Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Peter Damian (talk | contribs) at 12:49, 20 June 2009 (→Randy in Boise replies). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The Misplaced Pages philosophy can be summed up thusly: "Experts are scum." For some reason people who spend 40 years learning everything they can about, say, the Peloponnesian War -- and indeed, advancing the body of human knowledge -- get all pissy when their contributions are edited away by Randy in Boise who heard somewhere that sword-wielding skeletons were involved. And they get downright irate when asked politely to engage in discourse with Randy until the sword-skeleton theory can be incorporated into the article without passing judgment.

Randy in Boise replies

• The Misplaced Pages philosophy can be summed up thusly: editors are anonymous. Therefore they are judged solely by what they write, not by who they are. If they are indeed experts, they can easily demonstrate that fact by citing their sources.
• If they "get all pissy" at any challenge they are either terribly immature, or are unsure that their contributions are well-supported by evidence.
• It is not clear whether the prejudice implied here is meant to be against people called Randy, or inhabitants of one of the several places called Boise, but either way perhaps a little maturity is called for.
• If Randy alleges the involvement of sword-wielding skeletons, he can easily, politely, be asked to produce WP:RS. If he can't, there are no gounds for any mention at all of his theory. If he can cite a publication by a reputable scholar where such a theory has been advanced, it may be necessary to mention it with due caveat.
• If he persists in the teeth of the evidence, an RfC should be enough to protect the article.
• If the whole process is carried out on the expert's side in a civil manner, it is fairly certain that good sense will prevail, and even possible that Randy will gratefully acknowledge that he has learnt something. If the expert gets "downright irate" he risks pointlessly losing from a winning position.

SamuelTheGhost (talk) 09:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

And the expert has to repeat this process again and again and again. Much easier to leave it to Randy. What's the point? Peter Damian (talk) 09:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty" and I'm afraid accuracy in[REDACTED] has the same condition attached. If you can show me a genuine alternative, please tell us all, but I'm afraid your recent attempt was a proposed cure which was worse than the disease. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 12:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Samuel, fringe POV pushers are incredibly frustrating, and it is, regrettably, nowhere near as simple as how you make it out. For a particularly instructive example, take a look at List of water fuel inventions and related pages. TallNapoleon (talk) 09:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Without undertaking a full analysis of the history of those articles, which I wasn't previously aware of, I'd suggest a few points based on a cursory look:

• don't use a {{prod}} which is bound to fail
• use {{cn}} rather than deleting things
• don't try and remove the fact that claims have been made, just cast adequate doubt on their credibility
• add use of for all US patents and check what it really says where the text is given
• add discussion with links to Conservation of energy etc.
• (perhaps most importantly) learn to see the funny side

SamuelTheGhost (talk) 12:26, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I've been through your contributions and I'm sad to say you haven't even been near the coalface. You just don't know what you are talking about. As for me, I have far less time on this earth than you, I suspect, and I shall return to doing something useful with the few years I have left. I have spent far too much time on this project. All wasted, in fact. Peter Damian (talk) 12:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)