User talk:Jc-S0CO/Archives/2008/9

WikiProject Films roll call and coordinator elections
Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on September 14! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films August 2008 Newsletter
The August 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXX (August 2008)
The August 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

NPOV Comments...
Hi,

I hope you'll take the time to read this (and that I'm not just wasting my time writing it).

I've been going through Wikipedia for some time now and have a few big complaints. If you're interested I also have some sugesstions on how we might fix them (so let me know).

It's no secret that bias runs rampant in Wikipedia. I have found that, even with the smallest controversial topics, one or more editors will basically 'hawk' over the content. By that, I mean good contributions will be deleted with the claim of POV or other such nonsense, when in fact the article itself has a POV which is anything but neutral. If a debate ensues, the hawking editors will 1)edit war, 2)try to force a discussion, 3)accuse others of non-neutrality, 4)throw personal attacks and/or 'gang' up on the editor, 5)ask for references to irrelevant aspects of the discussion, 6)invoke arguments like 'weight' and such, and/or 7)argue ad-infinitum.

Most people don't have time to argue over and over, so the one with the most 'time' wins. It is Wikipedia policy that edits are supposed to be made/accepted in good faith, but I have not generally seen that to be the case. If one adds a neutral tone to a "hawked" (OWNed) article, good faith goes out the window. This behavior really hurts Wikipedia from a neutrality standpoint.

I have given Wikipedia several chances even though most of my peers think that I'm silly to do so. They have argued that, since it is not peer reviewed, the acuracy of the data is suspect. While this may be true, I have found that 'spin,' which is usually present in peer-reviewed journals as well, is far worse here. And, becuase there is only one page per topic, Wikipedia winds up 'choosing sides' by default with whoever 'wins' the edit war, or has more supporters, or has more time to fight the issues.

It is Wikipedia policy to stay away from so-called 'weasel words' (of which 'so-called' is apparently one). However, in controversial topics, the idea of not using 'weasel' words has been used to 'force' a non-neutral POV. Take the following statement...

'Anthropogenic global warming, mainly caused by CO2 released into the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels, is one of the principle drivers of climate change.'

This is a terribly biased and non-neutral POV that 'most' Wikipedia editors would find perfectly acceptable. But, the whole sentence is actually bunk.

Why? The theory of anthropogenic global warming has little to no credible evidence. Global warming itself, if it exists, is poorly understood (let alone us having enough information to atribute a man-made origin). Moreover, there is no evidence that anthropogenic CO2 could contribute anywhere near enough to have a significant effect, if any measurable effect at all. I've poured through the literature, but where is all the actual evidence? Well, there isn't any, yet. Oh, there are numbers, charts, graphs, etc., but no evidence -- just some theories and (sometimes wild) speculation. Maybe someone will find some evidence or link, but so far, none. Why then, does 'every' article having to do something with CO2 emissions talk about anthropogenic global warming as if it is fact??? This is a huge POV problem with Wikipedia in general, and one that runs rampant throughout it's pages.

If one says 'so-called' anthopogenic global warming (which is the correct way to say it, BTW) then you are using 'weasel words.' If you say 'some claim' or 'scientists believe' then you are using 'weasel words.'  Everything that states fact becomes a 'weasel word.'  Since the same is true of so-called fossil fuels (of which are only assumed to be fossil based, and of which there is strong evidence for an abiogenic origin also) -- you guessed it, 'weasel words.'

Not to mention the fact that my above example sentence implies (again as a fact) that climate change itself is occuring anthropogenically by association - but this would be just perfectly 'fine' by Wikipedia standards.

In other words, a sentence reading something like this...

'A controversial, yet often accepted concept among scientists is the so-called anthropogenic global warming theory. It postulates that global warming exists, and that human activity is contributing to it. One idea in such theories is that CO2, created from the burning of so-called fossil fuels, is a principle contributor to global warming. To date, no evidence has linked such anthropogenic CO2 emmisions with global warming, nor has there been any proof of a long-term global warming trend in general, but the concepts remain popular with many climate scientists.'

Well, that sentence, which is in fact neutral POV, would be ripped apart! 'Everyone' would argue POV, 'weasel words,' etc. And, frankly, it has a neutral POV. It is factual and (given the 'actual' state of the research) unbiased, whereas he earlier sentence is 'completely' biased, non neutral, and non factual.

Now, If you want to see an example of this type of biased POV in action, just visit the 'Clean Coal' page and (if you're interested), skim through the discussion. (It's become a tiny bit better now, but it's still a propaganda piece.)

Anyway, let me know if you're interested and I'll offer some suggestions as to how we might fix (or at least reduce) some of these problems.CrimsonSage (talk) 05:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Jc-S0CO/Userboxes/Hippies2
User:Jc-S0CO/Userboxes/Hippies2, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jc-S0CO/Userboxes/Hippies2 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of User:Jc-S0CO/Userboxes/Hippies2 during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Josh Atkins (talk - contribs) 15:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Mfd withdrawn. I screwed up; sorry. --Josh Atkins (talk - contribs) 18:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Jc-S0CO/Userboxes/VRWC
User:Jc-S0CO/Userboxes/VRWC, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jc-S0CO/Userboxes/VRWC and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of User:Jc-S0CO/Userboxes/VRWC during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Josh Atkins (talk - contribs) 15:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry. --Josh Atkins (talk - contribs) 18:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The September 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fourteen candidates. Please vote here by September 30! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films coordinator elections - voting now open!
Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Unspecified source/license for Image:Arthropleura - Tracks.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:Arthropleura - Tracks.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like PD-self (to release all rights), (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot (Talk • Contribs • Owner) 00:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)