John Carter (talk | contribs) →Statement by John Carter: further comment, follow up to jps |
AndyTheGrump (talk | contribs) →Statement by {Non-party}: Statement by AndyTheGrump |
||
Line 77: | Line 77: | ||
[[User:I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc|jps]] ([[User talk:I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc|talk]]) 17:45, 8 September 2015 (UTC) |
[[User:I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc|jps]] ([[User talk:I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc|talk]]) 17:45, 8 September 2015 (UTC) |
||
=== Statement by AndyTheGrump === |
|||
I'd just like to add my voice to those pointing out that this isn't just a 'pseudoscience' issue - there are multiple reasons for opposition to GMOs, many of which have nothing to do with science as such, and it is a gross oversimplification to present this as some sort of battle against a fringe driven by irrationality. The debate also involves a complex interaction of economics, politics and sociocultural issues, and proper encyclopaedic coverage needs to take this into account - something that the current battleground behaviour has made a distant prospect. If ArbCom takes on this case, I would suggest that they consider the first priority to be ensuring that measures are taken to ensure that the topic be given the broad encyclopaedic coverage it merits, rather than allowing it to be dominated by faction-fighting [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 18:15, 8 September 2015 (UTC) |
|||
=== Statement by {Non-party} === |
=== Statement by {Non-party} === |
Revision as of 18:16, 8 September 2015
Requests for arbitration
GMO articles
Initiated by Looie496 (talk) at 15:42, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Involved parties
- Looie496 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
- Jytdog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Yobol (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Prokaryotes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- GregJackP (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Petrarchan47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Kingofaces43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
- Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
- WP:ANI#Editor Jytdog's none neutral GMO edits
- Many other discussions
Statement by Looie496
I am uninvolved. I have not edited any of the relevant articles or contributed to any of the relevant discussions. I am acting on a quasi-consensus reached in the ANI page cited above that this matter requires arbitration.
The basic behavioral issue is that many of the parties listed above have edit-warred, accused each other of overly aggressive behavior, and called for topic bans on other parties. Underlying this problem at the deepest level is a disagreement about policy, which comes down to a disagreement about the proper application of the principles outlined at WP:FRINGE. In the scientific community the idea that GMOs are intrinsically harmful is a fringe theory. In the broader community, however, it is at the least a significant minority view, and perhaps even the majority view. Arbcom probably cannot resolve the fundamental policy issue, but it should be able to address the behavioral issues that the dispute has generated.
It has been suggested that applying standard discretionary sanctions would solve the problem. That is possible, but at this juncture I don't want to impose any limits on the remedies available to the committee.
The list of parties to this request is a minimum. Other editors can be added if necessary.
Statement by Jytdog
Statement by Yobol
Statement by Prokaryotes
Statement by GregJackP
Statement by Petrarchan47
With thanks to the OP, I must note some problems with the framing of this case. For the insinuation that editors have been promoting the idea that "GMOs are inherently dangerous", I would like to see at least a couple diffs or some proof that this is happening and causing trouble. The ANI thread does not show that "many" are edit warring, and a quasi-consensus can also be claimed for the idea that Jytdog and the ownership issues at the GMO suite since 2013 need to be the subject of deep investigation, as does the support from the community that upholds the POV and ignores glaring behavioural issues with Jytdog. Instead of the false claim that anyone is pushing "pseudoscience" at GM articles, the truth is that Jytdog has constructed and protected a Safety Consensus statement on GMO foods, pasted to at least 6 GMO articles, which does not have support even with 18 references he put together. Proof: RfC. This false construct published by Wikipedia is the subject of this paper which names our GMO article specifically and shows we are (thanks to Jutdog) misrepresenting science. Editors protecting this claim and other GMO POV pushing are hostile to science that doesn't support it, hostile to editors seeking balance, and call any questioning of this "fringe". Science that is being disallowed shows that although the number of studies finding harm is small, it is significant enough to make Wikipedia's wide-ranging safety claims untenable at best.
http://gaiapresse.ca/images/nouvelles/28563.pdf http://www.enveurope.com/content/pdf/s12302-014-0034-1.pdf
The suggestion at ANI was that GMOs could fall under pseudoscience by referencing Seralini. I spoke to that here / +, and suggest a deep look into the Seralini case, and WP editors' responses to it. petrarchan47คุก 18:07, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Kingofaces43
Statement by Floq
@Tryptofish:, @Looie496:, Clerks and Arbs: the sooner some combination of you decide what to do about a case request and a clarification request filed at almost the same time about the same issue, the less complicated things are going to get. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:59, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Tryptofish
(edit conflict) Almost simultaneously with Looie's filing of this request, I filed Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Pseudoscience. As I said there, there are reasonable arguments for either a full case or a more incremental effort. If you decide on a full case, I may want to add myself as a party here, and there are probably other editors who should also be added as parties. But ArbCom might do better to go with a more limited first step. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:02, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Statement by John Carter
In one of the most ridiculously stupid comments I have ever made (and, remember, that I have lots of experience in stupid statements), I'm thinking that maybe ArbCom might want to consider doing something about this. Personally, I think a case might be preferable, as there are other issues than pseudoscience involved, as has been indicated, but I could live with something being done either by amendment or a full case, as long as something gets done. John Carter (talk) 16:21, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
- I'd love to see discretionary sanctions against those convinced of the wikipedia cabal being sold out to whoever we are all supposed to be sold out to today, such as jps proposes below. On a slightly related point, and I would welcome any input here, I think the time may have come to question whether we should perhaps change WP:PSCI and WP:RNPOV, or at least ask for community discussion of them, to deal with those points where religion and pseudoscience, and, perhaps, fringe or non-majority science, interact. It could also deal with the interactions between mainstream science, "pseudoscience," religion of all sorts, and those areas of the social sciences which sometimes discuss the positions and support of these varied camps. Particular areas of concern, and I guess in this instance I am thinking only theoretically, but others might be able to name specific examples, is the possible question where some scientists declare themselves to hold the majority or truly scientific opinion, and other scientists say that the first group overstates their own position, with perhaps some significant, maybe even majority, of non-scientific or perhaps academic-but-not-science-academia support for the second position, that the "science" of the mainstream or majority scientific position isn't as mainstream or majority as it claims. John Carter (talk) 18:10, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Statement by AlbinoFerret
A full case imho would be the better way to go. Going strait to DS will miss a lot of the issues in this area. Pseudoscience may not be appropriate as there is hard science involved. There are also issues of ownership and possible tagteaming/meatpuppets involved that deserve a good look. The community has failed to deal with this problem, slapping on DS without a look will not break the back of this problem. It will likely just affect a portion of it. AlbinoFerret 16:40, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Statement by jps
At the risk of subjecting myself to yet another arbcom case. I would like to give the committee some context for this discussion. The area of "GMOs", that is genetically engineered food, has been an issue at Wikipedia because of the political controversies associated with this area in Europe, the United States, and, to a lesser extent, India. There are many aspects to this story, but these issues have been showing up at the Fringe theories noticeboard discussions for more than two years:
- Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_36#Fringe_claims_at_March_Against_Monsanto.
- Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_40#GM_foods
The general argument of many anti-GMO proponents on Wikipedia is either to include sources that indicate that GMOs are bad for health or the environment, but the issue is that these sources tend to be either unpublished or published in dubious journals. The next argument that gets made is that the mainstream articles which are published that indicate genetically modified foodstuffs are not dangerous to health nor are they particularly worse for the environment than non-genetically modified foodstuffs (which are still subject to gene manipulation through many other means -- but no matter) are being written by corporate shills. This is being much trumpeted outside of Wikipedia as well. For example, here we have an article on a somewhat prominent "natural health" site that loudly proclaims, "Wikipedia claims to be run by "volunteers" but is actually edited by corporate-paid trolls on many topics such as GMOs, vaccines, chemotherapy and pharmaceuticals."
Discretionary sanctions for areas that are likely to be targeted by individuals convinced that Wikipedia is part of the big conspiracy would be useful, and there are a number of accounts who promote rather dubious sourcing claims that probably should be shown the door. Examples of such accounts can be given in the evidence section of an arbcomm case, for example.
jps (talk) 17:45, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Statement by AndyTheGrump
I'd just like to add my voice to those pointing out that this isn't just a 'pseudoscience' issue - there are multiple reasons for opposition to GMOs, many of which have nothing to do with science as such, and it is a gross oversimplification to present this as some sort of battle against a fringe driven by irrationality. The debate also involves a complex interaction of economics, politics and sociocultural issues, and proper encyclopaedic coverage needs to take this into account - something that the current battleground behaviour has made a distant prospect. If ArbCom takes on this case, I would suggest that they consider the first priority to be ensuring that measures are taken to ensure that the topic be given the broad encyclopaedic coverage it merits, rather than allowing it to be dominated by faction-fighting AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:15, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Statement by {Non-party}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.
Question Please can we agree on the scope here. GMO is not only GM-food, it includes GM-animals, other organisms and very possibly, related articles such as Glyphosate. I am not really concerned what the scope is, but I do think we need to be extremely clear here.DrChrissy (talk) 18:01, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
- (Cross-posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Pseudoscience:_Clerk_notes.) For the purposes of maintaining order, I recommend that the arbitrators have us clerks merge the two requests to WP:ARC, so the Committee can open a full case if needed, or resolve the matter by motion or clarification if they so choose. L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 16:10, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
GMO articles: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0/2>
Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)
- For the record, I have asked that the comments made at ARCA be moved here. Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:41, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
- Agreed with Salvio. We can dispose of a case request by motion if it turns out that it's appropriate. So far as what should be done here, awaiting additional statements. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:56, 8 September 2015 (UTC)