Wikipedia talk:Scientific standards

Proper Weight Draft.
I entered the following as a draft recommendation for a more objective means of defining how the weight of an article should be balanced and developed.


 * Within any scientific discipline there is a body of peer reviewed articles which define the range of theories being proposed and tested and evidence being found to support or undermine the theoiries. In nearly every area of science, there are areas of legitimate scientific disagreement as scientists examine and reinterpret evidence in light of one theory or another. As peer reviewed articles in indexed journals are always a reliable source of reliable source of vetted viewpoints, (not truth, but interpretations of truth) NPOV policy allows these competing conclusions to exist on the same page.


 * The weight given to each view should be proportional to the published journal articles on a subject supporting each view. This weighting, however, should also consider and give extra weight to more recent literature when it is evident that the weight of recent academic research has clearly largely shifted away from a view commonly held, say 50 years ago.  For example, at one time there was likely more academic papers published supporting a steady state theory of the universe whereas in recent decades this has been supplanted by a big bang theory.  This is an example of where the weighting of an article on the origins of the universe may be appropriately weighted with an emphasis on studies published in the last twenty years rather than within the entire last 100 years.


 * Wikipedia editors can avoid arguments about whether one POV or the other is the "accepted" or "mainstream" view by focusing on the current literature. When dealing with scientific issues, let the published literature itself shape the weight of the article and respect the contributions of other editors.  If you feel one POV is being represented by too many citations, the solution is to do your research to see if there are other peer reviewed sources representing your preferred POV that have not been included. Seek to bring balance to the article by adding material, not deleting it. In this way you will help to create a more comprehensive article and more complete bibliography which will be useful to readers who come to Wikipedia looking for information (not truth) and a good start on resources they can study on their own.


 * Citations proclaiming "most scientists agree with this view" are never authoratative unless backed by a reliable poll of most scientists. Otherwise, it is just an assertion and should not be given undue weight.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by SaraNoon (talk • contribs) 14:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry for not picking up on this before. I like over 90% of SaraNoon's draft. However in the first para I'd prefer e.g. "As peer reviewed articles in indexed journals are always a reliable source of reliable source of vetted viewpoints, (not truth, but interpretations of truth) NPOV policy allows these competing conclusions to exist on the same page. Note that even views expressed in peer reviewed articles are simply interpretations of the available evidence". (bold font indicates addition, not emphasis) -- Philcha (talk) 08:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Two comments to the above, if I may.
 * 1) (to SaraNoon): When I read the first part of this sentence (to the comma): If you feel one POV is being represented by too many citations, the solution is to do your research to see if there are other peer reviewed sources representing your preferred POV that have not been included. I found it neutral with no hint of 'my' preferring the one POV to the other(s).  An editor can feel that one POV is overrepresented without her/himself preferring any one POV.  So I think the sentence could read: "If you feel one POV is being represented by too many citations, the solution is to do research to see if there are other peer reviewed sources representing the neglected POV."
 * 2) (to Philcha): A pet peeve: the word 'simply' should be avoided unless it's clearly necessary.  It often says nothing and can sometimes be ambiguous.  (Peer reviewed articles aren't simple in content nor simple to write.)  Suggested revised sentence:  "Note that ( even ) views expressed in peer reviewed articles are no more than interpretations of the available evidence."  --Hordaland (talk) 09:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Hordaland, I agree with both of your amendments. -- Philcha (talk) 10:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * This proposal (using the relative counts of peer reviewed contributions, and a favoring of more recent publishing) is a disaster in certain fringe topics. Under the current proposal, a literature search on cold fusion would reveal that the vast majority of papers support it as a real event and that there is little doubt that it's occuring.  In reality, there are a very small group of hardcore proponents who publish in lower quality and a few ISI journals, while the rest of science considers it to be nonsense, or pathological science, and doesn't even bother debunking any more.  An article written using this proposal would read like a credulous endorsement of the field. Phil153 (talk) 14:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Nonscientific controversy
Many subjects are not controversial from a scientific point of view, but are controversial from political and religious points of view (Intelligent design and creationism being prominent examples). These political and religious controversies should be treated in the same manner as controversies that have no relation to science, where ordinary rules of neutrality would apply. While wikipedia necessarily "takes a stand" on matters of scientific fact, it can have no stance on the political worth of an idea, the character of its proponents, and so forth. All this is probably already implicit, but may need to be made explicit. Marginalized is probably the wrong word to describe fringe theories, by the way. pseudoscientists aren't some unjustly persecuted minority 140.247.249.58 (talk) 05:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Historical
No updates to the proposal since September 17, no discussion on this talk page since 1 October, and clearly no consensus on this proposal, so I suggest it is time to change the  tag to . Any objections ? Gandalf61 (talk) 15:16, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. I object. The proposal still stands and there seems to be more people in favor of making this some sort of guideline rather than not. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * As a contributor to recent discussions on this page, I disagree strongly with ScienceApologist's claim that "there seems to be more people in favor of making this some sort of guideline rather than not":
 * I have seen no actual discussion of the need for a guideline in addtion to WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. If there was such a disussion elsewhere, a link to it should have been placed on this page as soon as Scientific standards was created.
 * The current version of "Wikipedia:Scientific standards" consists mainly of a rather rambling essay that will only confuse inexperienced editors of WP articles on scientfic subjects. There's a list of points towards the end which may may, with a bit more discussion and editing, be helpful to editors, but they are not enough to consitute a new guideline in themselves. --Philcha (talk) 09:09, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I will support you if you can figure out a way to incorporate the needed ideas into our policies/guidelines. But right now, there is a serious need for people to recognize the standards by which we write articles: it is a need that is not being realized fully by the policies and guidelines you outline. ScienceApologist (talk) 09:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * ScienceApologist, I understand that you feel an attachment to a proposal that you started. However, if there were truly "more people in favor of making this some sort of guideline rather than not" then there would be editors working actively on improving the text and addressing the issues raised on this talk page. That is not happening - no-one has touched the text for over 6 weeks and there is no ongoing discussion. Therefore I suggest this proposal is moribund. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Your suggestion is heard, and there are substantive attempts being made to see what parts of this proposal should be used in Wikipedia policy/guideline pages. You do not have the authority to declare this page moribund unilaterally. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * So where exactly are these "substantive attempts" ? Where is the ongoing discussion ? I see many archived pages that link here, but no live links. If the proposal is now to incorporate these ideas into other policy/guideline pages, then this proposal - the proposal to have a new and separate policy/guideline called "Scientific standards" - is surely supserseded. I think "moribund" is an entirely accurate description of a policy proposal that has not been touched for over 6 weeks - but we can call it "dormant" if you prefer. Gandalf61 (talk) 17:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought an interesting conversation could have developed between Philcha and myself. What is clear is that there is ongoing discussion and I think that it might be best for you to get a third opinion since we're just going to continue to talk in circles. Your unilateral attempt to remove this as a "proposal" was well-intentioned (if no one was interested in the page, no one would have commented and you would have gotten your way as a silent consensus). You need to move on. Your attempt to label this proposal as "moribund" or "historical" or "superseded" is noted, but there is still some life left in this suggestion. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The discussion between yourself and Philcha ended almost 2 months ago - on October 1. To label a two month old discussion as 'ongoing' is simply false. It is inappropriate to tell another editor to 'move on'. Dlabtot (talk) 17:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Discussion here has merely halted while debate moved on to WP:FRINGE. I see no reason as yet to "kill" this page by marking it historical. It can still be developed and expanded after discussion elsewhere, which is related, concludes or moves on enough, or more of us have more time. Verbal  chat  17:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You can't kill what is already dead - but no matter. There is no harm in letting this skeleton settle even further into the ooze for a few more weeks before we recognise its passing. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Historical II
No updates to the proposal and no discussion on this talk page since December 1. Clearly still no consensus on this proposal. For the second time I suggest it is now appropriate to change the  tag to . Any objections ? Gandalf61 (talk) 13:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I reject the proposal. I'm still working on this behind the scenes. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Where is "behind the scenes" ? If you work is not accessible, how does it help to develop consensus ? Since it is not here, on this page, then how exactly is your work moving this proposed guideline forwards ? Gandalf61 (talk) 14:53, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * We're working on matters privately so as to avoid being bothered by your incessant and petulant nagging disruption. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. Perhaps you would like to reconsider that unproductive and uncivil remark ? Gandalf61 (talk) 15:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I have a recipe for dealing with incivility at my user talk page. Please follow it. I am providing an answer to your query as best as I can. Users here including myself find your obsessive harping associated with this proposal to be a distraction and so have taken our collaboration to other venues explicitly to avoid you. However, we're still working on the proposal and so it should remain a proposal. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * ScienceApologist, the question "If you work is not accessible, how does it help to develop consensus?" (Gandalf61, 14:53, 22 December 2008) is sensible and relevant, and deserves a civil answer. --Philcha (talk) 15:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It will develop consensus because it is accessible to the users who aren't here simply to disrupt. Read the rest of this talkpage for evidence of Gandalf's rude and dismissive behavior. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * ScienceApologist, I've had a look at Gandalf61's Talk page and seen no evidence of habitual or even occasional rude or dismissive behaviour. On the other hand yours is interesting. At present it's almost empty, but a few weeks ago it contained several complaints of uncivil behaviour on your part.
 * As far as I can see earlier discussion on this page produced no consensus in favour of an additional guidleine on scientific standards, and your behaviour could easily be interpreted as an attempt to bulldoze the community into something.
 * I will also make my own views clear. I have as little time as you have for pseudo-science, but I think WP:V and WP:RS are enough to deal with pushers of pseudo-science. Admittedly they need to be applied with some logic and common-sense, but that's true of any guideline. Any attempt to reduce it to painting by numbers will fail, probably messily. One major reason is that the contents of peer-reviewed journals are not always reliable, for reasons that have been discussed enough above - and occasionally they publish some absolute rubbish (I've been reading an example to-day). --Philcha (talk) 00:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You've essentially accepted the line of those people who are convinced that having a set of standards for writing about science-related topics on Wikipedia is tantamount to forcing a one-size-fits-all solution to the "complex" pseudoscience situations. In fact, that's not what this is supposed to be about at all. Right now, the encyclopedia has no one-stop shopping for editors who are interested in writing about science. There is currently a variety of pages (some of which you missed) that touch on various aspects of editing Wikipedia science articles, but there is no clearninghouse of information for the scientifically inclined. The current version of this page is rough indeed, but the concept that we should have a place to list how science articles and scientific subjects should be handled is a good one. Most encyclopedias have editorial guidelines for such matters. We should too. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If you knew me better you'd realise that I'm not likely to accept anybody's line on anything. What I wrote expressed my own views, which I'd formed before I saw any of this discussion, and and which I've seen no reason to change.
 * To be honest, I'm not sure what all the fuss is about. I mainly edit articles on paleontology and other evolution-related topics, which I'd expect to be a magnet for pushers of pseudo-science. I think I've seen one discussion where a participant was pushing a religious POV, but that didn't last long - and no-one felt the need for a "Scientific standards" guideline to help deal with the situation. Are you sure you aren't pushing a solution in search of a problem? --Philcha (talk) 00:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, it's pretty clear that you still aren't getting what I'm trying to say. Imagine we have a new editor from ABC University who wants to edit an article about their particular expertise: DCEology. They get started fine, but one day a civil POV-pusher comes in hoping to promote their own non-mainstream version of DCEology. The scientist, not used to Wikipedia policies, flounders in her ability to explain to the new user why this shouldn't be. Sadness, resignation, or abandonment of the project ensue. This has happened on at least 5 separate occasions I can think of off the top of my head.
 * Let's say that there is a question about how to deal with an overeager 15-year-old who comes in enthusiastically with some bad sources. Is it possible to wade through the verbiage at WP:RS to explain to this excited teenager that their book on FGH is flawed? Not if said overeager 15-year-old is ensconced in admin boot camp and has the acronyms of Wikipedia memorized while poor, degree-addled you are stuck trying to figure out the difference between a "policy" and a "guideline".
 * This is the problem: it's a problem that we need to help editors who are scientifically inclined. The goal is not to use this set of standards as a bludgeon: the goal is to use it to aid expert editors so that they don't end up fleeing. I'm glad that you figured things out as well as you did. I'm also glad you've not had to deal with the creation scientists who used to be a real headache at certain pages on Wikipedia. Maybe you can use some of your knowledge for "best practices in writing scientific articles" to help us write an article on scientific standards that will help expert editors, like yourself, come up to speed more quickly.
 * ScienceApologist (talk) 00:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Your examples simply illustrate that an expert wiki-laywer will beat a newbie. I don't see how adding yet another guidline will help solve that problem. --Philcha (talk) 22:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not going to participate further in this discussion, but, for the record, I have reported ScienceApologist's uncivil remarks at Wikiquette alerts. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Clearly no consensus has developed, and no ongoing discussion is taking place. Dlabtot (talk) 18:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ongoing discussion is happening. I will agree that there is no consensus, however. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Just saying something doesn't make it so; a simple glance at the history of this page shows your assertion to be false. Dlabtot (talk) 00:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * A simple glance at the content of the sentences in this section show your assertion to be false. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Why does this leave me thinking of Monty Python? "I came here for an argument!" LeadSongDog (talk) 03:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know; why don't you enlighten us as to what your comment means? Dlabtot (talk) 04:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * See The Argument Sketch.LeadSongDog (talk) 04:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm intimately familiar with the The Argument Sketch and have been since it first appeared on American television decades ago. My question is to you: what does your comment mean and in what way was it meant to constructively advance the discussion here about this proposed policy? Dlabtot (talk) 05:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd think that would be obvious. Dlabtot and ScienceApologist have been contradicting each other without addressing content. A more constructive approach might have been to ask "What alternative tag would serve better than the disputed historical?LeadSongDog (talk) 20:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That is a false characterization. The proposed policy and this talk page did in fact not get any edits between December 1 and December 22 when I posted my comment. Just look at the history. The fact that SA chose to deny this undeniable reality doesn't mean we are 'contradicting each other' - that is a classic case of false equivalence.   As far as addressing content, I find the section on sources especially good. As for the rest of the essay, it doesn't really say much that doesn't follow directly from our core policies. Not really anything there I disagree with, but I don't know if another policy page repeating the same points is really necessary.  I would say to merge the best parts with the relevant policies from which they are derived. Dlabtot (talk) 07:05, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I only just learned about this interesting page, and I oppose marking it as historical. Cardamon (talk) 22:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I call 'em as I see 'em. It takes at least two to agree, but disagreements can be held by a single mind, even without schizophrenia. WP:Consensus is possibly the toughest thing to achieve at WP. There's always another way. You may be unaware that there was an active ArbComm case during that time period which directly engaged SA on a topic close to the theme of this article. He may accordingly have refrained from editing for the best of reasons. That has been my assumption. LeadSongDog (talk) 19:46, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Gandalf61 and other editors. This page should be marked as historical. MaxPont (talk) 15:27, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom Pseudoscience case
Just as a heads-up from an admin, I would like to remind all editors here that this page falls within the scope of Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience, which says, "''Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to pseudoscience, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision by an uninvolved administrator; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.''"

In order to avoid sanctions, all editors are encouraged to keep their communications in accordance with Wikipedia's civility policy, and to please keep comments focused on the content, and not on other contributors. If there are concerns about user conduct, there are proper venues in which these concerns can be raised, per Dispute resolution. I see that editors here have already availed themselves of some of these mechanisms, since threads have been started at Wikiquette alerts, ANI, and WP:RFAR. The first two threads appear to have been closed, though the Request for Arbitration is still active. Any editors who wish to offer further comments about relevant user conduct are encouraged to present statements there. In the meantime, let's please keep this talkpage here strictly for civil and collegial discussion about the Scientific standards page itself. Thanks, and let me know if you have any questions, --Elonka 03:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Concerns
I have a number of concerns with this proposed guideline. For one thing, as others have already mentioned, I think that existing guidelines such as WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE alrady adequately address that are supposed to addressed by this proposal. Also, to the extent that this proposed guideline would have any effect, the scope seems very broad. That breadth may well be appropriate. But would editors working on, say, history, geography or finance (to the extent it overlaps with economics) articles recognize that this proposed guideline would apply to their work, even if they are aware of this proposal. And to the extent that the proposed guideline would presumably impact numerous editors, has there been any attempt to inform them of the effort (or plans to), in order to allow them to help shape the proposal and insure that their views are incorporated into any consensus? I did take a quick look at the talk pages for WikiProject Biology, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Primates, WikiProject History, WikiProject Geography and WikiProject Medicine, all of which would presumably be affected by this guideline, but saw no notification. However, I recognize that I may have missed it, or that there may be plans to do a widespread notification at a later stage of drafting this proposed guideline. Rlendog (talk) 17:55, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That's an excellent suggestion. Dlabtot (talk) 07:40, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Historical III
No activity has been going on here since December last year. We have already seen two motions on this talk page to declare the policy proposal as historical. Given the limited number of total comments (after all, this is something very big on Wikipedia – a Policy Proposal!!!) a significant part of the comments are sceptical.

A list of editors that have expressed objections (from objections to outright rejection) are given here: Gandalf61, Karonen, Deamon138, jossi, Ronnotel, Ozob, Magnum Serpentine, Peter Damian, Shirahadasha, Nealparr, J. Langton, Be Bold.Bakaprod, SaraNoon, Hordaland, Philcha, MaxPont, Phil153, Rlendog.

Therefore this Policy Proposal should be tagged as historical. MaxPont (talk) 10:27, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm adding my name here, as someone with scientific training, extensive knowledge of religious theories but an atheist who however likes to write about fringe topics in a friendly rather than hostile way. If this gets rediscussed I'd like to be involved, I think I can help.   jbolden1517Talk  16:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * How does knowledge of religious ideas relate to developing scientific standards?--OMCV (talk) 23:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Reopening discussion
Now that I'm no longer banned from editing Wikipedia, I'd like to discuss coming to terms with writing standards about how to write articles on various subjects. I removed the historical designation for this reason. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * After SA removed the tag there were three minor edits to the text in the following 24 hours, then nothing for the next week. And there has been no revival of discussion on this talk page. I think this clearly shows that there really is no interest in this proposal any more, so I have restored the  tag. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 *  ... and in less than an hour Verbal removes the tag again with the edit comment "too heavily involved to make this decision" - presumably this comment is directed at me. Obvious irrationality here is that by the same argument ScienceApologist and Verbal are too heavily involved to remove the tag ! However, I have no desire to get into an edit war here, so I will seek input from uninvolved editors. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

New proposed guideline: WP:ESCA
WP:ESCA could perhaps be included in this article. Count Iblis (talk) 13:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Definitely. Or vice-versa. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think piping in both directions is definitely a good idea. Should we move the content there en mass and then massage it, or work on it here (or there) first? Verbal chat  17:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I've added a link to it in the See also section for now. -- &oelig; &trade; 07:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Historical IV
I have placed a request at Editor assistance/Requests to ask for input from uninvoled editors on whether the tag should be restored to this page. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * As suggested at EAR (and a fine idea), I am opening a request for comment below. Involved editors, please remember to limit your comments and encourage outside participation. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Should this page be considered historical or in development? - 2/0 (cont.) 14:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * How about a compromise solution: mark it with essay? It may not have ever achieved policy status, but that doesn't mean there's nothing of any use here (which is what historical basically implies). Robofish (talk) 14:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Look at the section Historical III above. I read through all the comments on the this talk page and found a number of uninvolved science editors who expressed criticism. There is NO WAY this proposal can gain consenus. The historical tag ought to be restored. MaxPont (talk) 09:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that an essay tag would be acceptable and a better option to take. -- &oelig; &trade; 07:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that "essay" status is likely to be appropriate. Essays don't have to be supported by a firm consensus, and it certainly meets the standard of being "advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors".  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

This is already de-facto policy on many science articles. Count Iblis (talk) 19:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * A question: How does labeling it Essay or Historical influence the possibilities to discuss broad ideas and editorial details in the ((whatever))? I personally think this has some good merits, but also some points that could be discussed and improved. JoergenB (talk) 22:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I've marked this as "Dormant" since there hasn't been any activity in about 2 years now. It's kind of a shame, since there's some good material here.  Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 21:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)