User:Gleng

Gareth Leng [1].

This editor has decided to leave Wikipedia.

Goodbye

I am leaving Wikipedia. I have learned a lot, so thanks to you all. I expect to make no more contributions to articles or article Talk pages. I may write some pieces here, anyone can use whatever if they wish.

I am an academic, I teach medical students and science students, and a lot of what I teach is about the process of science, and how to critically interrogate what we think is true or what is said to be true by finding and analysing the evidence objectively. what I teach is, find the facts, eliminate from your mind what you "believe" to be true, and start from what you can "show" to be true.

This, for me, has been an exercise in “practise what you preach” I became involved lately in two articles chiropractic and vitalism, subjects on which I had acquired the popular prejudices, and started to listen, read, and hunt down the sources to find what was actually said and done.

The exercise was for me a practical demonstration that there is no alternative; being a scientist is about being a conscious determined, relentless skeptic – most importantly about the things that you believe are true. If you do not play this game, if you do not engage in the intellectual hazard of refuting what you yourself believe, then you are not playing the game of science.

What is wrong with Wikipedia

One thing I dislike about WP, is the willingness of editors to judge the edits of editors by the presumed POV of the editor. Whatever the policies of WP, which are I think well judged and well considered, in this they are simply ignored. Judge the edit not the editor is a mantra, but one shamefully neglected. Every time I see a comment on the Talk page that suggests that a comment can be ignored because it comes from an acupuncturist, or a chiropractor, or a “professional skeptic”, or Jew, homosexual, marxist, conservative, whatever, I cringe and wonder what I am doing here on these pages lending authority to the collective thoughts of people who judge by what they think others are, or what they think they believe, rather than on the merits of what they say.

There are some editors who I would be proud to have as academic colleagues, who have been remarkably true to V RS, and objectivity, who have listened and learned, and talked and taught, and have brought to their own areas the discipline of science as objective cool skepticism anchored in scholarship and good sources.

There have been others wearing the "mantle" of support for science who do science, as I understand it and practise it and teach it, a disservice. They give legitimacy to accusations that what is paraded as science is, in fact, mere prejudice, buttressed by false authority, full of double standards and hypocrisy. If we don’t take such charges seriously and eliminate any just cause for them, then we have only ourselves to blame if science does not have the authority we would like it to have

What is right with Wikipedia

I have met on these pages many editors, from many backgrounds, who I would love some time to drink with, laugh with; lively, interesting, intelligent people with knowledge and wisdom to share. I will have missed the chance of talking more with many others also; but life is too short.

So what should be done here?

I came to see an experiment in democracy.Democracy requires faith in the goodwill and intelligence of the people, and it requires also an acceptance of a duty, a duty of intellectual engagement in the issues on which you express an opinion.

Will that lead to some biased articles? Maybe. Bluntly, there are a lot of those anyway (everywhere). There is something that has been learned on the best articles (and there are many very good ones), and is being learned on others –

That on any article, if you believe that one interpretation of the facts is true, then it is in your best interests to show the case ‘’for the opposite position’’ as strongly, clearly, and honestly as possible from available V RS, as well as the case for your own position. If you do not accept the need to “write for the enemy”, then the article will not ultimately have credibility, and anything you do write will accordingly be a waste of time.

The Editor's Barnstar For the tireless copy editing of my spelling and grammar errors. Kim van der Linde at venus 17:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Biobarnstar

The Bio-Barnstar To acknowledge your hard work on the new version of Natural selection. Samsara (talk • contribs) 14:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Science Barnstar

		The E=MC² Barnstar
		Presented to Gareth Leng for his steadfast commitment to presenting the science POV without regard to pride or prejudice in an effort to advance the growth of unbiased knowledge for all. Thank you. Dematt 17:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar of Diligence

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		You've worked hard on many articles, especially Vitalism. Cheers to your excellent skills and dedication! Keep it up. Wikipedia is a better place thanks to you... Travisthurston 04:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC) We are all better through your influence, not only as a scholar, but as a person. Thank you! --Dematt 20:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The Defender of Wiki Barnstar

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		Truly the White Knight, you tirelessly defend the Kingdom of Wikipedia from POV-pushing trolls. Armed with chivalrous rationality and patience in perpetuity, your being here makes the kingdom a merrier place. Levine2112 16:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Bout time we had that drink!

Cheers to Good Times and Good Friends! Your friend, Dematt 21:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)