🇳🇱
@djsumdog Wikipedia has high quality good content and is relatively not biased (it is sometimes bias).
Snopes on the other hand is a bias piece of shit.
They do have a perspective. But is a democratic system so their perspective is little more than the perspective of experts on any one subject. There is a lean, as I said, but that lean is towards those facts which are accepted by the expert community on a subject. That said it is only their language that leans towards accepted consensus, they still include contrary opinions no matter how absurd.
Well yes and no. On wikipedia the gatekeepers are the general public, not the experts. However the policy adopted by the general public agrees that experts should be differed to, so you will see the votes generally favor an experts opinion on a matter, but they are free to vote to the contrary.
So the gatekeeping of academics doesnt really apply to Wikipedia since it isnt the academics themselves who have any voting power compared to the general public.
As for the gate keeping of academics, as a side note, while true, and in this case the academics themselves and not the general public get the say, it is generally not much of a gated community. If you wish to submit a paper for a journal there is no requirement you be an expert or hold a degree. The paper is judged on its own merrit, and not based on if the conclusions are agreed upon but rather if the process used in the paper is free from errors, and the quality of the sources used by a similar standard.
Highly controversial topics with generally unaccepted conclusions get posted all the time should the proper scientific rigor be present.
I'm not sure what you mean by "voting" on Wikipedia, I've edited an article or two in my day, I've never seen a vote on anything. But any article that is the least bit contentious is locked, and only a wiki editors get to weigh in. That the public gets a say in topics about which there is no debate is meaningless to the question about how debated topics are handled.
Sauying a person proved a thing does not mean a think is proven... If you wish to argue how such a claim is proven and thus prove your point go for it. But its pretty weak to just claim as an axiom for it to be proven.
The irony is that peer-review is just as open as submitting journals in many cases. So if you can identify a case where the data itself is clearly and provably false you can submit it just like anyone else.
As for wikipedia voting, reversion wars are capped at 2 reverts per person. So if someone reverts your changes you can revert back. If you run out of reverts and still feel your contribution is correct then you go to the talk page and assert your point and ask for a community vote. The result of the vote determines if the edit stands.
So yea, pretty much everything is constantly up for vote should you feel another editor or group of editors are wrong.
>Sauying a person proved a thing does not mean a think is proven… If you wish to argue how such a claim is proven and thus prove your point go for it. But its pretty weak to just claim as an axiom for it to be proven.
In this case, yes; axiomatically having peer reviewed journals publish (and give awards for excellence to) garbage papers with physically impossible ‘research designs’ proves that peer review filters on factors other than scientific rigor.
Except that you havent proven that that is the norm in the scientific community, so no, you havent "proven" anything. You just stated it as proven and expect people to accept that assertion.
You do realize the Sokal Affair involved the submission of a nonsense paper to a **non-peer reviewed** publication right? Even if it was submitted to a peer-reviewed publication it is not an indication of the entire community or all publications in that community anyway.
So no I dont deny the Sokal incident, it just isnt remotely relevant to the discussion of peer-review
>As for the gate keeping of academics, as a side note, while true, and in this case the academics themselves and not the general public get the say, it is generally not much of a gated community. If you wish to submit a paper for a journal there is no requirement you be an expert or hold a degree. The paper is judged on its own merrit, and not based on if the conclusions are agreed upon but rather if the process used in the paper is free from errors, and the quality of the sources used by a similar standard.
[search in text: “Peer review” 0 results]
Moving the goal-posts are we?
Are you nuts, the entire conversation (once we started mentioning journals) was about peer-reviewed journals.
So now your just saying "there are examples of random scientists writing papers that reflect their own opinions that lack intellectual rigor"... yea no shit, we have peer-review for a reason.
No the link and screen shot you just published was **not** the Sokal Affair. The Sokal Affair was submitted to non-peer reviewed sources. You are referring to a different effort that was inspired by the Sokal Affair but in but sometime later, its a different incident.
In the case of the Grievance Studies Affair they did submit to peer-reviewed journals, but not ones that were respected by the community at large. This is a huge distinction, the original Sokal affair wasnt peer reviewed but had published experts in the past. In this case it was peer-reviewed but no one with expertise, established or otherwise, was in on the peer review process. They picked fringe journals that already were known for posting nonsense and lacked rigerous **expert** review.
>No the link and screen shot you just published was not the Sokal Affair. The Sokal Affair was submitted to non-peer reviewed sources. You are referring to a different effort that was inspired by the Sokal Affair but in but sometime later, its a different incident.
Zoom and Enhance:
Fair, though in every other place you refered to it simply as "Sokal".. honest enough mistake.
Either way your assertion is still erroneous since we are talking about papers submitted to journals that lacked academic credibility to start with. For Sokal to be a demonstration of the general community one would have to actually randomly select credible journals. Handpicking a handful of small journals you feel are most likely to post nonsense is not a demonstration of the scientific community as a whole.
No one is arguing that there arent journals out there that happen to post with a lack of scientific rigour. Of course they exist, doesnt mean they are the norm.
Yup, and journals known to lack scientific integrity... It is very clear from anyone who reviewed the affair that they specifically selected low-quality journals most likely to accept papers without good quality review.
They didnt even have a control group or random selection of journals, both of which would be needed in order to make any inference from the process.
