Jytdog

johnthedinosaur · Unread post by **johnthedinosaur** » Tue May 17, 2016 11:32 pm

greybeard wrote:
johnthedinosaur wrote:The Wikipedia cabal are monitoring this thread on Wikipediocracy so I have a message for them. Heavyplantcrossing is one of my sockpuppets but it has no connection with Clarawood123. They should therefore unblock Clarawood123 and give him an apology for finding him guilty without a shred of evidence. I don't suppose they will because they will never admit to being wrong.
We'd really rather you didn't use this forum to send quasi-private messages to Wikipidiot admins, especially ones asking to get back onto WP. Our advice is almost always to get a new hobby.

OK. I'm not trying to get get back onto WP because I've never left. I've just changed my status from legitimate editor to multiple sockpuppeteer. I'm not a vandal. I'm trying to rescue Wikipedia from the tinpot dictators who are currently running it.

greybeard · Unread post by **greybeard** » Wed May 18, 2016 12:18 am

johnthedinosaur wrote:OK. I'm not trying to get get back onto WP because I've never left. I've just changed my status from legitimate editor to multiple sockpuppeteer. I'm not a vandal. I'm trying to rescue Wikipedia from the tinpot dictators who are currently running it.

We have no problem here with serious sockpuppetry. Some members here will question the "rescue Wikipedia" part, but that's between you and them.

johnthedinosaur · Unread post by **johnthedinosaur** » Wed Jun 01, 2016 1:20 pm

Jytdog has reverted an edit by User:AManWithNoPlan at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =723119138 with the comment "remove unsourced content added by sock of blocked user Nuklear". However, User:AManWithNoPlan has been commended by User:Doc James for being "one of the top 300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia" and he is not listed as being one of Nuklear's socks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... ockpuppets. What is going on here?

Kingsindian · Unread post by **Kingsindian** » Wed Jun 01, 2016 1:23 pm

You are mistaken. Look more carefully at the history.

johnthedinosaur · Unread post by **johnthedinosaur** » Wed Jun 01, 2016 3:58 pm

Kingsindian wrote:You are mistaken. Look more carefully at the history.

OK, perhaps he was reverting 79.74.6.177 but I think he has removed AManWithNoPlan's contribution as well. There are blocked IP addresses begining 82, 86 and 89 at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... ockpuppets but I can't see any beginning 79 or 80. These may be sock puppets but I'd like to see some evidence.

Are you Jytdog's official defender on Wikipediocracy, Kingsindian?

The Garbage Scow · Unread post by **The Garbage Scow** » Wed Jun 01, 2016 4:00 pm

My question is, why does Jytdog think this IP address is Nuklear? Why are those edits bad? If Jytdog thinks this IP editor is Nuklear, why isn't he at least filing an SPI? This could easily just be some IP editor trying to add information to articles that Jytdog doesn't like for some reason.

johnthedinosaur · Unread post by **johnthedinosaur** » Wed Jun 01, 2016 4:15 pm

The Garbage Scow wrote:My question is, why does Jytdog think this IP address is Nuklear? Why are those edits bad? If Jytdog thinks this IP editor is Nuklear, why isn't he at least filing an SPI? This could easily just be some IP editor trying to add information to articles that Jytdog doesn't like for some reason.

I agree.

Kingsindian · Unread post by **Kingsindian** » Wed Jun 01, 2016 4:17 pm

johnthedinosaur wrote:Are you Jytdog's official defender on Wikipediocracy, Kingsindian?

I simply pointed out that you were mistaken. I couldn't care less about Jytdog.

johnthedinosaur · Unread post by **johnthedinosaur** » Wed Jun 01, 2016 4:42 pm

Kingsindian wrote:
johnthedinosaur wrote:Are you Jytdog's official defender on Wikipediocracy, Kingsindian?
I simply pointed out that you were mistaken. I couldn't care less about Jytdog.

Thank you.

johnthedinosaur · Unread post by **johnthedinosaur** » Wed Jun 01, 2016 6:30 pm

Having looked at this https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/summary ... ax=500&ns= I can see Jytdog's point. However, there is also some support for Nuklear here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?di ... =678983605. I think this is a conflict between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law.

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Wed Jun 01, 2016 8:48 pm

johnthedinosaur wrote:Having looked at this https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/summary ... ax=500&ns= I can see Jytdog's point. However, there is also some support for Nuklear here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?di ... =678983605. I think this is a conflict between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law.

At the end of the day it doesn't matter because Jytdog is an admin and they have unlimited discretion and authority to accuse anyone on Wikipedia of being a sockpuppet with only the most flimsy of justifications. The burdeon is on the accused to prove otherwise not on the accuser actually being able to prove the allegation and since there is absolutely no accountability for falsely accusing someone of sockpuppetry, Jytdog has nothing to lose.

In fact, if they feel like sticking to their guns and being an Ahole they can stand in the way of any unblock request just because they are the admin that blocked Nuklear.

arkon · Unread post by **arkon** » Wed Jun 01, 2016 8:51 pm

Jytdog isn't an admin, thank goodness.

johnthedinosaur · Unread post by **johnthedinosaur** » Wed Jun 01, 2016 11:31 pm

Nuklear has made two unblock requests but they were both refused. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk ... er:Nuklear I think he did not grovel enough.

Disgruntled haddock · Unread post by **Disgruntled haddock** » Wed Jun 01, 2016 11:58 pm

johnthedinosaur wrote:Nuklear has made two unblock requests but they were both refused. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk ... er:Nuklear I think he did not grovel enough.

To be fair to the reviewing administrators, "I have learnt new things since then and have a different attitude to editing websites now than I did before" doesn't do much to demonstrate that they have understood and addressed the copyright issues that led to the block. A serious unblock request requires more than fifteen seconds' worth of thought.

johnthedinosaur · Unread post by **johnthedinosaur** » Thu Jun 02, 2016 12:17 am

Just out of interest, I have made a list of alleged sockpuppets of Nuklear:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:C ... 9.74.6.177
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:C ... 9.74.20.70
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:C ... 9.74.11.40
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:C ... 9.74.20.91
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:C ... 9.74.1.226
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:C ... 9.74.7.166

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Thu Jun 02, 2016 12:42 am

Disgruntled haddock wrote:
johnthedinosaur wrote:Nuklear has made two unblock requests but they were both refused. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk ... er:Nuklear I think he did not grovel enough.
To be fair to the reviewing administrators, "I have learnt new things since then and have a different attitude to editing websites now than I did before" doesn't do much to demonstrate that they have understood and addressed the copyright issues that led to the block. A serious unblock request requires more than fifteen seconds' worth of thought.

The problem with that though is when the admins almost universally disprove any requests for unblock, especially types like this, there isn't much point in a well thought out response. It just amounts to a waste of time if the admins on EnWP are just looking for any reason to block an editor.

johnthedinosaur · Unread post by **johnthedinosaur** » Fri Jun 03, 2016 8:31 pm

I think Jytdog has reformed. He has been much more civil recently.

Cedric · Unread post by **Cedric** » Sat Jun 04, 2016 3:18 pm

johnthedinosaur wrote:I think Jytdog has reformed. He has been much more civil recently.

charliemouse · Unread post by **charliemouse** » Sun Jun 05, 2016 4:53 pm

His notes to editors he deems COI are on the far side of condescending. I've seen a couple but can't locate the diffs offhand.

The Garbage Scow · Unread post by **The Garbage Scow** » Sun Jun 05, 2016 6:46 pm

charliemouse wrote:His notes to editors he deems COI are on the far side of condescending. I've seen a couple but can't locate the diffs offhand.

Yes, and that's easily half of people he doesn't already know. He either suspects anyone who writes positively about subjects he dislikes to be some sort of shill, or he just flagrantly abuses the COI guideline to protect articles in his preferred version. I don't know which is worse.

johnthedinosaur · Unread post by **johnthedinosaur** » Sun Jun 05, 2016 7:41 pm

What is wrong with this video? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =723809135 Is it too neutral?

johnthedinosaur · Unread post by **johnthedinosaur** » Sun Jun 05, 2016 7:50 pm

johnthedinosaur wrote:What is wrong with this video? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =723809135 Is it too neutral?

The link has been in the article since 19 March 2015.

Disgruntled haddock · Unread post by **Disgruntled haddock** » Sun Jun 05, 2016 8:17 pm

johnthedinosaur wrote:
johnthedinosaur wrote:What is wrong with this video? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =723809135 Is it too neutral?
The link has been in the article since 19 March 2015.

The video doesn't do a great job of explaining due weight. It mentions that you have to present "all the major opinions without endorsing one over the other", but fails to say that they must be presented "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources". (That second quote is from WP:DUE (T-H-L).) It does seem a little hasty to remove the video while the deletion discussion is ongoing, however.

iii · Unread post by **iii** » Sun Jun 05, 2016 9:18 pm

Disgruntled haddock wrote:
johnthedinosaur wrote:
johnthedinosaur wrote:What is wrong with this video? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =723809135 Is it too neutral?
The link has been in the article since 19 March 2015.
The video doesn't do a great job of explaining due weight. It mentions that you have to present "all the major opinions without endorsing one over the other", but fails to say that they must be presented "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources". (That second quote is from WP:DUE (T-H-L).) It does seem a little hasty to remove the video while the deletion discussion is ongoing, however.

My god. The video is awful. It actually promotes the idea that there is some sort of debate over vaccines. Yikes!

johnthedinosaur · Unread post by **johnthedinosaur** » Mon Jun 06, 2016 8:11 pm

iii wrote:
My god. The video is awful. It actually promotes the idea that there is some sort of debate over vaccines. Yikes!

There is a debate over vaccines. Do you want to censor it as Wikipedia does?

AndyTheGrump · Unread post by **AndyTheGrump** » Mon Jun 06, 2016 8:21 pm

johnthedinosaur wrote:
iii wrote:
My god. The video is awful. It actually promotes the idea that there is some sort of debate over vaccines. Yikes!
There is a debate over vaccines. Do you want to censor it as Wikipedia does?

There is no debate over vaccines amongst those qualified to discuss the subject.

Kingsindian · Unread post by **Kingsindian** » Mon Jun 06, 2016 8:23 pm

That video has an obvious aim of inserting debate about vaccination in the guise of explaining due weight. Nice try though.

Disgruntled haddock wrote:It does seem a little hasty to remove the video while the deletion discussion is ongoing, however.

Deletion of the file and use of it in an essay are two different things. It is a perfectly valid outcome for the video to be kept on commons and still not be used on that particular page. Several people in the deletion discussion are arguing on the basis of the latter, improperly in my opinion. Though I don't really see any educational value in the video, so I'll not be unhappy if it gets deleted.

MoldyHay · Unread post by **MoldyHay** » Mon Jun 06, 2016 9:13 pm

johnthedinosaur wrote:
iii wrote:
My god. The video is awful. It actually promotes the idea that there is some sort of debate over vaccines. Yikes!
There is a debate over vaccines. Do you want to censor it as Wikipedia does?

Yeah, there is a debate. It mostly centers around the question of whether the parents of an unvaccinated child who starts a measles outbreak that kills someone can be charged with involuntary manslaughter, voluntary manslaughter, or second-degree murder.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Mon Jun 06, 2016 9:29 pm

AndyTheGrump wrote:There is no debate over vaccines amongst those qualified to discuss the subject.

Yes, but Wikipedia never relies on experts. Anyone can say anything provided there is a reliable source that can be quoted. How do you know if a source is reliable? You could consult an expert ... er ...

johnthedinosaur · Unread post by **johnthedinosaur** » Mon Jun 06, 2016 9:32 pm

MoldyHay wrote: Yeah, there is a debate. It mostly centers around the question of whether the parents of an unvaccinated child who starts a measles outbreak that kills someone can be charged with involuntary manslaughter, voluntary manslaughter, or second-degree murder.

What country are you referring to? In Britain, the debate is less hysterical.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Mon Jun 06, 2016 9:38 pm

johnthedinosaur wrote:In Britain, the debate is less hysterical.

Indeed, in Britain the debate is virtually non-existent. There was a panic a while ago over claims that the MMR vaccine might cause autism, but those claims are utterly discredited now.

AndyTheGrump · Unread post by **AndyTheGrump** » Mon Jun 06, 2016 10:08 pm

Poetlister wrote:
AndyTheGrump wrote:There is no debate over vaccines amongst those qualified to discuss the subject.
Yes, but Wikipedia never relies on experts. Anyone can say anything provided there is a reliable source that can be quoted. How do you know if a source is reliable? You could consult an expert ... er ...

How is that relevant to my statement? It remains true regardless of what Wikipedia does or doesn't do.

iii · Unread post by **iii** » Mon Jun 06, 2016 11:30 pm

johnthedinosaur wrote:
iii wrote:
My god. The video is awful. It actually promotes the idea that there is some sort of debate over vaccines. Yikes!
There is a debate over vaccines. Do you want to censor it as Wikipedia does?

I think you should think a little more carefully about what "censorship" is. Wikipedia is a single website and the WMF is a single internet-based foundation. There are plenty of ways to toot your own horn about what you think the "debate over vaccines" is. You may even get a hearing at Wikipedia because that website loves to accept all comers and if you are a clever and prodigious sockpuppeteer, you have the potential to really swing debates (or at least muddy the waters enough to get your shoe in the door -- ask Poetlister for the tools and tricks of the trade). But this is not censorship. If you want to experience censorship, go to China and try blogging about the Tiananmen Square massacre.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Tue Jun 07, 2016 12:10 am

johnthedinosaur wrote:
iii wrote:
My god. The video is awful. It actually promotes the idea that there is some sort of debate over vaccines. Yikes!
There is a debate over vaccines. Do you want to censor it as Wikipedia does?

There is zero debate over vaccines in the medical community.
The 'debate' orbits around fraudsters promoting bullshit claims and the dingbat conspiracy theorist types that the fraudsters prey upon.

Which are you?

The Garbage Scow · Unread post by **The Garbage Scow** » Tue Jun 07, 2016 12:44 am

Come on guys, the vaccine stuff is

iii · Unread post by **iii** » Tue Jun 07, 2016 2:19 am

The Garbage Scow wrote:Come on guys, the vaccine stuff is

Is it, though? I'm pretty sure this is the reason the account which this topic is supposed to be about removed the offending video because of "the vaccine stuff". It is interesting that his big detractor as of late seems to be on the "accommodationist" side, at least, of Wikipedia. "Let all the ideas in! If you remove any that's CENSORSHIP!" Jytdog may be good or bad, but one thing he is not is indifferent towards that kind of argument. This is just a stark object lesson in this.

The Garbage Scow · Unread post by **The Garbage Scow** » Tue Jun 07, 2016 2:40 am

iii wrote:
The Garbage Scow wrote:Come on guys, the vaccine stuff is
Is it, though? I'm pretty sure this is the reason the account which this topic is supposed to be about removed the offending video because of "the vaccine stuff". It is interesting that his big detractor as of late seems to be on the "accommodationist" side, at least, of Wikipedia. "Let all the ideas in! If you remove any that's CENSORSHIP!" Jytdog may be good or bad, but one thing he is not is indifferent towards that kind of argument. This is just a stark object lesson in this.

It's sort of devolving into an argument about antivaxxers, but thanks for bringing it back around.

The Garbage Scow · Unread post by **The Garbage Scow** » Tue Jun 07, 2016 4:18 am

Ok, so I finally watched the video and .....ehhh..... I don't disagree with it that relevant opposing viewpoints should be covered. Trying to erase them from existence, as Jytdog sometimes tries to do, just feeds the conspiracy theorists delusions. Give it coverage, present the science. Should it be presented on equal footing with the mainstream scientific view? No.

Whoever made this video definitely made the mistake of choosing a controversial topic. For an educational "how to", I probably would have chosen something far less hot-button.

johnthedinosaur · Unread post by **johnthedinosaur** » Tue Jun 07, 2016 3:14 pm

Vigilant wrote: There is zero debate over vaccines in the medical community.
The 'debate' orbits around fraudsters promoting bullshit claims and the dingbat conspiracy theorist types that the fraudsters prey upon.

Which are you?

Neither. I'm pro-vaccination but I'm also pro-neutral point of view.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Tue Jun 07, 2016 3:35 pm

johnthedinosaur wrote:
Vigilant wrote: There is zero debate over vaccines in the medical community.
The 'debate' orbits around fraudsters promoting bullshit claims and the dingbat conspiracy theorist types that the fraudsters prey upon.

Which are you?
Neither. I'm pro-vaccination but I'm also pro-neutral point of view.

Do you have a pro-neutral point of view on flat vs spherical earth?
How about creationism vs evolution?
Lamarckian vs Darwinian?
Elliptical vs circular orbits?
Ether vs vacuum?
Homeopathy vs antibiotics?

Anroth · Unread post by **Anroth** » Tue Jun 07, 2016 7:12 pm

johnthedinosaur wrote:
Vigilant wrote: There is zero debate over vaccines in the medical community.
The 'debate' orbits around fraudsters promoting bullshit claims and the dingbat conspiracy theorist types that the fraudsters prey upon.

Which are you?
Neither. I'm pro-vaccination but I'm also pro-neutral point of view.

That there is no debate over vaccines is the neutral point of view. You seem to have a basic misunderstanding of what neutrality is.

Jimbo Jambo · Unread post by **Jimbo Jambo** » Tue Jun 07, 2016 7:22 pm

Vigilant wrote:
johnthedinosaur wrote:
Vigilant wrote: There is zero debate over vaccines in the medical community.
The 'debate' orbits around fraudsters promoting bullshit claims and the dingbat conspiracy theorist types that the fraudsters prey upon.

Which are you?
Neither. I'm pro-vaccination but I'm also pro-neutral point of view.
Do you have a pro-neutral point of view on flat vs spherical earth?
How about creationism vs evolution?
Lamarckian vs Darwinian?
Elliptical vs circular orbits?
Ether vs vacuum?
Homeopathy vs antibiotics?

The medical community's position is: "society is better off with antibiotics and vaccinations" - agree but that's a value judgement.
Different from elliptical vs circular, ether/vacuum, etc. which just "are", independent of judgement.
Unfair comparison.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Tue Jun 07, 2016 7:46 pm

Jimbo Jambo wrote:
Vigilant wrote:
johnthedinosaur wrote:
Vigilant wrote: There is zero debate over vaccines in the medical community.
The 'debate' orbits around fraudsters promoting bullshit claims and the dingbat conspiracy theorist types that the fraudsters prey upon.

Which are you?
Neither. I'm pro-vaccination but I'm also pro-neutral point of view.
Do you have a pro-neutral point of view on flat vs spherical earth?
How about creationism vs evolution?
Lamarckian vs Darwinian?
Elliptical vs circular orbits?
Ether vs vacuum?
Homeopathy vs antibiotics?
The medical community's position is: "society is better off with antibiotics and vaccinations" - agree but that's a value judgement.
Different from elliptical vs circular, ether/vacuum, etc. which just "are", independent of judgement.
Unfair comparison.

Circular orbits worked for a long time. Look up epicycles.
Newtonian mechanics work in almost all instances we find ourselves in.

By what metric would you say is society worse off using antibiotics and vaccines?
It's hysteria and know-nothing anti-science mysticism that opposes these things.
Putting 'teach the controversy' in vaccine articles is as idiotic and asinine as putting false balance "NPOV" in evolution articles.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Tue Jun 07, 2016 8:49 pm

AndyTheGrump wrote:
Poetlister wrote:
AndyTheGrump wrote:There is no debate over vaccines amongst those qualified to discuss the subject.
Yes, but Wikipedia never relies on experts. Anyone can say anything provided there is a reliable source that can be quoted. How do you know if a source is reliable? You could consult an expert ... er ...
How is that relevant to my statement? It remains true regardless of what Wikipedia does or doesn't do.

Sorry, i thought that this is a Wikipedia criticism site so that it's relevant to discuss what Wikipedia does or doesn't do.

Fixed typo

Jimbo Jambo · Unread post by **Jimbo Jambo** » Tue Jun 07, 2016 8:58 pm

Vigilant wrote:
Jimbo Jambo wrote:
Vigilant wrote:
johnthedinosaur wrote:
Vigilant wrote: There is zero debate over vaccines in the medical community.
The 'debate' orbits around fraudsters promoting bullshit claims and the dingbat conspiracy theorist types that the fraudsters prey upon.

Which are you?
Neither. I'm pro-vaccination but I'm also pro-neutral point of view.
Do you have a pro-neutral point of view on flat vs spherical earth?
How about creationism vs evolution?
Lamarckian vs Darwinian?
Elliptical vs circular orbits?
Ether vs vacuum?
Homeopathy vs antibiotics?
The medical community's position is: "society is better off with antibiotics and vaccinations" - agree but that's a value judgement.
Different from elliptical vs circular, ether/vacuum, etc. which just "are", independent of judgement.
Unfair comparison.
Circular orbits worked for a long time. Look up epicycles.
Newtonian mechanics work in almost all instances we find ourselves in.

By what metric would you say is society worse off using antibiotics and vaccines?
It's hysteria and know-nothing anti-science mysticism that opposes these things.
Putting 'teach the controversy' in vaccine articles is as idiotic and asinine as putting false balance "NPOV" in evolution articles.

Scientific truths fall along a continuum of inference, some more supported some less supported.

Recognizing that you present the best available info, summarize expert consensus and allow the reader to draw conclusions. 1950's Jytdog would have claimed leaded gasoline and asbestos insulation posed no dangers and removed any evidence suggesting otherwise. That's a zealot's approach to science.

Further into the subjective you have things like the frequency of antibiotic use, whether GMO production should be encouraged and how much we should do to limit greenhouse gases. These are policy decisions informed by science but science can't discover absolute answers to these questions the way it can with planetary motion and the origin of the universe.

AndyTheGrump · Unread post by **AndyTheGrump** » Tue Jun 07, 2016 10:06 pm

Poetlister wrote:
AndyTheGrump wrote:
Poetlister wrote:
AndyTheGrump wrote:There is no debate over vaccines amongst those qualified to discuss the subject.
Yes, but Wikipedia never relies on experts. Anyone can say anything provided there is a reliable source that can be quoted. How do you know if a source is reliable? You could consult an expert ... er ...
How is that relevant to my statement? It remains true regardless of what Wikipedia does or doesn't do.
Sorry, i thought that this is a Wikipedia criticism site so that it's relevant to discuss what Wikipedia does or doesn't do.

Fixed typo

It is. But quoting me and then starting a sentence with 'yes but' seems to suggest that you are disagreeing with what I said.

AndyTheGrump · Unread post by **AndyTheGrump** » Tue Jun 07, 2016 10:09 pm

Jimbo Jambo wrote:
Vigilant wrote:
Jimbo Jambo wrote:
Vigilant wrote:
johnthedinosaur wrote:
Vigilant wrote: There is zero debate over vaccines in the medical community.
The 'debate' orbits around fraudsters promoting bullshit claims and the dingbat conspiracy theorist types that the fraudsters prey upon.

Which are you?
Neither. I'm pro-vaccination but I'm also pro-neutral point of view.
Do you have a pro-neutral point of view on flat vs spherical earth?
How about creationism vs evolution?
Lamarckian vs Darwinian?
Elliptical vs circular orbits?
Ether vs vacuum?
Homeopathy vs antibiotics?
The medical community's position is: "society is better off with antibiotics and vaccinations" - agree but that's a value judgement.
Different from elliptical vs circular, ether/vacuum, etc. which just "are", independent of judgement.
Unfair comparison.
Circular orbits worked for a long time. Look up epicycles.
Newtonian mechanics work in almost all instances we find ourselves in.

By what metric would you say is society worse off using antibiotics and vaccines?
It's hysteria and know-nothing anti-science mysticism that opposes these things.
Putting 'teach the controversy' in vaccine articles is as idiotic and asinine as putting false balance "NPOV" in evolution articles.
Scientific truths fall along a continuum of inference, some more supported some less supported.

Recognizing that you present the best available info, summarize expert consensus and allow the reader to draw conclusions. 1950's Jytdog would have claimed leaded gasoline and asbestos insulation posed no dangers and removed any evidence suggesting otherwise. That's a zealot's approach to science.

Further into the subjective you have things like the frequency of antibiotic use, whether GMO production should be encouraged and how much we should do to limit greenhouse gases. These are policy decisions informed by science but science can't discover absolute answers to these questions the way it can with planetary motion and the origin of the universe.

As far as greenhouse gases are concerned, the debate is informed by science, and misinformed by special interest groups and purveyors of lunatic conspiracy theories..

johnthedinosaur · Unread post by **johnthedinosaur** » Tue Jun 07, 2016 10:21 pm

On Wikipediocracy, as on Wikipedia, there are differing opinions about what is a neutral point of view.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Tue Jun 07, 2016 10:44 pm

Please answer the question directly.

By what metric would you say is society worse off using antibiotics and vaccines?

Anroth · Unread post by **Anroth** » Tue Jun 07, 2016 10:49 pm

johnthedinosaur wrote:On Wikipediocracy, as on Wikipedia, there are differing opinions about what is a neutral point of view.

No there isn't. There is scientific consensus and fringe/loons.