I'm battling some ANTZ from Cali with edits to the wikipedia page on e-cigs
- Thread starter DrMA
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
ANTZ attempting to censor discussion of the McNeill critique of WHO:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Electronic_cigarette#Consensus_for_adding_this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Electronic_cigarette#Consensus_for_adding_this
Well guys, consensus is how the scientific method works. There are no "truths" in science, only hypothesis that survive experiments (until they don't). You people might end up shooting yourselves in the foot if you continue with this edit war "for the truth". What I understood from the talk page is that experimental medicine (primary source) is frowned up to be put in wikipedia articles. Secondary sources leads to more consensus: more than one experiment and group (with their possible method errors or conflict of interest) being reviewed to draw conclusions. It isn't perfect, but you would be amazed at how easy(from a scrutiny point of view, social-economic aspects not taken into account) it is to draw conclusions from experiments and get an article published
Promoting the ecf wiki might be more successful.
Promoting the ecf wiki might be more successful.
Well guys, consensus is how the scientific method works. There are no "truths" in science, only hypothesis that survive experiments (until they don't). You people might end up shooting yourselves in the foot if you continue with this edit war "for the truth". What I understood from the talk page is that experimental medicine (primary source) is frowned up to be put in wikipedia articles. Secondary sources leads to more consensus: more than one experiment and group (with their possible method errors or conflict of interest) being reviewed to draw conclusions. It isn't perfect, but you would be amazed at how easy(from a scrutiny point of view, social-economic aspects not taken into account) it is to draw conclusions from experiments and get an article published
Promoting the ecf wiki might be more successful.
I'm afraid that's incorrect. Inquiry is how the scientific method works, and challenging prejudiced dogma. Consensus is how science gets replaced by dogma and challenge by belief.
As far as the wiki page, this is not an edit war, and none of us vapers is on any quest for "the truth." Rather, we're trying to add some balance to the gross ANTZ slant that the article currently has, by presenting evidence published in secondary and 3-ary sources. The ANTZ, who are indeed crusading for "Truth," are fighting to scrub and censor any and all factual statements that contradict their prejudiced "consensus" that ecigs are "bad".
Since the ANTZ know full well that simply reverting or deleting edits would lead to an "edit war" and a dispute resolution they'd lose, they're currently peddling the "consensus" BS and manufacturing controversy out of minor things (like the number of paragraphs in a section, or word choice) to prevent accurate evidence challenging their "Truth" from being published.
Well guys, consensus is how the scientific method works. There are no "truths" in science, only hypothesis that survive experiments (until they don't). You people might end up shooting yourselves in the foot if you continue with this edit war "for the truth". What I understood from the talk page is that experimental medicine (primary source) is frowned up to be put in wikipedia articles. Secondary sources leads to more consensus: more than one experiment and group (with their possible method errors or conflict of interest) being reviewed to draw conclusions. It isn't perfect, but you would be amazed at how easy(from a scrutiny point of view, social-economic aspects not taken into account) it is to draw conclusions from experiments and get an article published
Promoting the ecf wiki might be more successful.
Wikipedia editors are, generally speaking, more interested in being safe than correct. Some of them are also regrettably prone to relying on circular reasoning instead of good sense. "The WHO is more credible because it's the WHO" seems to be a common trope on the talk page in question.
Consensus is opposite science. Or it was until Global Warming. They couldn't actually make the science work, so they made a logical fallacy.... Argumentum ad populum (appeal to widespread belief, bandwagon argument, appeal to the majority, appeal to the people) – where a proposition is claimed to be true or good solely because many people believe it to be so ...into what they think is an actual argument - consensus. When that didn't work, they resorted to another logical fallacy - ad hominem - calling anyone who disagreed to any degree, even some of their own, - as "deniers" - a disgraceful (to put it mildly) use of that term.
In point of fact, the four scientists most people can name off the top of their heads (Newton, Copernicus, Galileo, Einstein) are famous and noteworthy precisely because they challenged the established consensus and proved it wrong.
I appaud everyones effort to correct statements that are slanted. Please keep it up. I go to Wiki for information not biased information. I posted a snippet from the UK parliment that shows that only 5 incidents of harm from ecigs were reported while over 290 were reported for the drug varenicline(chantix,champix). Feel free to use it. Here is the link for that post:
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...rug-reaction-counts-vrenicline-nrts-ecig.html
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...rug-reaction-counts-vrenicline-nrts-ecig.html
I agree the science of global warming is biased towards favoring publications that support global climate change and dismissing those which don't, a situation very similar to anti-THR. I am one of those scientists who has done primary research into global change in the early 2000's and has left the field partly because of noticing increased difficulty in pursuing research that challenged the dogma.
However, I don't believe the publications in the field of global change bear the same junk science stink as the slurry gushing out of the ANTZ. In fact, I think the primary research remains defensible. Were it not for the "consensus" BS and the associated publication bias, we might have a better understanding of what's happening and perhaps less nonsense from the polyticks on either side.
I've done my share of research on it and the devastation that has been brought to the 'deniers' with lost tenure, ridicule, shunning or just failure to participate in peer reviews, etc. etc. The similarities are astounding. Publications that censor any dissent, web sites that allow no dissent, deletion of comments, scrubbing of mistakes, ad hominem attacks and death threats in the case of some. And that says nothing of the biased studies even in 'creating' the 'consensus', biased computer modeling, locations of surface stations (blacktop, near barbeques, AC units, etc.) and falsifying satellite data from NASA. ANTZ are sophomoric in comparison.
That is why I mentioned the social-economic aspects. I use consensus in the abstract taking into account the repeatability of experiments and the lack of "truth". But repeating (varying, publishing and "marketing") experiments require money, so it is prone to power play and being a double-edged sword with some dogmas. Foucault described it perfectly with the concept of "power is everywhere".
The solution for the edit war is to try to bring the article into the attention of higher hierarchy of the wiki, because as far as consensus is at this point, ANTZ haven't reached that point yet since "more research is needed" works both ways.
Another ANTZ has joined the discussion trying to portray CASAA as a tobacco industry astroturf front group. 
Fortunately, there is another supportive voice as well. If you're reading this and contributing to the Talk page, please PM me.
Fortunately, there is another supportive voice as well. If you're reading this and contributing to the Talk page, please PM me.
It looks like the battle against censorship is all but lost. ANTZ have gathered their forces to suppress any reference to the McNeill critique of the abysmal WHO report based on the lies and misinformation spewed by Grana and glANTZ. There are a few more avenues for appeal, but, without additional support from objective editors, I'm not sure any more investment into this project would yield substantive results.
It looks like the battle against censorship is all but lost. ANTZ have gathered their forces to suppress any reference to the McNeill critique of the abysmal WHO report based on the lies and misinformation spewed by Grana and glANTZ. There are a few more avenues for appeal, but, without additional support from objective editors, I'm not sure any more investment into this project would yield substantive results.
The page obviously has a bloc of editors who are not going to be swayed by anything that calls into question their hardcore ANTZian worldview. It seems that WHO and Glantz/Grana are sacrosanct and permanently above all reproach, for reasons that never remain consistently elucidated from one day to the next.
The entire "health" section of the article is slowly being rewritten in the words of the abysmal and thoroughly debunked Grana atrocity.
There is a bright side here, though. The ANTZ are putting all their eggs in the Grana basket. If we can convince the journal to withdraw that nonsense, we'll get 90% of the lies dismissed.
There is a bright side here, though. The ANTZ are putting all their eggs in the Grana basket. If we can convince the journal to withdraw that nonsense, we'll get 90% of the lies dismissed.
The entire "health" section of the article is slowly being rewritten in the words of the abysmal and thoroughly debunked Grana atrocity.
There is a bright side here, though. The ANTZ are putting all their eggs in the Grana basket. If we can convince the journal to withdraw that nonsense, we'll get 90% of the lies dismissed.
You're obviously a more patient man than I am, because I don't know how you tolerate all the circular reasoning on that talk page.
Because I believe this is important for vapers everywhere and should not be surrendered without a fight to ANTZ propaganda. We don't have material resources or access to MSM as ANTZ do, but we can manifest an influence on Wikipedia, which is a highly-visible source of information.
Like it or not, Wikipedia is the most visited site for medical content, ahead of NIH, WebMD, NHS, and WHO. The wiki page on ecigs is in the top 100 of pages (within the Medicine Project) by number of visits (#94 currently) with over 117K views during the month of September 2014.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.ph...roject_Medicine/Popular_pages&oldid=627770632
The ecig article ranks #1575 in total views for the entire English Wikipedia site:
Wikipedia article traffic statistics
Major accomplishment today. The article on ecigs has been tagged as biased. This may not sound like much to the casual reader, but it represents a serious offense to Wiki editors and it takes lots of time and argument behind the scenes to have this "mark of shame" plastered at the top of an article.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&oldid=630051724
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&oldid=630051724
- Status