The scholarly rules for resolving disputes are based on a structure in which each of the parties writes one or more scholarly articles or books presenting their respective contentions, and for othe scholars in the field to write similar articles or books, often based on one position and ignoring the other until a consensus--which may be either an adopting of one of the original positions, or a synthesis-- develops, after several years or decades.
An attempt to write a definitive secondary discussion can not be done while the dispute persists; the attempt in WP produces a list of all the points at issue, rather than a resolution. I have always though that, rather than arguing behindthes scenes in an exchange of comments, the apppropriate way is to have articles, or subarticles, written by those representing the major positions. This is not what WP does, and so the articles on disputed topics are either confusing, or flabby. I think we have to decide, are we trying a redo of WP with higher standards for the debators but in the same manner, or are we trying to give the non-academic reader a fair presentation of how matters stand as viewed from an academic perspective? The discussions here throughout have sometimes assumed one, and sometimes the other. There are 4 types of debate we are likely to find: First, where the question is at issue is how to properly present facts & interpretation which are basically accepted by all the writers here. This is the easy one, and working on talk pages as suggested earlier, but writing in paragraphs rather than quick retorts, should do. Second is where there is no academic consensus. It may happen that those working here are all of the same position, and then we rely on their habitual honesty to indicate that there are other positions; to a considerable extent, we can rely on the readers to remind us. But if those here represent 2 or more of the sides, how shall we settle in our limited context what all those concerned cannot settle in the larger theater? If we continue to insist on single articles, we will need to accept that they will contain sections that not all those involved agree with. (For an extreme example of how not to do it, see WP for "entropy") Third, is where it is clear that a consensus will be reached eventually, but we cannot really tell what it will be--those involved have ususally firm ideas, but there is no basis for an outsider to choose: string theory, the origin of life, and other scientific questions. I doubt there is much in philosophy and kindred fields that fits here. Fourth, is where there cannot be a consensus because of the nature of the subject, e.g. the existence of God, the limits to freedom of speech, animal rights, the basis for constitutional interpretation. There may be a settled position required by our society, but that doesn't determine the truth. In principle, not much in the sciences should me here. (Of course in mathematics, there are an infiinite number of propositions which do fit here as undeterminable.) (200 years ago, one might have said otherwise, that there were matters clearly material and subject to scientific test, but about which no information could ever be obtained. I think the composition of the stars was the classic example. I don't think a scientist today would be complacent enough to put anything here.) (I do not mention the class where all agree, and all are wrong. The wiki method can deal with that.) On 10/14/06, Jon Awbrey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o > > Mike & All, > > Yes, it's good to have a list of precepts and pointers somewhere, > but it needs to be understood that those are literally pointers > to a larger social context from which they draw their only real > validity. The idea that the X-site community is somehow exempt > from the norms of the outside world and will henceforth proceed > to rebuild from scratch is the very thing that led Wikipedia > down the road to a bad rerun of the ''Lord of the Flies''. > > I don't think that this is due to the text-only medium, > as I have never communicated with journal editors and > even many conference referees, before the conference, > in any other way. > > It has to do with a pervading air that the WP management put on, > constantly inciting novices to BE BOLD !!! and persist in their > ignorant rants, when they should have been encouraged to learn. > > Jon Awbrey > > Mike Johnson wrote: > > > > Jon, > > > > I think you make a very good point that there exist traditional avenues > > for dispute resolution between scholars. > > > > The issue I see is that scholarly norms and instincts may occasionally > > malfunction in a novel, text-only social context, so it'd be nice to > > have a resolution policy to fall back on. > > > > I'm reminded of the this article exploring how frequently (text-only) emails > > are misunderstood: http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0515/p13s01-stct.html > > > > Mike Johnson > > o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o > inquiry e-lab: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/ > http://www.textop.org/wiki/index.php?title=User:Jon_Awbrey > wikinfo: http://wikinfo.org/wiki.php?title=User:Jon_Awbrey > wp review: http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showuser=398 > zendium: http://textop.org/smf/index.php?action=profile;u=19 > o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o > > _______________________________________________ > Citizendium-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.purdue.edu/mailman/listinfo/citizendium-l > -- David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. _______________________________________________ Citizendium-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.purdue.edu/mailman/listinfo/citizendium-l
