User:Zvika/Interview/Martinphi

Please do not edit this page. This page contains an interview conducted with User:Martinphi on March 18, 2008. Discussion concerning this interview and the parallel interview with User:ScienceApologist should be carried out on the page User talk:Zvika/Interview.


 * Please start by introducing yourself. Who are you? What is your goal in editing Wikipedia? What drew you to edit the "fringe" articles?

I studied philosophy at university, which is where the "phi" in "Martinphi" came from. I never went to grade school, and I recommend that formal schooling be abolished in deference to self-teaching and an apprenticeship system. I'm known as a pseudoskeptic around home, and I live in a part of the country where people still believe that witches make them sick. Since I'm now known as a paranormal POV-pusher, I'd rather not say more.... However, I believe that even our emotions and intuitions evolve out of a dialectical, adversarial evolutionary process which is formalized in science. Thus, science is the way in which knowledge is gained. It is embedded in the universe. I arrived at the Parapsychology article when I was just beginning to learn about the subject- I learn through writing. I soon found that something was wrong, and that many people wanted very much to discredit parapsychology - and every other fringe article.


 * On your user page, you describe what you see as several serious problems with Wikipedia. What, in your opinion, are the major problems concerning fringe-related articles, and how do you think the situation could be remedied?

I talk about civility. That is a good reason to retire, but it isn't the major problem in fringe areas of Wikipedia. The major problem is the continuing tension between SPOV and NPOV. This debate is much older than my editorship, and it is at the root of most of the problems in fringe areas. Don't get me wrong- there are other severe problems, like POV-pushing from fringe believers. But that isn't what has driven the NPOV editors away, and that isn't what causes most of the tension.

SPOV is a rejected principle on WP, but I think it would be great if the debate were re-opened. We could produce some very fine articles on an SPOV basis. Fringe articles would become a discussion of fringe ideas from a mainstream-scientific POV. We would also have to allow some original research to fill in the blanks when mainstream science hasn't spoken on a fringe topic. We could make some very good articles this way.

There is a large group of editors who feel that SPOV is the way to go, and have been doing everything they can to write fringe articles from an SPOV viewpoint. Sometimes they say that SPOV and NPOV are the same, other times they just say SPOV is the only reasonable and sane alternative for Wikipedia. Nevertheless, SPOV isn't our current system. Trying to make articles reflect SPOV is POV-pushing, and we need to get the community's consent before this should be tolerated.

When SPOV is thwarted, it often degenerates into debunking, and making the article sound as derogatory as possible toward the fringe subject. Sometimes this is very subtle, and even takes the form of inserting single unnecessary  words to make the subject seem less valid (note the SPOV admin's edit summary). Sometimes, pseudoscientific unsourced assertions are made .(see )

There is a big problem with fringe advocates pushing their POV in fringe articles. But personally, I've seen much less of this than justifiable outrage at the highly negative way the fringe articles often sound, and the huge areas of the articles (40% in Homeopathy) taken up by mainstream-scientific analysis or derogatory opinions. This outrage is itself portrayed as fringe POV-pushing, which is why I have that reputation. Mainstream science is a notable view, it is usually the truest view, and scientific literacy is totally abysmal. But it isn't Wikipedia's mission to correct social ills (there should be such an area, IMO).


 * According to WP:WEIGHT, an "article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints […] in proportion to the prominence of each." What is your interpretation of this policy in cases where POVs departing from the scientific mainstream have many proponents? For example, in your opinion, what would be the correct structure of the article on Young Earth creationism?

"Minority" and "majority" viewpoints are relative to the subject of the article. For example, the prominence of science in an article on Young Earth creationism is quite low but significant, and should receive enough coverage that the reader will go away knowing that creationism isn't the scientific mainstream view, and with a basic understanding of the argument. In an article on scientific Evolution, Creationism is a significant minority view, and it is mentioned. These articles properly interpret the policy as being relative to the subject of the article. If they interpreted the policy to mean that the majority mainstream view always predominated, then the Evolution article would be covered mostly from the perspective of Creationism, as that is the majority mainstream view of most people.

The section quoted goes on to say:


 * Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them […] on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it must make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint…

This is why an article on Evolution or Atheism cannot be taken over by the majority viewpoint, and why Young Earth creationism should not be mainly criticism. The reason this question came up is that SPOV advocates believe that subjects which are opposed to mainstream science should be covered from the mainstream scientific perspective. (Often "mainstream" is equated with "mainstream science," which isn't what Wikipedia policy means.)

The former SPOV admin from the Matthew Hoffman case asserted "In Intelligent design, SPOV should be dominant, but NPOV says we also have to explain what intelligent design proponents claim for NPOV." (original page deleted).

The policy as we have it works well for NPOV, but not for SPOV.

If a fringe topic really doesn't seem to have mainstream scientific sources, we should just say we couldn't find any, even if it doesn't sound encyclopedic. We should also be careful not to do original research to invent a the viewpoint that scientists would take if only they had studied the matter- which SPOV advocates often try to do. We should heed the ArbCom decision saying that by using words such as “paranormal”, “belief” or “myth” etc. in the lead, the reader will understand the epistemological status of the subject. Unless, of course, the Wikipedia community decides to adopt SPOV as its guiding principle.


 * Content disputes are often caused by disagreements over what constitutes a reliable source. How would you define a RS? What evidence would another editor need to show you to convince you that a source, which backs your position, is not actually reliable enough to use as a citation?

I define it the way policy defines it- which is a long nuanced discussion. But I don't go to an article with a preconceived point of view, then try to defend that POV. I go read the sources, and form my position in Wikipedia based on what they say, which is what all NPOV editors do. The problem here is that if you want to cover a fringe subject from the perspective of mainstream science, you have to say that most fringe sources shouldn't be allowed. But Wikipedia isn't after truth; it's after a description of the subject, and with proper attribution, fringe sources are just fine for filling out fringe articles. There is also the SPOV opinion that no source which is dedicated to fringe sciences like parapsychology can, by definition, be reliable, even if it is peer-reviewed or otherwise meets RS standards.


 * Some editors have claimed that civility, being easier to define, is enforced more than content policies such as NPOV and RS. To what extent has this been true in your experience?

Admins only enforce NPOV and RS if they are abusing their tools. NPOV and RS are content issues which even the arbitration committee doesn't usually rule on. In the Matthew Hoffman case, an SPOV admin -"Vanished User"- lost his tools for abusing them in just such a manner. Admins can enforce disruption, 3RR and WP:CIV. So I certainly hope that CIV is enforced more than content policy. Wikipedia has no basic arbiter of content disputes. Thus, when a large group of editors all want the same thing and no other policies apply, NPOV may get thrown out. I don't know what to do basically, but when a lot of editors push their own POV, and even admit it openly like the advocates of SPOV, something sure needs to be done.


 * ArbCom has made decisions which relate to some of the problem areas under discussion, including the cases Pseudoscience, Paranormal, Martinphi-ScienceApologist, and Matthew Hoffman. What is your overall opinion of these decisions? Comment on the role of ArbCom decisions and actions or inactions in ameliorating or exacerbating the problems relating to contentious articles.

They are extremely good, and work smoothly together to uphold NPOV. But SPOV editors have criticized them heavily, and refused to abide by them. Because of this, they have done little to ameliorate the situation, though they should have. In addition to this, leading SPOV editors are protected by others, including admins, who share their POV. In one recent case, Raul654 unblocked ScienceApologist after 12 hours on an 96 hour block over the objections of an ArbCom clerk, a sitting ArbCom member, and other admins. There is no doubt that in a similar situation, I would have remained blocked, as would anyone who tries to change fringe articles into an NPOV state.

In the Paranormal ArbCom, one of the main claims was that I was POV pushing. But the final rulings broadly endorsed my reading of the relevant policies. The ArbCom even directly included in the final decision several major points from a policy-essay I'd written. During the case, I had noted that NPOV is a non-negotiable policy, and I had asked the ArbCom to tell me if I was wrong about policy. But of course, that ArbCom decision has been ignored. This eventually lead to the so-called "expert withdrawal" situation.


 * Any final words?

Fringe articles are being held hostage by multiple conflicting points of view, and we desperately need NPOV editors to help, because nearly all of them have been driven away by the POV-pushing, incivility and poisonous atmosphere. I hope you will join in.


 * Thank you for taking the time to respond to our questions.

Thank you, Zvika