12 ms·

https://justapedia.org/index.php?title=Evolution&diff=2000021708&oldid=2000018546 https://justapedia.org/index.php?title=Evolution&diff=200002... Yikes. EDIT:

https://justapedia.org/index.php?title=Evolution&diff=2000021708&oldid=2000018546 https://justapedia.org/index.php?title=Evolution&diff=200002... Yikes. EDIT: https://justapedia.org/wiki/Category:Justapedia_controversial_topic https://justapedia.org/wiki/Category:Justapedia_controversia... Yikes yikes.

bawolff 3y ago
I'm not sure what to take away from that. They also tagged Blu-ray disk as controversial. Do they just think everything is controversial?
- betwills 3y ago
  The article https://justapedia.org/wiki/Blu-ray https://justapedia.org/wiki/Blu-ray does not include the word "controversial" and there is nothing in Categories at the bottom of the page so what exactly are you referring to? No, Justapedians do not think everything is controversial. We forked 6.5+ million articles from Wikipedia, and editors are starting to create articles, and clean-up the controversial forked articles that reek of WP's systemic bias in an effort to make them representative of encyclopedic content; i.e., neutral and objective.
raxxorraxor 3y ago
Evolution certainly is a controversial topic. What are you trying to imply?
- fake-name 3y ago
  Evolution is completely uncontroversial. Teaching about evolution is controversial because it pokes holes in certain commonly held beliefs. That doesn't make any of the actual underlying facts controversial.
  - Y_Y 3y ago
    This sounds like semantics. Presumably GP means controversial in the sense that people argue about it, you mean non-controversial in the sense that it's well established scientifically. I think both of those takes are good.
  - raxxorraxor 3y ago
    If it weren't controversial, there weren't as many alternative "theories". This is what the term controversial means. It is no valuation about the probability of evolution being correct or of the existence of any other sensible model. > Evolution is completely uncontroversial. Perhaps it should be uncontroversial is what you mean, but it certainly isn't, which makes that statement wrong.
  - tivert 3y ago
    > Evolution is completely uncontroversial. No, you wish it was uncontroversial. Or it is uncontroversial within a carefully chosen subset of the society that agrees with the idea an its implications, but that's cherry-picking and does not actually mean it's uncontroversial (without qualification). > Teaching about evolution is controversial because it pokes holes in certain commonly held beliefs. That doesn't make any of the actual underlying facts controversial. How can you say that? The idea isn't controversial, but somehow only teaching it is? That's pretty obviously not true: the people who object to teaching evolution almost certainly object to the idea itself. I'm pretty sure they also dispute the "actual underlying facts" (at least historically).
    - threatofrain 3y ago
      Evolution isn’t controversial across the many scientific communities and nations around the world. There is no rival theory poised to capture scientific energy around the world.
      - tivert 3y ago
        Exactly. You can accurately say "evolution isn’t controversial in the scientific community" (with a qualification), but you can't accurately say "evolution is completely uncontroversial [full stop]" (unqualified). A course-grained "controversial" tag will either apply very broadly or be inaccurately used (out of parochialism or other bias).
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
        threatofrain 3y ago
        Scientific wikipedia need only summarize scientific consensus. A thermostat on the public mood should be more like a live dashboard over data streams.
  - betwills 3y ago
    Really? Well, see if you can explain your position on Wikipedia which is a source Justapedia used to find controversial topics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_controversial_issues https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_controversia... Justapedia affords editors an opportunity to neutralize those controversial articles because the big part of what makes them controversial is the lack of substantial diverse points of view. It's either WP's systemic POV or the material is rejected, and any editor who dares to change it will likely themselves groveling at one of the dramah boards, or swiftly topic-banned from that topic, broadly construed.
- orwin 3y ago
  As controversial as gravity, in that some mechanisms aren't understood yet, and physicists still search gravitons. Still, not a 'controversial' topic unless you participate in scientific seminars.
  - raxxorraxor 3y ago
    Controversial just means the topic to be in dispute. It is a question of semantics and precision of language. In that regard the flag on a wiki site is certainly justified.
    - orwin 3y ago
      Is the gravity article controversial then? And the article on particle physics? At least be consistent, I mean, please.
      - raxxorraxor 3y ago
        Because that isn't comparable. Evolution is controversial because it collides with a lot of other beliefs. Particle physics and gravity generally don't, if only because people aren't familiar with the intrinsics...
        orwin 3y ago
        I don't see why it's that different? I mean, gravity and just basic physics contradict the Bible way more than evolution, no?
        yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
        What in the Bible is at odds with gravity?
        orwin 3y ago
        All of genesis? Young earth specifically (unless Christian's god created the moon with initial velocity). I've read an article from a Hindi that basically explained how their religion was much more science-proof than the monotheisms. Also, looking into Ramadan for weird reasons, I recently found an article about how the Coran was more scientific-friendly than the bible, with example from the new testament. Both where cherry picked bull* but I should have kept the links, it was quite fun and I probably would have had more examples.

bawolff 3y ago

I'm not sure what to take away from that. They also tagged Blu-ray disk as controversial. Do they just think everything is controversial?

betwills 3y ago
The article https://justapedia.org/wiki/Blu-ray https://justapedia.org/wiki/Blu-ray does not include the word "controversial" and there is nothing in Categories at the bottom of the page so what exactly are you referring to? No, Justapedians do not think everything is controversial. We forked 6.5+ million articles from Wikipedia, and editors are starting to create articles, and clean-up the controversial forked articles that reek of WP's systemic bias in an effort to make them representative of encyclopedic content; i.e., neutral and objective.

raxxorraxor 3y ago

Evolution certainly is a controversial topic. What are you trying to imply?

fake-name 3y ago
Evolution is completely uncontroversial. Teaching about evolution is controversial because it pokes holes in certain commonly held beliefs. That doesn't make any of the actual underlying facts controversial.
- Y_Y 3y ago
  This sounds like semantics. Presumably GP means controversial in the sense that people argue about it, you mean non-controversial in the sense that it's well established scientifically. I think both of those takes are good.
- raxxorraxor 3y ago
  If it weren't controversial, there weren't as many alternative "theories". This is what the term controversial means. It is no valuation about the probability of evolution being correct or of the existence of any other sensible model. > Evolution is completely uncontroversial. Perhaps it should be uncontroversial is what you mean, but it certainly isn't, which makes that statement wrong.
- tivert 3y ago
  > Evolution is completely uncontroversial. No, you wish it was uncontroversial. Or it is uncontroversial within a carefully chosen subset of the society that agrees with the idea an its implications, but that's cherry-picking and does not actually mean it's uncontroversial (without qualification). > Teaching about evolution is controversial because it pokes holes in certain commonly held beliefs. That doesn't make any of the actual underlying facts controversial. How can you say that? The idea isn't controversial, but somehow only teaching it is? That's pretty obviously not true: the people who object to teaching evolution almost certainly object to the idea itself. I'm pretty sure they also dispute the "actual underlying facts" (at least historically).
  - threatofrain 3y ago
    Evolution isn’t controversial across the many scientific communities and nations around the world. There is no rival theory poised to capture scientific energy around the world.
    - tivert 3y ago
      Exactly. You can accurately say "evolution isn’t controversial in the scientific community" (with a qualification), but you can't accurately say "evolution is completely uncontroversial [full stop]" (unqualified). A course-grained "controversial" tag will either apply very broadly or be inaccurately used (out of parochialism or other bias).
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - threatofrain 3y ago
        Scientific wikipedia need only summarize scientific consensus. A thermostat on the public mood should be more like a live dashboard over data streams.
- betwills 3y ago
  Really? Well, see if you can explain your position on Wikipedia which is a source Justapedia used to find controversial topics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_controversial_issues https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_controversia... Justapedia affords editors an opportunity to neutralize those controversial articles because the big part of what makes them controversial is the lack of substantial diverse points of view. It's either WP's systemic POV or the material is rejected, and any editor who dares to change it will likely themselves groveling at one of the dramah boards, or swiftly topic-banned from that topic, broadly construed.
orwin 3y ago
As controversial as gravity, in that some mechanisms aren't understood yet, and physicists still search gravitons. Still, not a 'controversial' topic unless you participate in scientific seminars.
- raxxorraxor 3y ago
  Controversial just means the topic to be in dispute. It is a question of semantics and precision of language. In that regard the flag on a wiki site is certainly justified.
  - orwin 3y ago
    Is the gravity article controversial then? And the article on particle physics? At least be consistent, I mean, please.
    - raxxorraxor 3y ago
      Because that isn't comparable. Evolution is controversial because it collides with a lot of other beliefs. Particle physics and gravity generally don't, if only because people aren't familiar with the intrinsics...
      - orwin 3y ago
        I don't see why it's that different? I mean, gravity and just basic physics contradict the Bible way more than evolution, no?
        yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
        What in the Bible is at odds with gravity?
        orwin 3y ago
        All of genesis? Young earth specifically (unless Christian's god created the moon with initial velocity). I've read an article from a Hindi that basically explained how their religion was much more science-proof than the monotheisms. Also, looking into Ramadan for weird reasons, I recently found an article about how the Coran was more scientific-friendly than the bible, with example from the new testament. Both where cherry picked bull* but I should have kept the links, it was quite fun and I probably would have had more examples.