This is a Wikipediauser page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Scarpy.
I don't necessarily support or oppose anything I'm working on, it's always a mix of both (at least where it's the kind of topic that makes sense to "support" or "oppose"). Most times, I start working on articles because I want to surface what the current state of the scholarly literature is on a given topic, and make that available to the world in an encyclopedic way. That way, we all have information to make better decisions on related issues. I see a virtue in taking a topic that lacks a free comprehensive encyclopedic summary and providing one to the world. Although I'm human, I try very very very hard to be neutral, objective, understand the information contained in the reliable sources to the best of my ability and communicate it effectively. One of my proudest moments was being part of the group of editors that got a very easy to misunderstand--and very commonly misunderstood--statistic correctly interpreted in the Alcoholics Anonymous article, then seeing it acknowledged on Slate Star Codex (in the article "Alcoholics Anonymous: Much More Than You Wanted to Know").
There is an alternate reference going around that only 5% (rather than 25%) of AA members remain after their first year. This is a mistake caused by misinterpreting a graph showing that only five percent of members in their first year were in their twelfth month of membership, which is obviously completely different. Nevertheless, a large number of AA hate sites (and large rehabs!) cite the incorrect interpretation, for example the Orange Papers and RationalWiki’s page on Alcoholics Anonymous. In fact, just to keep things short, assume [RationalWiki's AA page makes every single mistake I warn against in the rest of this article, then use that to judge them in general. On the other hand, Wikipedia gets it right and I continue to encourage everyone to use it as one of the most reliable sources of medical information available to the public (I wish I was joking).
If you're collaborating with me on an article, and I'm not living up to my own standards, I give you my permission--in fact I strongly encourage you--to say it to me now without equivocation in terms that you think are adequate to get me to notice. You may temporarily hurt my feelings, and it may suck, but we'll all be the better for it in the end.
But, if you're collaborating with me on an article, and you are 100% sure that my interest in it is because I'm a fanboy, stan, or whatever terminology for such attitudes is hip in the current year, the probability of that being true is very low. If you make statements to that effect, I may direct you here and I may explain my interest is along the lines of what I've stated here. You don't have to believe me, and to be fair, I have no idea how I would prove it to you--there's no technology that I'm aware of to demonstrate my subjective sense about something (how could I prove, for example, my favorite color is green?). Nevertheless, I retain the right to be interested in basically any topic that interests me (of course, there are some limits) and to contribute knowledge about it to Wikipedia where reliable sources cover in sufficient quantity and depth without joining a pro- or con-whatever-topic-it-is team (again, within limits, of course there are some things that are very bad) no matter how much someone wants to weakman me on to a team. Interest in a topic is not an endorsement of a topic. While other editors may disagree, I also don't see inclusion of a topic in Wikipedia as an endorsement. Carl Sagan isn't as popular among skeptics as he was when I was coming of age, but I still endorse this perspective (from The Demon-Haunted World) even if it's no longer fashionable.
"At the heart of science is an essential balance between two seemingly contradictory attitudes--an openness to new ideas, no matter how bizarre or counterintuitive they may be, and the most ruthless skeptical scrutiny of all ideas, old and new. This is how deep truths are winnowed from deep nonsense."
"Being an educator is not only getting the truth right, but there's got to be an act of persuasion in there as well. Persuasion isn't always, "Here are the facts — you're an idiot or you are not," it's, "here are the facts, and here is a sensitivity to your state of mind," and it's the facts plus the sensitivity, when convolved together, create impact.
Wikipedia communicates science, so the Science of Science Communication applies to it whether you like it or not. So we should be aware of the often counter-intuitive pitfalls discovered from studying effective science communication and try not to fuck things up.
For the rewrite of the SCA article. You took on a huge task that no one else wanted to do, and did it well. Great work, and I agree with Fredrick day. — Becksguy (talk) 16:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Committed identity: 07a86b5729f21a2fa092207dfc7c4507dad5ac3061e2093433a854e63748863e2e97812d9c924b5799192c2900c1a40273f9a4850352604b57232c3623afe7cc is a zero article SHA-512commitment to this user's real-life identity.
