The problem with R&I at Wikipedia

[Captain Occam]

Incidentally, I recently noticed this edit from you. It's good to see more people paying attention to the undiscussed blanking of sourced content that's so common on these articles. Especially since as I mentioned above, when nobody who can edit the articles is paying attention to this, the blanked content often never gets added back.

Were you planning to stick around on R&I articles, even now that you're under a one-way interaction ban? If you are, I can help you identify the most important sources about the topic, if you're interested in that. Even apart from all the ideological crusaders, there have been several editors who thought they could just pick a source from column A and another from column B, and that that was enough to write the article. To do a good job writing about something like this, it's necessary to first identify the most prominent sources about it, and then try to summarize the topic in a similar way to how it's described in those sources.

I guess that's not necessary if you'll just be reverting vandalism, though, which is still valuable anyway.

[Volunteer Marek]

Sorry for bumping this old thread, but there's something I'm really curious about ArtifexMayhem's comment here.

Can anyone figure out how he knows anything about who I am? I was long gone from the R&I topic by the time he showed up there, and I also don't think I've ever edited any of the other articles where he participates. I guess he might have seen my posts on this forum, but I've never said anything here about Arthur Jensen or J. P. Rushton, who I assume are the two "scientific racists" whose deaths he's glad about.

He is the second R&I editor to basically get off on the deaths of these two people. It is pretty sickening and makes their hostility towards the likes of Mikemikev look more like it is about ideology than morality.

Uhhh... some ideologies ARE immoral. Like racism, in this particular example.

[Cla68]

Sorry for bumping this old thread, but there's something I'm really curious about ArtifexMayhem's comment here.

Can anyone figure out how he knows anything about who I am? I was long gone from the R&I topic by the time he showed up there, and I also don't think I've ever edited any of the other articles where he participates. I guess he might have seen my posts on this forum, but I've never said anything here about Arthur Jensen or J. P. Rushton, who I assume are the two "scientific racists" whose deaths he's glad about.

He is the second R&I editor to basically get off on the deaths of these two people. It is pretty sickening and makes their hostility towards the likes of Mikemikev look more like it is about ideology than morality.

Uhhh... some ideologies ARE immoral. Like racism, in this particular example.

Yes, but Wikipedia isn't supposed to take sides, right?

[The Devil's Advocate]

Uhhh... some ideologies ARE immoral. Like racism, in this particular example.

I imagine most people would not react to that sort of news with "Ha ha! Suck it, racists!" That is all about ideology and putting your beliefs ahead of basic human decency.

[Captain Occam]

Something you might find kind of interesting is that when Jensen died, he was highly-enough regarded as a psychologist that his obituaries in The New York Times and The Los Angeles Times both were neutral or mildly positive, and neither appears to agree with the claim that he was a racist. (Although Rushton didn't get that privilege.)

[Volunteer Marek]

Sorry for bumping this old thread, but there's something I'm really curious about ArtifexMayhem's comment here.

Can anyone figure out how he knows anything about who I am? I was long gone from the R&I topic by the time he showed up there, and I also don't think I've ever edited any of the other articles where he participates. I guess he might have seen my posts on this forum, but I've never said anything here about Arthur Jensen or J. P. Rushton, who I assume are the two "scientific racists" whose deaths he's glad about.

He is the second R&I editor to basically get off on the deaths of these two people. It is pretty sickening and makes their hostility towards the likes of Mikemikev look more like it is about ideology than morality.

Uhhh... some ideologies ARE immoral. Like racism, in this particular example.

Yes, but Wikipedia isn't supposed to take sides, right?

On racism? We do have WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE which are supposed to, at least in theory, ensure that these kinds of views don't get presented as mainstream. If that's 'taking sides' then there's not enough, not too much, of it.

[Cla68]

Sorry for bumping this old thread, but there's something I'm really curious about ArtifexMayhem's comment here.

Can anyone figure out how he knows anything about who I am? I was long gone from the R&I topic by the time he showed up there, and I also don't think I've ever edited any of the other articles where he participates. I guess he might have seen my posts on this forum, but I've never said anything here about Arthur Jensen or J. P. Rushton, who I assume are the two "scientific racists" whose deaths he's glad about.

He is the second R&I editor to basically get off on the deaths of these two people. It is pretty sickening and makes their hostility towards the likes of Mikemikev look more like it is about ideology than morality.

Uhhh... some ideologies ARE immoral. Like racism, in this particular example.

Yes, but Wikipedia isn't supposed to take sides, right?

On racism? We do have WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE which are supposed to, at least in theory, ensure that these kinds of views don't get presented as mainstream. If that's 'taking sides' then there's not enough, not too much, of it.

I thought we had a prohibition on straw man and other logical fallacies in Wikipediocracy. I know Wikipedia doesn't, but we're supposed to be setting a higher standard.

[Volunteer Marek]

Sorry for bumping this old thread, but there's something I'm really curious about ArtifexMayhem's comment here.

Can anyone figure out how he knows anything about who I am? I was long gone from the R&I topic by the time he showed up there, and I also don't think I've ever edited any of the other articles where he participates. I guess he might have seen my posts on this forum, but I've never said anything here about Arthur Jensen or J. P. Rushton, who I assume are the two "scientific racists" whose deaths he's glad about.

He is the second R&I editor to basically get off on the deaths of these two people. It is pretty sickening and makes their hostility towards the likes of Mikemikev look more like it is about ideology than morality.

Uhhh... some ideologies ARE immoral. Like racism, in this particular example.

Yes, but Wikipedia isn't supposed to take sides, right?

On racism? We do have WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE which are supposed to, at least in theory, ensure that these kinds of views don't get presented as mainstream. If that's 'taking sides' then there's not enough, not too much, of it.

I thought we had a prohibition on straw man and other logical fallacies in Wikipediocracy. I know Wikipedia doesn't, but we're supposed to be setting a higher standard.

There's neither a strawman nor any other logical fallacy in the above. Just calling something a "fallacy" doesn't make it a "fallacy". In fact that's a fallacy right there - argument by assertion.

[SB_Johnny]

[EricBarbour]

This shit belongs on Wikipedia, doesn't it?