all 10 comments

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Someone should form a central committee to define "open source".

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

[–]wizzwizz4 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

TL;DR: The content you're trying to add to the Wikipedia article has some good things, but it's not at the right quality. Don't blindly copy-and-paste over an entire section. My bad.

I'm face-palming a little at this edit; it goes off on a few tangents:

Further, we are supposed to "[[believe]]" all of the profit driven [[marketing]], [[media hype]], and [[propaganda]], not to mention the political [[lobbyists]] (a soft term for legalized [[bribery]]), and trust we are getting the best technology, drugs, medical care, and environmental stewardship while corporate [[monopolies]] safely and honestly earn their profits in a world where [[corporate corruption]] and [[status quo]] [[war profiteering]] are business as usual.

This edit, however, cut too much. It would've taken more time to be more selective, but isn't that the whole point of Wikipedia? This sentence:

[[Open science]] uses the [[scientific method]] as a process of open discovery of shared verifiable knowledge, whereas [[proprietary science]] is privately developed by corporations and organizations yet their "scientific" processes and research are ''not'' publicly shared (or are obscured behind [[paywall]]s or published in expensive private journals), therefore unverifiable as legitimate forcing the public to have "[[faith]]" in their [[privatized science]] and "[[trust (emotion)|trust]]" that rigorous studies have been and are conducted, proper precautions taken, adequate warnings given, and that the results are beneficial to individuals, society, and the environment - as well as serving their private [[shareholders]].

(That's a single sentence‽) could've been cut down to:

[[Open science]] uses the [[scientific method]] as a process of open discovery of shared verifiable knowledge. This contrasts with [[Pseudoscience#Lack_of_openness_to_testing_by_other_experts|proprietary science]], where the processes and research are not publicly shared, which means that others cannot be certain that rigorous studies have been and are conducted, proper precautions taken, and adequate warnings given.

(This is badly edited, but you get the picture!)

This revert is completely mostly inappropriate; it removes at least one good contribution entirely. If you're going to add content back in, at least don't erase other content while you do it. Actually, it doesn't remove any content.

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)


[–]JasonCarswell[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

You've destroyed the essence and point of those paragraph. Blind faith in science authorities driven by profit are anything but benevolent - and that's all gone now.

[–]wizzwizz4 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

You don't need to spell things out to people. If you provide them with the evidence, and the evidence is sound, they'll pick up on it.

Unless they're not open to it, in which case one of two things will happen:

  • If the information is neutrally-written, they'll pass over it.
  • If the information appears to be written in a biased way, they'll think "us v.s. them" and go on the defensive, reinforcing the ideas they already have in their heads.

Plus, it would've been removed anyway.

If you can find a non-ranty well-known "critic" (source) of corruption in science, we can quote that. It'll be the same content, but won't be removed.

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

It wasn't removed from November until this week. I wrote the comment that it needed tonal improvement (not deletion) before it was even changed from Draft to Article.

I had nothing about pseudoscience and don't think it applies as it means something else entirely.

[–]wizzwizz4 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

The previous term was ambiguous.

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Which term? Pseudoscience takes it in a whole other direction.

[–]wizzwizz4 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

"Proprietary science". I linked to a particular section of the pseudoscience article.

The great thing about Wikis is that if you're not happy with them, you can edit them. Citation 28 (at time of writing), used once, doesn't support the sentence immediately preceding the quote it's associated with, by the way; I added another citation needed sign.