User talk:Miclan

Welcome!
Hello, Miclan, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:


 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!

The content above is a standard welcome message, but I want to add more helpful info regarding your edits to Anthony Watts (blogger). Another editor reverted your edits, and I wanted to better explain why. Wikipedia has over five million articles, including thousands of topics that are controversial for one reason or another. As you surely know, internet-arguments about "truth" are an endless and hopeless waste of time. People out there will literally argue for years on opposite sides of almost any issue. We don't argue "truth" here. Our articles do not contain "truth".

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Our mission here is to accurately summarize what Reliable Sources have written about each topic. If all of the science textbooks say the moon is made of cheese, then we accurately summarize that information.

Our articles have to be written from a Neutral Point of View. However "neutral" doesn't mean "truth" or some version of "fair" to both sides. It means we give the reader an accurately summary of what Reliable Sources say about a topic. If those sources all say one thing, then that's what we write. When sources are evenly split between two or more positions, we cover each view equally. When sources are split and one viewpoint is predominant, our articles are written to accurately reflect that predominant viewpoint, and other viewpoints are covered roughly in proportion to the Due weight of those views as present in the sources.

This means that Wikipedia is deliberately and strongly biased in favor of accurately summarizing what Reliable Sources say. This is particularly true in scientific topics, where Wikipedia predominantly reflects the mainstream majority scientific view on each topic, with other views given reduced presentation and weight according to their relative presence and respect within that field.

People can endlessly argue the "truth" of opposing sides on the climate issue, however reasonable editors can (usually) come to a rough agreement on which is the predominant mainstream position. With effort reasonable editors can (usually) come to rough agreement on accurately summarizing what the mainstream sources say as the dominant perspective, and with effort they can (usually) come to rough agreement on summarizing what contrary views exists as contrary views.

Fringe viewpoints with little or no presence in mainstream Reliable Sources receive presentation and treatment roughly proportional to that presence in mainstream Reliable Sources.

Saying Watts "points out methodical flaws in" mainstream scientific consensus is a viewpoint. And more importantly, that viewpoint is a strongly rejected minority according to any accurate summary of majority mainstream sources in the field.

It is always possible that a fringe viewpoint is right. However that is irrelevant on Wikipedia. Our job is not to "fix" the world or determine "truth" to promote. Our job is to summarize what reliable sources say. Any debates about "truth" has to be dealt with by the professionals in that field. Wikipedia will be re-written to reflect any change in mainstream-position only after mainstream Reliable Sources are re-written to reflect that new position. Alsee (talk) 20:25, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Anthony Watts
To make it clear right from the start: I am not denying climate change. However, it contradicts the spirit of Wikipedia to present assumptions as facts. In the wording of the article I corrected, I tried to illustrate the method Anthony Watts used to undermine climate science. It would be better to take this into account. Therefore, I suggest that the changes I have made be reactivated and that the undo be undone. Miclan (talk) 13:32, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You can discuss the article at Talk:Anthony_Watts_(blogger). This is your personal Talk page, so probably no one has read this page except you and me. I'm not active on that article, I only noticed the edits in passing. It looks like about 25 editors (within the last few months) have been watching that article (and watching the talk page for the article), so you will likely get a response to any questions or suggestions reasonably quickly there.
 * You misunderstand the "spirit of Wikipedia". It's a common misunderstanding, and it causes a lot of difficulties for a lot of new editors. You'll find editing here easier and more successful, the faster you realize that Wikipedia is not a collection of "facts". We don't deal in facts or truth, we don't debate which side is right or wrong. Wikipedia is a summary of what Reliable Sources say. If all (or most) science text books say that the moon is made of cheese, Wikipedia will say "The moon is made of cheese". That is an accurate summary, regardless of whether it is true.
 * Our job is to review and summarize Reliable sources. In some cases that includes distinguishing majority-vs-minority (rather than true-vs-false). Watts claims that he "points out methodical flaws in the scientific consensus on climate change", however that is a minority claim. Wikipedia editors are not climate scientists, we do not debate whether his claim is true. We summarize majority views in a "factual statement style", but we are careful to only present minority claims as clearly-minority claims. In climate science, the mainstream majority clearly consider certain kinds of dissent to be thoroughly discredited. Our summary tends to accurately reflect that. I hope that helps. Alsee (talk) 02:52, 28 July 2019 (UTC)