:dave souza|User:dave souza]] states on his user page that he has an "unhealthy fascination with the great intelligent design con", an interesting bit of self-reflection. [[w:User:Ottava Rima|User:Ottava Rima]] then [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rosalind_Picard&diff=235180415&oldid=235152042 fixed the problem] by actually giving an unbiased account of what Picard said.
| |
| | |
| ==Moulton responds here==
| |
| I first began editing in the bailiwick of the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_intelligent_design&oldid=212601519#Participants Intelligent Design Wikiproject] exactly one year ago today. During this time of year, when everyone is on vacation and nothing much is happening, it occurred to me to look at Wikipedia to see if it had an article on [[w:Affective Computing|Affective Computing]], and whether it was up to date. Whilst reviewing that article, I noticed it included a blue link to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rosalind_Picard&oldid=152465684 Rosalind Picard], the author of the textbook of that same name, the founder of the academic discipline of the same name, and the MIT Media Lab faculty member who had established the Affective Computing Research Group at the MIT Media Lab, and who, in 1999, had brought me into her group as a Visiting Scientist on the occasion of winning an [http://affect.media.mit.edu/projectpages/lc/ NSF grant].
| |
| | |
| The [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rosalind_Picard&oldid=152465684 Wikipedia biography of Rosalind Picard], as it stood a year ago today, was atrocious. So [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rosalind_Picard&direction=prev&oldid=152906356 I fixed it]. Immediately it was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rosalind_Picard&diff=next&oldid=152904335 reverted] by [[w:User:Hrafn|User:Hrafn]], a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_intelligent_design&oldid=212601519#Participants card-carrying member of IDCab].
| |
| | |
| There then ensued a brief edit war followed by a [[w:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rosalind_Picard/archive1#Much_Ado_About_Nothing|contentious talk page discussion]] on the Picard BLP and related articles that lasted two weeks. On September 4th, [[w:User:ConfuciusOrnis|User:ConfuciusOrnis]] and [[w:User:Filll|User:Filll]] (charter members of the Wikiproject) filed [[w:Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Moulton|RfC/Moulton]], which lasted another week. On 9/11 of last year, [[w:User:KillerChihuahua|User:KillerChihuahua]] [[w:User_talk:Moulton#Enough|closed RfC/Moulton and enacted an Indef-Block]], at which point I could only edit on [[w:User_talk:Moulton/Archive_1#WP:BLP|my own Wikipedia talk page]].
| |
| | |
| ===Blocked===
| |
| After I was [[w:User_talk:Moulton/Archive_1#Blocked|Indef-Blocked]] on 9/11 of last year [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=&page=User%3AMoulton&year=&month=-1 by KillerChihuahua], the only page I could edit was [[w:User_talk:Moulton/Archive 1|my own en:WP talk page]]. My [[w:User_talk:Moulton/Archive_1#Help|primary correspondent there]], as of 9/11, was [[w:User:Baegis]], who had [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20070912221713&limit=20&target=Baegis registered just the day before]. It was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Filll&oldid=157235855#Patience apparent to me] that [[w:User_talk:Moulton/Archive_1#No_One_Expects_the_Spammish_Inquisition|Baegis was there to troll and bait me]], so as to provide a pretext to locking my talk page (which [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_page_protection&diff=157331676&oldid=157286406 he requested the next day]):
| |
| {{quotation|1=<BIG>'''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=157331676#User_talk:Moulton_.28edit.7Cuser_page.7Chistory.7Clinks.7Cwatch.7Clogs.29 User talk:Moulton]'''</BIG><P> | |
| '''full-protect''': Banned user who has exhausted the community's patience, see his [[w:Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Moulton|RFC]] and the [[w:Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Moulton|Noticeboard]]. Continues to use his talk page as a platform for his grievances against those that disagree with him. His page should be protected in order to prevent him from continuing to post his complaints and to prevent others from feeding the troll. [[w:User:Baegis|Baegis]] 01:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
| |
| :Fixed to reflect request. -<font color="008000">''[[w:User:Jéské Couriano|Jéské]]''</font> <small><sup>(<font color="0000FF">[[User talk:Jéské Couriano|v^_^v]]</font> <font color="FF7F50">[[w:Special:Contributions/Jéské Couriano|Kacheek!]]</font>)</sup></small> 02:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)}}
| |
| | |
| Thereafter, [http://wikipediareview.com/blog/20080405/so-i-am-disgusted-with-wikipedia/ I took up residence at the diaspora of Wikipedia Review].
| |
| | |
| ===Travesties of the Intelligent Design Cabal===
| |
| Last week, [http://aggieblue.blogspot.com/2008/08/perplexing-ethical-conundrum.html I sent to Jimbo Wales] (at his request) a list of problematic BLP's and related articles and non-article pages produced by [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_intelligent_design&oldid=212601519#Participants members of the Intelligent Design Cabal]. Here is a summary of the items in that list.
| |
| | |
| {{quotation|1=[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rosalind_Picard&oldid=152465684 Rosalind Picard Biography], as I found it, exactly a year ago. It's still not fully cleaned up.
| |
| <P>
| |
| [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Affective_computing&diff=210657751&oldid=201883587 Affective Computing], which the IDCab trashed up in a childish act of revenge.
| |
| <P>
| |
| [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Tour&diff=prev&oldid=212048553 James Tour Biography], a similar battleground for accuracy, excellence, and ethics in online media.
| |
| <P>
| |
| [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Berlinski David Berlinski Biography], an [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:David_Berlinski#Intelligent_Design_Section_is_WP:COATRACK utter travesty] if [[User_talk:Moulton#FeloniousMonk_Misses_the_Mark_Again|I ever saw one]].
| |
| <P>
| |
| [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guillermo_Gonzalez_%28astronomer%29 Guillermo Gonzalez Biography], another IDCcab hatchet job.
| |
| <P>
| |
| [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Scientific_Dissent_from_Darwinism A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism], which I fear the IDCab will never bring into compliance with reasonable standards of objectivity and professionalism.
| |
| <P>
| |
| [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_signatories_to_%22A_Scientific_Dissent_From_Darwinism%22&direction=prev&oldid=213693677 List of Signatories to the Scientific Dissent from Darwinism], which for two years contained libelous and defamatory claims about many scientists and academics whose names were emblazoned there.
| |
| <P>
| |
| [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icons_of_Evolution Icons of Evolution], which can't even [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Icons_of_Evolution#Video cite a bibliographic entry] correctly without a protracted edit war on how best to write a hatchet job.
| |
| <P>
| |
| [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AMoulton&diff=212283901&oldid=175905257#Evidence_of_recruiting.2C_directing_meatpuppets_to_continue_campaign_from_WikipediaReview Moulton's User Page], which FeloniousMonk egregiously vandalized, necessitating an [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Moulton MfD] by [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Random832/User:Moulton&oldid=212433604 gobsmacked admins].
| |
| <P>
| |
| [http://static.wikipedia.org/new/wikipedia/en/articles/f/e/l/User_talk%7EFeloniousMonk_Arbcom_evidence_4828.html#Moulton FeloniousMonk's scathing indictment of Moulton], which he and User:Filll cite in three administrative proceedings: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV#Statement_by_FeloniousMonk RfAr/C68-FM-SV], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&oldid=215648774#Statement_by_FeloniousMonk RfAr#Moulton], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Intelligent_Design#Questions RfC/ID#Questions].
| |
| <P>
| |
| [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Filll/Moultonunblock Filll's non-article space biographical sketch of me] (referenced in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Moulton Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Moulton WP:AN/Moulton])
| |
| <P>
| |
| IDCab's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Moulton Spammish Inquisition] of a year ago which Sam Korn (and others) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Moulton#Sam_Korn.27s_review_of_the_case found to be a sham].
| |
| }}
| |
| | |
| And that's just the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton#Annotated_Relevant_Discussions tip of the iceberg].
| |
| | |
| ===More details on timeline of events===
| |
| | |
| {{quotation|1=24 March. Some [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rosalind_Picard&diff=45293537&oldid=43366412 corrections] to the blatant POV of the originator of the article were made from IP [[w:Special:Contributions/136.167.158.77|136.167.158.77]] (Boston College). Someone from IP [[w:Special:Contributions/209.6.126.244|209.6.126.244]] also tried to make similar clarifications. Someone from IP [[w:Special:Contributions/65.96.63.33|65.96.63.33]] reverted to the POV formulation ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rosalind_Picard&diff=47622524&oldid=47615968 8 April]). May 10: first talk page comment is about the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rosalind_Picard&oldid=52518100 reverts of the article] (section heading, "anti-evolution").}}
| |
| In March of 2006, Rosalind Picard was on Sabbatical from MIT and spending the year at Boston College, a Jesuit University a few miles down the road from where she lives in Newton MA. The IP edit from Boston College is her edit. IP [[w:Special:Contributions/209.6.126.244|209.6.126.244]] is 209-6-126-244.c3-0.nwt-ubr1.sbo-nwt.ma.cable.rcn.com, which is the IP of the Picard residence in Newton MA, as confirmed by an exact match to E-Mail headers on contemporaneous messages from Picard's husband, Len, to me. Examining all the edit summaries known to be Picard's own IP edits confirms Picard's annoyance with the errors in her BLP:
| |
| | |
| {{quotation|'''Picard IP Edit Summaries'''<BR><ul>
| |
| <li> 23:20, February 4, 2007 (hist) (diff) Rosalind Picard (focus on the entry)</li>
| |
| <li> 23:19, February 4, 2007 (hist) (diff) Rosalind Picard (the deleted material has nothing to do with the person in the entry)</li>
| |
| <li> 22:35, June 29, 2006 (hist) (diff) Rosalind Picard ("anti-evol" is POV of the writer. the organizers of the petition support many aspects of evolution such as microevolution so to label it anti-evolution is an attempt to sell more newspapers)</li>
| |
| <li> 23:29, April 27, 2006 (hist) (diff) Rosalind Picard (Read the petition. Calling it anti-evolution is not accurate, even if the NYT tried to label it that way.)</li>
| |
| <li> 23:24, April 27, 2006 (hist) (diff) Rosalind Picard (→Intelligent Design Support: The petition does NOT say anything about intelligent design. Read the petition.)</li>
| |
| <li> 00:21, March 31, 2006 (hist) (diff) Rosalind Picard (→Showing Skepticism and Asking for Critical Examination of Evidence)</li>
| |
| <li> 15:28, March 13, 2006 (hist) (diff) Rosalind Picard (→Showing Skepticism and Asking for More Critical Examination of the Evidence)</ul>}}
| |
| | |
| The above edit summaries make it abundantly clear that Picard's on-wiki complaint (spanning 11 months from March 2006 to February 2007) coincides in substance and detail with Moulton's complaint (spanning 13 months from August 2007 to September 2008), that the Picard BLP erroneously connects her (and the notorious petition) to [[w:Intelligent Design|Intelligent Design]], and utterly fails to apprehend the text of the 2001 pre-publication petition, as circulated in private E-Mail among academics, to be a sincere and sober call for rigorous adherence to the protocols of the [[w:Scientific Method|Scientific Method]] when examining the evidence for ''any'' theory.
| |
| | |
| IP [[w:Special:Contributions/65.96.63.33|65.96.63.33]], which resolves to c-65-96-63-33.hsd1.ma.comcast.net, is an unknown Massachusetts Comcast subscriber.
| |
| | |
| ===Is there an Intelligent Design Cabal?===
| |
| | |
| '''JWSchmidt's Study questions''':
| |
| | |
| 1) Was there an organized effort to create biographical articles for signers of the petition that was released under the title, "[[w:A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism|A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism]]"?
| |
| | |
| :* The evidence for this is overwhelming. Last May 5th there was a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_May_5#Category:Signatories_of_.22A_Scientific_Dissent_From_Darwinism.22Category CfD] for Category:Signatories of "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism". A similarly named Category:Signatory of "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" was [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_July_11 reviewed for deletion the previous year]. There remains a mainspace article, [[w:List of Signatories of "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism"|List of Signatories of "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism"]].
| |
| | |
| 2) Was there an organized effort to prevent those articles from being made more balanced and accurate?
| |
| | |
| :* Yes. See, for example, [[w:Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Moulton|RfC/Moulton]]. See also the talk page discussions of the BLPs and related mainspace articles where I tried, with notable lack of success, to make them more accurate and balanced.
| |
| | |
| 3) Is there a coordinated group of rude and abusive anti-[[w:Intelligent design|Intelligent design]] editors who prevent the creation of more balanced articles related to intelligent design and creationism?
| |
| | |
| | |
| ===How do we clean things up?===
| |
| | |
| "In the specific case of the [[w:Rosalind Picard|Rosalind Picard]] article, might it be possible to find a journalist who would investigate, document and publish in a reliable source an account of the events (exactly what Rosalind "signed", when she signed it, what she was thinking when she signed it)? Wikipedia could then cite this article."
| |
| | |
| When [[w:User:Filll|User:Filll]] first suggested this, I responded by writing my own [http://aggieblue.blogspot.com/2007/08/wikipedia-and-ethics-in-online.html account on the Media Ethics blog], with [http://moultonlava.blogspot.com/2007/08/scathing-glances.html additional details on my personal blog]. The senior faculty editor of the [http://www.hardnewscafe.usu.edu/about/awards.htm award-winning] online newspaper, the [http://www.hardnewscafe.usu.edu/about/about.htm Hard News Cafe] at Utah State University, [http://www.hardnewscafe.usu.edu/archive/may2007/083107_wikipedia.html republished the account] from the Media Ethics blog as an Op-Ed column. This publication remains the only vetted media publication by an online newspaper whose content is [http://www.hardnewscafe.usu.edu/about/awards.htm reviewed annually] by the [[w:SPJ|Society of Professional Journalists]]. That publication is dated August 31, 2007, four days before [[w:User:Filll|User:Filll]], [[w:User:ConfuciusOrnis|User:ConfuciusOrnis]], and 12 other allied editors of IDcab filed the RfC and collectively voted me off their island.
| |
| | |
| :: It seems far more likley that Durvoa already spent months stopping Dzonatas from relentlessly damaging the Joan of Arc article to include totally unsourced information to support his own purported personal genological relationship with the historical figure, and has no desire to deal with such an offensive presence again. This is much the reason that I do not intend to edit this project much, if it all, except to retain the historical facts about your perminant banishment from Wikipedia (and numerous other online communities). I've watched others spend months stopping you from relentlessly damaging a whole series of articles and talk pages to include totally unsourced information to support your own esoteric and depreciated views of "ethics," which oddly coincides with removing sourced information about embarassing petitions your good friend signed and has not repudiated. If wikiversity wishes to become Moultonversity, more power to you all. Eventually the foundation will wise up and pull the plug. Here's wishing that day comes sooner! [[User:Salmon of Doubt|Salmon of Doubt]] 14:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| :::Salmon, please tell the story of what happened at [http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=181714&cid=15029861 Slashdot] and in the [http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Awc5.worldcrossing.com+notluom Soap Opera Forum at World Crossing] (use Google Cache if the WorldCrossing server is still down). —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 16:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| ====Questions and Answers with Salmon of Doubt====
| |
| | |
| Salmon: maybe some day you will reveal your identity and why you support Wikipedians who think it is right for Wikipedia to publish false information in the name of "Our anti-Intelligent Design crusade is holy and right, so we can harm other people to further our glorious ends". Nobody can face "perminant banishment from Wikipedia" because they were correcting errors in BLPs....an action that is explicitly protected by Wikipedia policy. I for one welcome close examination of this matter by the wider Wikimedia community and Foundation officials...it is the violators of policy, those who push their mistaken original research and biased POV on Wikipedia who will ultimately face the consequences of wider community involvement in this matter. You might think that just because a successful team of Wikipedia POV pushers has had success so far that they are beyond reach. I think that is wrong. It just takes time for the community to notice the swaggering bullies that try to subvert Wikipedia for their own purposes...it just takes time to clean out these little pockets of abusive editing. I've participated in such cleaning jobs before, so I know how it is done and that it takes time. The more noise you make the more people will look and see the truth. Please keep making as much noise as you can, this is the only way to correct the past abuses and prevent more in the future. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 16:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| : I will not reveal my identitiy here, as at least on participant here (not you) has a history of real-world harassment. I can, however, state categorically that you would not place me in what Moulton phrases (offensively) as the "IDCab." I do not support Wikipedians who think it is right for Wikipedia to publish false information, full stop. You continue to state your opinion that there is a successful team of Wikipedia POV pushers who is disrupting various biographies. I disagree. What would be helpful is if you could post evidence of them doing this OUTSIDE of one isolated case which is neigh-impossible to deal with due to the continued disruptive influence of Moulton. If the Picard biography is worse than it should be because Moulton dosen't know how to ethically and effectively get results, that's on Moulton. If there really is a successful team of POV pushers that are beyond reach, they'll be mucking around with more than 3 biographies. SHOW ME THE MONEY. [[User:Salmon of Doubt|Salmon of Doubt]] 16:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| ::Most of my research is documented on this page; see particularly [[Ethical Management of the English Language Wikipedia/Moulton, JWSchmidt's investigation#Is there an "anti-Intelligent Design Cabal"?|this section]] which links to other biographical articles. My reading of the edit history at Wikipedia indicates that there was a group of Wikipedia editors all of whom made the false assumption that any scientist listed as a signatory to the "dissent from Darwin" petition is "anti-science" and "pro-Intelligent Design". This editing team at Wikipedia decided that biography pages about the signatories are "fair game" for their crusade of labeling the signatories as "anti-science". This effort continues to this day, even though it has become more difficult for them to get away with the game, now that responsible editors are watching. There are other pages such as the Wikipedia list of signatories to the "dissent from Darwin" petition that also have expressed the false assumption, and I have also started helping to clean up those non-biography pages. So far, I have mostly paid attention to the Picard page, but what I have seen (and have not yet had time to look into closely) is that the Picard article is not an isolated case, it is part of a larger pattern of POV pushing. I agree that more work needs to be done to reveal this wide pattern of editing by which a small team of editors has systematically biased Wikipedia...and they also worked to prevent concerned scientists from correcting Wikipedia's bias. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 17:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| ::: I looked through that page. While you certainly show that people made a lot of biographies, you fail to show that they pushed POV as opposed to made a lot of biographies. Just creating a lot of biographies is not POV pushing. Berlinski is best known for his ID work. Your smoking gun edit hardly changes the article at all. If one ignores everything about Moulton on your page, it is quite short. Please show me evidence of a "larger pattern of POV pushing" by showing a lot of isolated POV pushes. Calling someone a fellow of the discovery institute is not pushing a POV, it's noting something notable about them. [[User:Salmon of Doubt|Salmon of Doubt]] 17:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| ::::I think these (above examples) indicate a pattern of POV-push editing (beyond just the Picard article) by members of a group of editors who were working on the mistaken assumption that any signatory to the "dissent petition" should be labeled by Wikipedia as "anti-science" and "pro-Intelligent design". This group of editors was not interested in the mission of Wikipedia (to create balanced biographies), they were only interested in pushing their POV, a point of view which was based on a mistaken bit of original research they had performed. Worse, this group of editors was so sure that their original research was correct, they could not listen when other editors tried to explain and correct the error they had made. Rather than welcome such correction, as required explicitly by Wikipedia policy, this group of editors has systematically tried to maintain ownership of Wikipedia pages and drive away good faith editors who have tried to repair Wikipedia. I am still working to fully document what went wrong at Wikipedia. Frankly, it is a slow process because I am physically sickened when I read the Wikipedia edit history of the abusive editing that was performed by the team of anti-ID POV pushers. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 19:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| [[Category:Investigations]]
| |
