Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-01-06 Electronic Voice Phenomenon

Mediation Case: 2007-01-06 Electronic Voice Phenomenon
Please observe Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal.

Request Information

 * Request made by: Snowflake Sans Crainte 20:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Where is the issue taking place?
 * Electronic voice phenomenon


 * Who's involved?
 * ScienceApologist, Zoe.r, J.Smith, LuckyLouie,


 * What's going on?
 * The article is regarding a paranormal phenomenon and has been written to provide both paranormal and sceptical points of view, thus maintaining a neutral point of view. ScienceApologist has recently begun editing the article in a manner that heavily biases it toward a sceptical point of view and, as is demonstrated on the discussion page, has attempted to include statements into the article that are clearly unverifiable.


 * ''What would you like to change about that?
 * I believe either the article needs patrolling to prevent bias being added again or a clear consensus on its content needs to be provided by an independent third party.


 * Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?
 * I do not believe working discreetly will be effective in this case.

Compromise offers
This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.



Discussion
I noticed my name was included in the discussion. As an overview of my opinion on the article, I offer the following comments I recently made in the Peer Review of Electronic voice phenomenon at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Peer_review/Electronic_voice_phenomenon

I agree with Perfectblue's suggestions. There should be no need for text (such as the image caption) that denigrates the subject. I might add that Wikipedia's policy regarding pseudoscience actually dictates that the article has a POV, which, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Pseudoscience is...

"The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view"

In the case of EVP, the majority (mainstream science) does not support the beliefs of the minority (EVP researchers), and I believe this can be stated by the article briefly, simply, fairly, and without rancor. I have watched this article for a long time, and have observed that when one side decides to "pump up the volume" by adding more data to make its case, the other side responds in kind, and pretty soon the article is a mess of point-counterpoint. I will also go on record as registering my opinion that the "subject matter expert" chosen for this article was more of a hinderance than an asset. I found his advice to be counterproductive to the process of writing an encyclopedia article, e.g. "Study A is bunk and should not be mentioned since Study B is what our organization favors" and "Technique A is considered amateurish and should not be mentioned since we always use Technique B"

--- LuckyLouie 06:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

As the person who requested mediation following the suggestion of another wikipedian also contributing to the article, I believe the image on one of Wikipedia's dispute notices (the one of clowns butting heads) is an appropriate one for how many contributions are made to this article.

I don't believe the problem is necessarily one of attempts to put forward a dominant point of view per se but I do instead believe that the problem is an editorial manner that introduces unnecessary bias where a simple statement of facts without editorial interpretation would be far better for the article.

Both the paranormal and skeptical points of view should be included in the article but neither's point of view should be allowed to run roughshod over the other without good reason. --Zoe.R 12:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)