User talk:128.253.187.23

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Your contributions to inclusive fitness article

To 128.253.187.23; on behalf of other editors here, I would ask that you familiarize yourself with the policies of Wikipedia dealing with the inclusion of original research in WP articles (it is against WP policy; see WP:NOR). While your opinions and thoughts on this topic are significant, this is unfortunately not the forum in which to express such opinions. The article should be limited to an explanation of what the scientific community has stated regarding inclusive fitness, and all statements therein need to be backed up by citations. Specifically, ALL significant published opinions on what inclusive fitness is, how it is defined, and examples, should be presented in the article, and presented without judgment or bias (see WP:NPOV) regardless of your personal opinions. It is fine to state that a given author believes something, suggests something, concludes something, or contends something, as long as all authors' opinions are treated as equivalent, and assuming the citations are all from reliable sources (see WP:RS) - otherwise, the article turns into a work of advocacy, favoring your personal preferred theories or interpretations over others, and that is specifically counter to the goals and aims of Wikipedia, much as you or I might wish otherwise. If you wish to pursue a synthesis and summary of inclusive fitness theory, and criticize the work of others, then I encourage you to publish it (as you have done in the past - and yes, you and I have met personally, and I am familiar with your publications) and then cite the published synthesis. Until that point, much of what is written here at present needs to be either removed, or rewritten so there are proper attributions for the various statements made. Again, your contribution here is welcome, but you must limit it to verifiable, attributable statements, even ones that you may believe to be false or erroneous - it is not about what is true, it's about what people have said, and which people said it. That removes any element of your personal opinion from the equation, and that is how WP is designed to work. Respectfully, Dyanega 23:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

To Dyanega--

Just so you know, the person sitting here at 128.253.187.23 is not the contributor to this article. For reasons too complicated to go into, I'm relaying the material. I don't know if you are factoring the Cornell University address into your guesses or not. Also, I've done some copy editing on the material before posting it, so don't trust the style either.

I happen to be a journalist by trade, and I'm very much aware of the importance of distinguishing fact from opinion, but I gather the methods of doing so are much different in encyclopedia articles than in newspapers and magazines. I've seen lots of Britannica articles that simply tell you that something is true and expect you to accept it because Hey, it's the Britannica. See, e.g., the Wikipedia article on the Big Bang for a similar approach. And can an article about a *theory* be anything other than opinion--or at best, a set of opinions about an opinion?

As I understand it, the idea of Wikipedia is to allow the "collective mind" to arrive eventually at the best possible result, with one writer correcting another until a consensus is reached. I would think that the function of an editor is to encourage and facilitate this process rather than to make specific decisions about content. Otherwise, perhaps you should call the site dyanegapedia.

In this particular case, It seems you are trying to perform that function, but a shotgun criticism isn't much help. That could lead to a long cycle of successive changes, recriminations and further changes, and I don't really have time to be the middleman for that. I would suggest that you provide a list of the *specific* places in the article that are, in your opinion :-), inappropriate. I will relay that and perhaps we can rephrase them or supply citations.

[edit] A matter of policy

I know Mike's eyesight is a serious impediment to his ability to edit articles himself, and am not surprised he has someone else posting information for him. It's not that complicated. Regardless, you did not address my question: have you taken the time to READ the official WP policies I mention above, especially the one that explicitly states NO original research? If you had, I don't see how you could make comments like "one writer correcting another until a consensus is reached". Wikipedia is not a collective mind seeking the truth, or a forum for the exchange of ideas - it is a huge bulletin board on which published work is showcased and summarized, and NOTHING ORIGINAL is contributed. It is a matter of editors locating reliable sources of information in the public domain, and objectively summarizing those sources here so others do not need to read all of the original literature themselves.
Allow me to cut and paste relevant passages from WP:NOT:


"Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses or to publish new information not previously published. Per our policy on original research, please do not use Wikipedia for any of the following:

  • Primary (original) research such as proposing theories and solutions, original ideas, defining terms, coining new words, etcetera. If you have done primary research on a topic, publish your results in other venues such as peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms, or respected online sites, and Wikipedia will report about your work once it becomes part of accepted knowledge. Not all information added to Wikipedia has to be from peer-reviewed journals, but please strive to make sure that information is reliable and verifiable. For example, citing book, print, or reliable web resources demonstrates that the material is verifiable and is not merely the editor's opinion.
  • Personal essays that state your particular feelings about a topic (rather than the consensus of experts). Wikipedia is supposed to compile human knowledge. It is not a vehicle to make personal opinions become part of human knowledge. In the unusual situation where the opinions of an individual are important enough to discuss, it is preferable to let other people write about them. Personal essays on topics relating to Wikipedia are welcome in your user namespace or on the Meta-wiki. There is a Wikipedia fork at Wikinfo that encourages personal opinions in articles.
  • Textbooks and annotated texts. Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not a textbook. The purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts, not to teach subject matter. It is not appropriate to create or edit articles which read as textbooks, with leading questions and step-by-step problem solutions as examples. These belong on our sister projects Wikibooks and Wikisource."


Virtually the ENTIRETY of the "Inclusive fitness in the family structure" section violates these guidelines. It is a personal essay written by an editor, in which his own analysis is the primary focus, and he presents his interpretation of others' work, written in the style of a lecturer explaining a topic. It states "particular feelings about a topic (rather than the consensus of experts)" and is, as you yourself imply above, being used as "a vehicle to make personal opinions become part of human knowledge". This is not what WP is here for. It has nothing to do with MY personal beliefs on the topic - it is a matter of official editorial policy, and if you seriously believe that editorial policy is wrong, or that I am misinterpreting or misrepresenting it, then please, by all means, go ahead and plead your case to some WP administrators who deal with biology-related pages. I'm quite certain you will find that they will ALSO quote to you from official WP policy and insist that this section of the article be removed entirely, or drastically re-written so every single sentence gives a citation indicating who published it. Again, it is not appropriate to INTERPRET what Trivers or Dawkins or any of these authors were saying, or to draw analogies or comparisons; what is appropriate is writing a summary of their opinions.
When dealing with theories, all theories are represented, in proportion to their representation among the authorities in that field. The proportional aspect is crucial: a theory or interpretation which is ignored by the majority of authorities is NOT given equal weight to the mainstream opinion; WP is a mirror of the mainstream, not a place to discuss the merits or shortcomings of said mainstream.
Again, forgive me for quoting chapter and verse, but the policy regarding "undue weight" does apply here:


"NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth notion, a view of a distinct minority.

We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. This applies not only to article text, but to images, external links, categories, and all other material as well.

Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements."


Following these guidelines should be simple enough. What is the majority viewpoint on inclusive fitness? What are the major works that state this viewpoint? Who are the most significant authors who either proposed or are actively supporting this viewpoint? The article does NOT address these things presently, and for Mike to put forth his own personal analysis is a violation of the policy stated above: "an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view". One more quote from official policy to consider: When you wonder what should or should not be in an article, ask yourself what a reader would expect to find under the same heading in an encyclopedia. The link to "Stories with Bill Hamilton in them" is a perfect example of something that has no place in an encyclopedia.
Ultimately, all I'm asking is that rather than making assumptions about what you think Wikipedia should or should not be, you take some time to read the rules and comply with them, and if you have to communicate them to Mike, then please do so with my apologies - but there are reasons for the policies, and not much "wiggle room" for editors who find them onerous. I, too, would love to be able to insert my personal opinions and observations into various articles, but I don't - even in cases where there are literally human lives at stake (see the Morgellons article) - out of respect for the rules. The reason that I'm serving as the bearer of the bad news in this case is because I happened to stumble across this article before any administrators did, and because I prefer to ask politely for a re-write rather than simply deleting everything Mike wrote without offering a chance to revise it, and because I know that the edits were made in good faith. But just because an edit is in good faith does not mean it satisfies policy. Again, if you would prefer to contend the issue rather than concede, I can simply ask an administrator to visit the article and see what they recommend. Sincerely, Dyanega 00:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)