User:Filll/AGF Challenge 2 Multiple Choice

 AGF 2 |  Take the AGF Challenge 2!


 * Note: Although all of these are inspired by real situations, the details of some of them have been altered slightly to obscure the identities of those involved.


 * Directions: Click on the link or links following the description of each exercise, and leave your signature on the associated page to express your agreement with that choice.

2.1 Taking a Leak
Jack Leak is an author who is frequently in the news for his controversial theory that oil and gas are not the result of millions of years of decomposition of organic material. Leak has published a series of books describing his theories. Leak is a prominent faculty member at an Ivy League university. He believes that oil and gas are the result of inorganic processes deep within the earth's crust.

The faculty in Leak's department have put a statement on the department webpage stating they disagree with Leak's theory. Surveys of other scientists in his field show that over 99% of them think his theory is unscientific and contradicted by the evidence.

Almost every review of Leak's books by other scientists is negative. His work is quite popular among the public, however, who do not want to believe that the supply of fossil fuels is finite, and that we might run out of oil. Leak has testified as an expert witness during several legal trials where environmentalists were trying to block deep offshore drilling or drilling in the arctic. The opposing side in these trials has always ripped Leak's testimony to shreds, ridiculing him. However, he remains very popular with the majority of the public.

An article about one of Leak's books, Earth Juices, on Wikipedia includes links to several negative reviews. One prominent Wikipedia editor demands that these negative reviews be removed, since they violate WP:BLP. The claim is that anything negative about these books in the reviews reflects negatively on the Leak's work, and on Leak himself, and therefore violates WP:BLP.

In addition, several editors on Wikipedia have objected to statements in Leak's biography on Wikipedia stating that the "scientific community disagrees with his theories". They claim that one cannot measure what the scientific community believes, so that this statement does not belong and is not valid.

Do the negative reviews of Leak's work constitute a WP:BLP violation? Can Wikipedia link to these negative reviews? Can Wikipedia state that the "scientific community" agrees or disagrees with his theories? Are articles on this author's ideas WP:FRINGE theories since most of the public subscribes to them? What does WP:NPOV state about how these ideas should be presented on Wikipedia?


 * How many hours of editor time should Wikipedia spend to deal with this?


 * Remove all negative reviews and links to these reviews as a BLP violation


 * A negative review is not a BLP violation


 * Include the negative review links, but do not discuss them in the article


 * One can not state what the "scientific community" believes about an issue since it is a group of people with different views


 * Other

2.2 It is not free
The Institute for Quantum Healing (IQH) is a nonprofit organization that was founded in Los Angeles by several college dropouts and entrepreneurs. They maintain that rectally inserting a small 10 ml bottle of helium gas while humming a particular chant will excite the quantum energy levels of the helium, and create quantum entanglement between the helium gas atoms and electrons associated with human thought processes, called "thinkons". These thinkons can then be directed by assorted processes developed by the IQH to travel thoughtout the subject's nervous system and heal the body, as well as help the subject achieve optimum health.

The founders of the IQH have created a book called Optimum health through Quantum Healing with a picture of the founders of IQH wearing Einstein masks and wigs dancing the Macarena on a beach. This is a well known book and it is sold in every major bookstore. Billboards with this image are common throughout the US and internationally, and it is commonly featured on television as well.

Wikipedia uses an image of the book's cover in the article about the book, which features a distinctive design. Some Wikipedia editors also want to use an image of the book's cover in the article about Quantum Healing and possibly in the article about the Institute of Quantum Healing, on the grounds that this helps the reader to identify and recognize the movement, by including a picture of the main book associated with this institute and set of treatments. They seek to apply clause 8 of the NonFree Content Criteria:

to justify wider use of the image of the cover. Other editors dispute this and a huge battle ensues which spreads to dozens of other images of book covers on other articles, and other images. Things begin to escalate as the two camps become dug in. All kinds of charges of violation of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF are lobbed back and forth.

What does Clause 8 of NFCC really mean? Is it ever really right to use an image just because it is identifiable with a subject, to help increase audience understanding? Should nonfree images ever be used on Wikipedia, for any reason? Do images help or hurt Wikipedia articles, making them appear less serious? After all World Book Encyclopedia has many more pictures than Encyclopedia Britannica, a more serious encyclopedia.


 * How many hours of editor time should Wikipedia spend to deal with this?


 * There is never a compelling reason to use nonfree images on Wikipedia


 * There is no increase in understanding ever from viewing a book cover


 * Showing an image of this book cover on any article on Wikipedia should not be a problem since it helps promote this organization


 * This book cover image does not increase reader understanding so it should be removed


 * Clause 8 should be removed


 * Clause 8 is so vague that anything could satisfy it


 * Readers will find the article far more informative with an image that they associate with this organization


 * Other

2.3 Shockingly
An editor on climatology pages has been adding his own personal etymology for the term "cyclone". This editor claims that the term "cyclone" comes from the words "sigh" and "clone". That is, a cyclone is a big rush of air, like a sigh, and a cyclone is a copy of this rush of air, that is, a clone of a sigh, or a "sigh-clone" or "cyclone".

This editor has no sources for his folk etymology. He edit wars to insert it, and it is removed. He argues for it on the talk pages of the articles. People tell him it violates WP:NOR and WP:RS and WP:V repeatedly, which he ignores. After telling him this 28 times in a row, ZZ, a well known editor who writes about climatology on Wikipedia, and author of 26 pieces of featured content, tells him,

Several admins are outraged and claim that ZZ should be banned. The word that offends them the most is the word "shockingly" in ZZ's post. A very heated thread is generated on the Administrator's Noticeboard about this. Many are disgusted that ZZ would have committed such an egregious offense. No one asks why ZZ wrote this statement. No one chastises the editor who had been spamming the climatology pages with the unsourced etymology of "cyclone". In fact, many jump to the defense of the "sigh-clone" proponent, claiming it is unfair to insist on sources or to argue with this editor or to prevent this editor from including their unsourced etymology in the articles. A huge lynch mob assembles to drive out ZZ for such an uncivil comment and for his "personal attack" on the "sigh-clone" proponent. Some wonder if it will not be a net loss to protect the "sigh-clone" proponent, who has never made an unreverted edit to any article or written any content on Wikipedia, while removing the creator of 26 pieces of featured content. Jimbo's quote about how we do not want to keep jerks around just because they do good work is repeated over and over.

What should Wikipedia do in this case? What would you do? What is reasonable? What direction is Wikipedia heading in? Should it continue in that direction? What is the best way to create a respected reference work? Should Wikipedia be a respected reference work? Should it even try to be one?


 * How many hours of editor time should Wikipedia spend to deal with this?


 * ZZ should be blocked for a few days to make an example out of him


 * Civil is of paramount importance here and this message must be sent


 * The sigh-clone etymology should be included


 * Wikipedia aspires to be a respected reference work, so the sigh-clone etymology must be left out until sources are provided


 * Wikipedia should include a separate section on Cyclones in Popular Culture and include this folk etymology there


 * The word "shockingly" is not uncivil here


 * ZZ has done this thing before and he is clearly too rude to have on Wikipedia, so he should be banned forever


 * ZZ's featured content contributions outweigh this uncivil outburst


 * Other

2.4 The Naked Truth
Several Christian sects which are proponents of Christian naturism claim that a literal reading of the Book of Genesis means that it is forbidden by God to wear clothes, unless required as protection from the elements. One prominent sect, the Starkerites, have become more and more prominent in the UK in the last few decades. They are famous for their radio and television sermons promising that everyone who wears clothes is an affront to God and is going straight to hell. Some of the more extreme varieties of Starkerites, such as the Nakedites, even preach that people who wear clothes indoors should be summarily killed for their blasphemy. The Nakedites have tried to get laws passed requiring that all children attending government schools doff their clothes indoors. This measure is meant to avoid offending any Nakedite children. There have been some well publicized lawsuits trying to impose Nakedite requirements on various commercial enterprises and public institutions, which the Nakedites have always lost.

Lately a contingent of Nakedites have joined Wikipedia and are changing all the articles on Christianity to reflect Nakedite teachings. Huge edit wars break out, since Nakedites regard all those who do not follow indoor nudity and Nakedite philosophy as not real Christians and infidels. They therefore demand that the Wikipedia articles be written accordingly. Any efforts to stop them or slow them down are met with angry responses and a claim that they have a right to their religious freedom, which Wikipedia is supressing.

What should Wikipedia do? Is it a restriction of their religious freedom to have other versions of Christianity described on Wikipedia? Do they have the right to not be offended? Should Wikipedia give in to their demands and remove pictures of clothed people worshipping in churches or from all articles on Christianity? Should Wikipedia remove all pictures of all clothed people indoors to try to assuage the Nakedites? Should anyone from any FRINGE movement be allowed to show up on Wikipedia and demand to be able to dictate how all articles in some area are written? What if they decry the definition of WP:FRINGE and try to rewrite WP:FRINGE and other policies to let them do whatever they want? How much of the articles on Christianity should be devoted to describing Nakedite beliefs?


 * How many hours of editor time should Wikipedia spend to deal with this?


 * The Nakedites are not real Christians and so should not be allowed to shape the Wikipedia articles as they like


 * The Nakedites are disruptive and should be blocked


 * The Nakedite views should be represented in the appropriate articles, but only a sentence or two is allowed


 * The Nakedites should be permitted to change Wikipedia policy to suit themselves


 * Whatever the Nakedites want is fine since this is the encyclopedia anyone can edit


 * It violates the religious freedom of the Nakedites to restrict their ability to edit as they wish


 * We have to be fair on Wikipedia, and it is unfair to the Nakedites to not include their views as they describe them


 * Other

2.5 How long is yours?
A commercially-available DVD is part of the evidence in a trial. The trial transcripts list the DVD as being 75 minutes in length. Amazon.com and several other sites that sell this DVD list it as 75 minutes in length. An editor appears on Wikipedia and claims that the copy he has in his possession is 51 minutes in length, and that Wikipedia must change its article accordingly.

When other editors on Wikipedia disagree with him, he becomes quite adamant about his demands and even combative. When people resist him, this becomes a major complaint at Wikipedia Review about the unfairness of Wikipedia and the bias of Wikipedia and the lack of ethics on Wikipedia.

What should Wikipedia do? How should Wikipedia describe the length of this DVD? What is most reasonable and fair? What is encyclopedic ? What policies are involved here? Should anyone be allowed to edit Wikipedia according to what they have asserted is The TRUTHTM? Is it a violation of WP:IAR to require that a WP:RS for this editor's claim of 51 minutes before it can be included in the article?


 * How many hours of editor time should Wikipedia spend to deal with this?
 * Wikipedia should report that the DVD is 75 minutes long
 * Wikipedia should report that the DVD is 51 minutes long
 * Wikipedia should not report the length of the DVD
 * Wikipedia should report that the DVD is 75 minutes long but that there is some question that has been raised that suggests it might be 51 minutes long
 * Trial transcripts and Amazon.com are not reliable sources
 * Other

2.6 The US is collaborating with space aliens
A prominent belief in certain Muslim countries that is spread in the mainstream Islamic media is that the United States has a secret program to collaborate with aliens from outer space to (1) scare Muslims and (2) build space weapons to attack Muslims. As proof, they often refer to the internet video called the Alien autopsy video which some "claim" was shown to be a hoax. Nevertheless, in the Muslim world, the "proof" that this video was a hoax perpetrated by someone trying to raise money is dismissed as US government disinformation, and the Alien autopsy video is said to be a leaked official US government video made at Area 51. It is repeatedly asserted that this video is obviously an official classified US government video.

Several editors create articles on Wikipedia propagating this theory. Text segments describing this concept are introduced in articles about the United States and UFOs and in several other articles as well. Sources are provided to articles in the mainstream Islamic media. Huge edit wars erupt.

What should be done? How should this topic be represented on Wikipedia? Are the mainstream Islamic media sources reliable sources for this subject? If mainstream European and American media sources ignore this rumor or dismiss it, should they be given more prominence than the mainstream Islamic media sources? If public surveys in Islamic countries show that 80-90 percent of the population of Muslim nations subscribe to this belief, does this subject qualify as a WP:FRINGE belief? How can one decide if this story qualifies as a WP:FRINGE story or not if Western media ignore this story completely, and there are no surveys of Westerners to compare?


 * How many hours of editor time should Wikipedia spend to deal with this?
 * Since so many people believe this, by NPOV there should be minimal if any criticism
 * This is clearly a ridiculous idea, and so any articles about this should be written from a mainstream Western POV
 * By NPOV, we have to treat this theory neutrally, meaning that there should be no negative material or criticism of this idea in any of the articles
 * There are so many reliable sources that support this idea and so few that criticize it, we must present it as factual in Wikipedia
 * This does not belong in Wikipedia at all
 * Other

2.7 No original research!
User AppleButtEr is editing an article about chihuahuas. A controversy develops about the colors of chihuahuas. AppleButtEr finds one source that states that 48 percent of chihuahuas are black according to one study. Another source claims that 65 percent of chihuahuas are black. A third reference alleges that 64 percent of chihuahuas are white or brown and the rest are black. Finally, one source describes a study where 5893 chihuahuas were examined, and 3482 were found to be black. AppleButtEr wants to convert all these figures into percentages of black chihuahuas so that they can be compared (48%, 65%, 36% and 59.1%) and then present the comparison in a table. Another editor, User: RunOff, who has never edited the article before, appears on the talk page. RunOff states that converting these numbers into percentages is forbidden because it constitutes WP:OR and in particular WP:SYNTH. AppleButtEr quotes policies and papers  that appear to be relevant such as  and, but RunOff ignores these and continues to fight. AppleButtEr brings in others to help him, but RunOff reveals that he is an admin and makes it clear that anyone disagreeing with his position will be blocked. When RunOff is asked about WP:AGF and WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, he states that those do not apply to experienced users, but only to newbies, and wikilawyers until everyone else gives up.

How would you analyze this situation? Is it WP:OR to convert numbers into percentages for comparison purposes? Does this constitute a violation of WP:SYNTH? What should AppleButtEr do when he encounters an editor or admin like RunOff?


 * How many hours of editor time should Wikipedia spend to deal with this?


 * AppleButtEr is permitted to convert the numbers into percentages


 * Converting numbers into percentages violates NOR


 * RunOff should have an Admin Conduct RfC filed against him


 * AppleButtEr should not present the numbers until he has more information, including standard deviations and other statistical moments, and sample sizes


 * Numbers make the article too hard to understand and they should be all be removed for accessibility


 * Other

2.8 Sex and evolution
Several very complicated articles on a theory about the origin of sex are written on Wikipedia. For example:


 * The Evolutionary Theory of Sex was proposed in 1965 by V. Geodakian and now provides explanation of many sex-related phenomena such as sexual dimorphism, sex chromosomes, asymmetry of brain and hands, reciprocal effects, and congenital heart defects.


 * The theory was included in the textbooks,, college study programs,  was covered in numerous newspaper and magazine articles (two in the US  ) and TV programs.


 * The sex notion consists of two fundamental phenomena: the sexual process (conjugation of genetic information of two persons) and the sexual differentiation (partitioning this information into two parts). Depending on the presence (+) or absence (-) of these phenomena, the whole variety of existing reproduction models can be divided into three basic forms: asexual (-, -), hermaphrodite (+, -), and bi-sexual reproduction (+, +).


 * The sexual process and sexual differentiation are distinct, and moreover, directly opposite phenomena. Indeed, the sexual process diversifies genotypes, which is its objective in evolution, whereas differentiation halves the resulting diversity.


 * For instance, in an asexual population of size N, the maximum theoretically possible variability of offspring genotypes is N, given that the genotypes of all parents are different. Since the offspring of each asexual individual is a clone with the same genotype, the variability of the offspring σ is always lower than N.


 * In the sexual process, the variability of offspring is squared. In hermaphroditic organisms, each of N individuals can mate with all individuals except itself, i.e., N - 1; but, as the cross of individual A with individual B is the same as that of individual B with individual A (there is no reciprocal effect), at N >> 1, σ = N(N - 1)/2 ≈ N2/2; with the reciprocal effect, σ = N2.


 * In dioecious forms, sex differentiation that excludes same sex combinations (male-male, female-female), decreases the amount of diversity possible in hermaphrodites by at least two times: σ = N/2 x N/2 = N2/4 (each female with each male, with the same number of males and females equal to N/2). The offspring diversity in a population of dioecious organisms also depends on the sex ratio in the parental generation: it is the highest at a 1:1 sex ratio and decreases with any deviation from it.


 * The maximum progeny diversity of the asexual, hermaphrodite, and bi-sexual populations of the same size N are related as N : N2/2 : N2/4, i.e., the diversity is at least halved while passing from hermaphrodite to bisexual reproduction!  Then, it becomes completely unclear what the differentiation is intended for, if it halves the main bonus provided by the sexual process.  Why are all progressive species bi-sexual, since the asexual process is much more efficient and simple, and hermaphrodites produce a more diversified progeny?  This is the essence of the sex puzzle.


 * The fact that this problem is still unsolved is primarily due to the lack of a clear understanding that the sexual process and sexual differentiation are opposite phenomena. Researchers make attempts at understanding the advantage of the sexual reproduction (hermaphrodite and bi-sexual forms) over the asexual one, although it is necessary to understand the advantage of bi-sexuals over hermaphrodites.


 * The purpose of the sexual process is clear, and consists of diversifying. It is needed to comprehend the objective of the sexual differentiation.  Although it is recognized that, because bi-sexual methods have no visible advantages over asexual ones, bi-sexual reproduction should provide us with significant evolutionary bonuses, the sex problem is commonly considered as a reproduction problem but not an evolutionary one.


 * Sex differentiation is specialization in preserving and changing the genetic information of population. One of the sexes should be informationally more closely connected with the environment, and be more sensitive to the environmental factors.


 * Higher mortality and vulnerability of the males to all harmful factors of the environment make one believe that it is the operative, ecological subsystem of the population. While the females are the conservative subsystem that preserves the existing genotype distribution in the population.


 * A series of mechanisms were developed during different stages of sex evolution to provide this specialization. Compared to females, males experience more mutations, inherit fewer properties of their parents, have narrower reaction norm, higher aggressiveness and inquisitiveness, riskier behavior and other properties that move them closer to the environment. All these properties, moving the male sex to the frontline of the evolution, provide for receiving of ecological information.


 * The second group of properties includes great superfluity of male gametes, their small size and high mobility, the greater activity of mobility of males, their inclination towards polygamy and other ethologic and psychological qualities. Long periods of pregnancy, feeding and taking care of the descendants among the female population in reality increases the efficient concentration of the males, turning the male sex into superfluous, and thus cheap, while the female sex is turned into deficit and thus more expensive.
 * As a result of conservative-operative specialization of sexes, asynchronous evolution takes place: new characters first appear in the operative subsystem (males), are tested there, and then are passed on to the conservative subsystem (females).

Most of the references are in Russian. It is clearly a well known theory, but almost completely unknown in the West. The English in the articles is stilted.

What should be done? Is this article suitable for Wikipedia? Is it pseudoscience or science? Does it fall under WP:FRINGE? What would you suggest that Wikipedia do with the large number of articles on this topic?


 * How many hours of editor time should Wikipedia spend to deal with this?


 * This material is pseudoscience and should be balanced with mainstream theories by NPOV


 * Since most of the references are in Russian, they must be removed


 * This article is on a topic so obscure it should be removed from Wikipedia


 * This article should be rewritten and retained on Wikipedia


 * There is nothing wrong with this article


 * Other