User:Drbogdan/FB-Discussion-20220901

https://www.facebook.com/drbogdan/posts/pfbid0YonRywx9nGmn4C7Z2qH8DnuaEyPXsTWwabT5qGEHaTTJcMjKv2JdZ6Y6xPexdc5Zl

DENNIS BOGDAN - FACEBOOK DISCUSSION - SEPTEMBER 1, 2022

WIKIPEDIA: *Awesome Overview* of the World's Largest Encyclopedia (as/of August 31, 2022) - Clickable Updated Version => https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Drbogdan/WikipediaOverview - OFFICIAL => https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia - Stay Safe and Healthy !! (*entirely* ok with me to delete this post of course)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:WikipediaOverview-DrDennisBogdan-20220831.jpg

-

Laurence A. Moran => Dennis Bogdan

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Genome42 - Laurence A. Moran

Science articles are, in general, unreliable. In my areas of expertise (molecular biology, genetics, evolution, genomics) the articles are full of errors and misconceptions and they are mostly incoherent and disjointed because every editor wants to insert a few sentences about their favorite topic. Scholarly experts have tried to fix these articles but they meet with strong resistance from the Wikipedian clique of editors who resist change. This conflict has been well-documented over the past 10-15 years but Wikipedia is incapable of fixing it. "Wikipediocracy, a website that critiques Wikipedia, states the following concerns about how experts are treated on Wikipedia: 'Wikipedia disrespects and disregards scholars, experts, scientists, and others with special knowledge. Wikipedia specifically disregards authors with special knowledge, expertise, or credentials. There is no way for a real scholar to distinguish themself from a random anonymous editor merely claiming scholarly credentials, and thus no claim of credentials is typically believed. Even when credentials are accepted, Wikipedia affords no special regard for expert editors contributing in their fields. This has driven most expert editors away from editing Wikipedia in their fields. Similarly, Wikipedia implements no controls that distinguish mature and educated editors from immature and uneducated ones.'"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Relationships_with_academic_editors Wikipedia:Relationships with academic editors - Wikipedia EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG

-

Dennis Bogdan => Laurence A. Moran

Thank You *very much* for your comments - yes - *entirely* agree - Wikipedia could be better - and maybe someday will be better - at the moment imo - Wikipedia presents a lot of better knowledge generally than a lot of knowledge currently in the public square afaik - and perhaps - Wikipedia may be a good first step for many to the really responsible literature I would think (and hope) - iac - Thanks again for your own comments - they're *greatly* appreciated - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !!

-

Laurence A. Moran => Dennis Bogdan

Wikipedia has been around for two decades and for almost that entire time there has been criticism of its scientific articles. I think it's time to stop talking about it being a "good first step" and start taking action to fix the problem. I have just been banned from Wikipedia for making scientifically justified edits to science articles within my area of expertise. I think this is a problem. https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2022/08/blocked-by-wikipedia.html

-

Dennis Bogdan => Laurence A. Moran

Thank you for your comments - *very sorry* to hear of your ban on Wikipedia - you seem to be an editor with *really* worthy credentials and academic experiences - and an editor that can *greatly* help improve the quality of Wikipedia content - concern seems to be that "All Wikipedia pages and articles are edited *Collaboratively* ..." ( ie, it's a "team effort" ) ( see => WP:OWN at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_content ) - often, as a result of disagreements among editors, talk-page *Consensus* may be sought ( see => WP:CONSENSUS at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus ) - imposing edits on main pages is restricted on the basis of the *three-revert rule* ( see => WP:3RR at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_warring#The_three-revert_rule ) - further - all added edits need to be supported by reliable sourcing ( see => WP:RS at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources - and => WP:CITE at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources - and => WP:NOR at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research ) - you may already be aware of all this, but noting them nevertheless may help in some way - at least from someone less involved in the various related go-rounds on Wikipedia - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !!

-

Laurence A. Moran => Dennis Bogdan

I'm well aware of the Wikipedia culture and its problems since I began editing in about 2007. The idea that Wikipedia pages should be edited "collaboratively" and that attempts should be made to reach "consensus" are very laudable goals - at least in theory. That's why I engaged in lots of debate and discussion in the Talk pages over my edits. The Wikipedia editor (PRAXIDICAE) who blocked me from Wikipedia refused to engage in a scientific discussion about the scientific merits of my edits and refused to try and reach consensus. Her idea of "consensus" was that she was always right and if I didn't agree with her she would use her powers to prevent me from making any further edits. The "three-revert rule" may sound good in theory but in practice it is used as a crude bludgeon by editors who want to ban anyone who disagrees with them. In this case, PRAXIDICAE removed my scientifically-justified edits so I discussed my scientific reasons for making them. After several days of discussion I assumed that a consensus had been reached since other scientifically knowledgeable editors agree with my proposed edits. That's when PRAXIDICAE invoked the three-revert rule and got me banned. Along the way, she made other false or misleading accusations on the administrator's page. Wikipedia does not provide any venue that allows an accused person to defend themselves against an administrator. Wikipedia administrators are prosecutors, juries, and judges. The question about "reliable sources" is not as simple as you seem to imply. As you can see from the discussion on the Talk pages, and on my blog, it's not easy to identify reliable sources in a scientific context. You really need to know what you are talking about and that means you have to have some knowledge of the subject. For example, a definition of "allele" was posted using standard English dictionaries as reliable sources. I corrected it using scientific textbooks as my source but I was accused of starting an edit war and my edit was blocked by administrator PRAXIDICAE who knew nothing about the subject. Is that an example of "collaboration"? (My correct version is now on the allele article.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allele Allele - Wikipedia EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG

-

Dennis Bogdan => Laurence A. Moran

Don't know if this will help - but posted a comment about your Wikipedia concerns with an editor who may be able to provide a "second opinion" - at => https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Huntster#Editor_ban_justified? - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !!

-

Laurence A. Moran => Dennis Bogdan

Thank-you for your concern.

Problems about harassment and bullying by Wikipedia editors/administrators have been discussed for at least 15 years. Isn't it time to do something about it? I'd love to collaborate and reach consensus on solving this problem in order to make Wikipedia better. The issue of disrespect and antagonism toward academics and experts has also been a feature of Wikipedia criticisms for 15 years. Can we work together to fix it? We've known about the difficulties of defining "reliable sources" for just as long. It's an issue that's especially important on science articles. The standard "solution" is to rely on outdated Wikipedia rules that just don't apply. This makes it difficult for well-meaning editors to makes necessary changes to correct incorrect and misleading articles. It also makes it hard to present a balanced view of the scientific consensus. This could be fixed if we recognize the problem and work together to find a better solution. You are a ""Master Editor IV" on Wikipedia. Surely you can help us fix these problems?

-

Dennis Bogdan => Laurence A. Moran

Recent Comment from Editor Huntster - Drbogdan, hello. Unfortunately I deleted my Facebook account long ago so I cannot read that message. I know next to nothing about this case or this individual, other than what I read in the report and on his talk page. It appears he was trying to push unsourced or self-sourced material, and was willing to edit war to include it. He was told, essentially, it isn't what you know but what you can cite, and it doesn't appear he was willing to accept that. On the surface, the block seems reasonable, though the indef was too much. He can appeal when he comes up with a cogent argument. — Huntster (t @ c) 19:04, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

-

Dennis Bogdan => Laurence A. Moran

Brief Followup - added the following comments to Editor Huntster => Thank you *very much* for your comments - and efforts with this issue - copied your reply-comments to my FaceBook page - if interested, copied the entire relevant FB discussion (to date) to one of my own sandbox pages at the following => https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Drbogdan/FB-Discussion-20220901 - in any case - Thanks again for your efforts with this - Stay Safe and Healthy !!

User:Drbogdan/FB-Discussion-20220901 - Wikipedia EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG

-

Laurence A. Moran => Dennis Bogdan

I was not trying to push "unsourced" or "self-sourced" material. That's a lie. How do I defend myself when Wikipedia editors make false accusations? Do third parties just read what one side (Wikipedia editors) say and take that as the correct version of events? Here's a link to my Talk page. See for yourself whether my comments there justify an indefinite block. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Genome42