The sinister FT2 has been continuing with the plan to make Wikipedia the mecca of cult and fringe groups (presumably all this will be monetized at some point). This latest policy depends on the bizarre idea that there is a Scientific Point of View (SPOV) and a Neutral Point of View, and that the NPOV takes precedence over the SPOV.



Of course, his distinction is silly and arbitrary. The scientific 'point of view' is not a point of view, but a method and way of doing things that NPOV was meant to capture. I think he may face some opposition over this. On the other hand, anyone who might have opposed this has now been blocked or banned. I'm sure that was part of the plan.

There is an essay on WP about this subject written some time ago. (well some time ago in Wikipedia's infantile lifespan)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sci...c_point_of_view

If an editor presents material based on the notion that a position is an established orthodoxy in the the scientific community, and presents sources that related to status of that orthodoxy ("9 out 10 scientists agree with me") instead of sources that actually establish the position by credible research, they are not engaging in science, but are indulging in "scientism." This may occur when the editor lacks the necessary cognitive tools to actual appreciate the arguments and research and is merely acting as a cheerleader or shill. Of course such editors (and admins) might run roughshod over editors who are better informed, but hold an unorthodox position. I think this can be seen in the attacks that characterize anything unorthodox as the "tin foil hat" gang. Scientism may in fact be opposed to a "neutral point of view."

Of course FT2 is also imposing a rigid orthodoxy. A pox on both your houses.

guys, this also seems relevant

That's not how Wikilogic works. If you present the arguments that prove something, and then claim that from the arguments your position follows, this is original research. You have to present reliable sources that say that people accept your position.

I understand OR. I'm refering to the content of the sources.

Yes I remember that. Not well written, and rather strange. There's nothing that a combination of WP:WEIGHT (which requires that extreme minority views not mentioned at all) and WP:NPOV can't do for science. The key one in WP:NPOV (or was it WP:OR) is the 'reliable and authoritative' source requirement. This rules out promotional websites or books, non peer-reviewed publications &c, essentially any COI stuff.

I suspect the 'scientific POV' was originally an invention of some scientifically-minded Wikipedian who didn't realise it could eventually be used as a weapon against science.



Shouldn't be either. They NPOV, which applies to science and humanities, is to present reliable and authoritative sources with due weight, not to argue for any position. Thus the Electronic Voice Phenomenon (communication with the dead) should probably receive no citations, except as a curiousity, similarly for Young Earth Creationism (except, again, in context, as a theory advocated by the Christian Right). Global warming scepticism, by contrast (I happen to be a sceptic, but has nothing to to with my involvement with Wikipedia) should be presented as viewpoint held by minority of scientists).

One sad example of this is the Jesus Myth Theory. The evidence that Jesus Christ never existed as a real historical person is very strong. But it goes against the beliefs of hundreds of millions of Christians.

It's Wikipedia entry is now called "Jesus Myth Hypothesis". It clearly shows what POV has won this fight. Wikipedia's entry on Jesus even states: 'One recent study has stated that biblical scholars and most historians accept the historical existence of Jesus and regard claims against his existence as "effectively refuted" '.

Oh dear, terribly tempting to get into a bun fight here. I had a look at the article and didn't think it was that bad, i.e. it references Wells and the others. There's a reasonably dispassionate review here

http://www.bede.org.uk/jesusmyth.htm

which tries not to take either side, i.e. it recognises that the famous Josephus passage is somewhat tampered with, but not to the point that it is complete fabrication. From what I remember from my Theology diploma the JMH is not taken that seriously any more, but, I agree that to say most historians regard claims against his existence as "effectively refuted" is overegging it somewhat.

Compared to many articles in WP it is not that badly written, either.

That's nonesense. SPOV? What's next?