Well, it's her business, I guess.

Ok- except her concerns seem pretty reasonable to me. ARE 'tryptofish' and 'rockpocket' animal researchers, for example? If yes- then - wow, that's pretty strong COI going on! They haven't made these clear if I've read right? But SV's COI IS made explicit.

On Wikipedia, whenever people are open and honest about their position, they lay themselves open to attack from those who keep their own positions hidden, and claim, disingenously, 'neutrality'. This MAY be what is going on here, unless people can show that certain others HAVE made their positions explicit, like tryptofish and rockpocket, for example.

And the term 'bullying' is meaningless unless you can show exactly where such activity has been going on, and why it should be called 'bullying' . Otherwise it's like Guy Chapman's over-use of the word 'harassment' to mean someone disagreeing with him or the people he likes.

I'm writing as someone who disagrees with the 'vivisection' type of animal testing, ethically, and because it generates such poor science practice, actually slowing up scientific 'progress'. Most animal experiments are wasteful, flawed methodologically and futile. Now I realise this admission places me in a position of vulnerability, and my motives might be attacked in this thread. I'm prepared to risk that.

It's the hidden COI's I'm interested in.

Shouldn't this article be named "vertical chamber apparatus". The current title is inherently POV.

Oh ya, I was indeffed by Lar after this edit

Geez, an oubliette for lab animals. Note that it was Harlow who insisted on calling it a pit of despair or dungeon of despair, so the POV title is the POV of the inventor, not the article writer.

It's experiments like this that gives science a bad name. It would never make it past a animal-use committee today, especially with primates.


This is not a restraint device so much as a sensory-deprivation AND restraint device.

And I think Harlow deserved to spend a couple of months in it, the bastard.

That's my POV and I'm stickin' to it.

I suggest comparing/contrasting Tryptofish's and Rockpocket's editing with that of, say, Chip Berlet and Dennis King. The first two make a clear effort to abide by consensus, follow the rules, remain civil, and refrain from edit warring. For example, in this issue surrounding the Pit of Despair article, Tryptofish quickly asked for uninvolved editors to review and comment. That's what I call acting in good faith. I wouldn't expect a POV pusher to be as willing to do that.

I thought I read somewhere that the monkeys found an opportunity to attack Harlow and messed him up pretty bad. But maybe that was a rumor, since I see no references to the incident on the net.

Long before I was aware of the "Pit of Despair" article, or SV's edit warring there, I thought of Wikipedia as analogous to one of Harlow's experiments, with SV and her crew playing the part of Harlow, and I was waiting for the monkeys to revolt.

Well- it does depend on what is meant by 'uninvolved'. We can't actually be sure that an 'uninvolved' person is actually 'uninvolved' because hidden COIs and POVs abound due to the anonymity of users, for one thing.

Another thing is that, when I tried to get 'uninvolved' people to try and help me resolve my problem arising about the Simon Wessely page (actual unsubtantiated defamation of a community of ill people by the way), I was accused of POV pushing and gaming. Though that wasn't my motive, I can see how POV pushers might still 'do that'.

Sometimes also- people ask others to intervene because they really lack insight as to where they may actually be POV pushing.

I've also noticed a 'POV' tag and call can done quite aggressively on Wikipedia- almost a ''cos I called it, you are the POV one' type message is given.

One thing I do note about Slim Virgin is a reflexivity and openness about her standpoint here. That tends to put one into a position of vulnerability, but it often indicates an amount of good faith, though how much is difficult to pin down of course.

I'm talking generally, not just about Animal Rights or Research articles, but about ANY domain on which there are conflicting standpoints on Wikipedia.

Again I can't see where SV has been uncivil, POV pushing etc. which is what this thread was about. The 'naive' comment against her could be said to be uncivil (because it's patronising) but that depends on what people see as uncivil. The 'civility' issue is of course one of WP's bugbears.

I'm not some fan of SV by the way. I don't think I've ever had any interaction with her. I know key admins are able to game the system to their advantage for sure, and this is sanctioned by the WP set-up, another reason WP is such a crap knowledge producing domain.

I think that you would have to be personally involved in a dispute with SV, as so many of us have, in order to really appreciate her skill in manipulating a nightmarish, Kafkaesque environment at WP. And it is done with great civility.

Hey Hersch, I was up against the great JzG, JFW, Sciencewatcher, Mast Cell, Jimbo Wales himself, with a guest appearance by Tim Vickers. I know all about nightmarish, Kafkaesque environments at WP, sometimes involving great civility.