User talk:Guppyfinsoup/Sandbox/Pseudoscience list sources

This is a good idea. Do you think I should try the lead again or should we wait until we are sure this is the direction we want to go. --Dematt 03:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

This definitely looks like the most promising route, but perhaps we should wait at least a day so that the rest of those involved with the list discussion can chime in. Though it doesn't seem likely at this point, there may end up being some opposition. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 03:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. It's getting close to bedtime so if you lose me, I'll ceck back in tomorrow. Thanks for steppin up;) --Dematt 03:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Anything?

Anybody been finding anything? I've been looking all morning. I have found several sources within some of the AoS sites that define PS or have books that were written about PS for sale, but they also have a disclaimer attached that it "is the opinion of the author and does not represent the opnion of the academy". --Dematt 14:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the problem here is that national and regional academies only make statements on pseudoscience when there is a concern that a particular pseudoscience is finding its way into education or government. Given that only a few pseudoscientific fields have achieved such a feat, we're probably not going to find much from the academies. I think I have a possible solution to this problem and will present it on the main article talk page when I get a chance. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 15:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree, I anxiously await your input;) --Dematt 16:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Another idea

It just occurred to me that this is a project. Why don't we create a project workspace for this article under Pseudoscience Project. Then we can move all the subject to it (it doesn't have to be NPOV). We then make the list with V and RS on the article space and as people are able to verify things, they can be moved to the article space (we can then remove the tag). If somebody drops something off, if it is not verified, we can move it to the project page rather than just deleting it.. That way, that person can take the time to work on finding the sources that satisfy the criteria. The only ones that show to the public are the ones that are verified with reliable sources. What do you think? --Dematt 14:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Good idea! You guys are onto something here, and I admire your persistence in attempting to get this to really work. This should be able to function using Wiki standards. Others would misuse this situation to exercise their strong POV suppressionist tendencies, but you understand NPOV well, and understand that such tendencies are anti-wikipedian. Wikipedia is for all POV when they're presented properly. Good going. BTW, have you seen this yet? -- Fyslee 19:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry guys, but it looks like I have a WP:Troll stalking me. He looks like he is about to destroy the article. I'll try to stay out of it so as not to feed it. --Dematt 22:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

User:QuackGuru. Stalking was too strong a word. Simoes seems to have handled him well. --Dematt 02:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)