User talk:Metamagician3000/Archive 6

Frankenstein counter-argument for Transhumanism

Metamagician, could you please synthetize and summarize Bailey's arguments in the three articles linked to above? Once this is done, we could had it to the Dehumanization section as a counter-argument that would come before the one that is already there. Once this is done, I think the Transhumanism article will finally be finished except for minor updates from time to time. --Loremaster 17:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been away for the last week or so but will be able to look into this request in the next couple of days. Metamagician3000 12:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. By the way, the Transhumanism article has been significantly improved since you left. --Loremaster 21:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't managed to do much so far, but I've reviewed the first half of the article (prior to the criticisms part) and think it is currently reading very well indeed. Metamagician3000 23:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think you will get around to it in the first week of January 2007? --Loremaster 22:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vety likely, but you'll see that most of the work I'm doing here at the moment is relatively mindless - necessary though it is - such as clean ups on lapsed FA articles and a couple of articles approaching FA status. The reason is that my mind is preoccupied with some difficult tasks outside of Wikipedia. That doesn't mean that I've forgotten or that I won't get to this issue soon. Metamagician3000 22:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Just notify me here when you do. --Loremaster 10:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[Un-indent} Okay. Metamagician3000 05:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let try this: In a series of articles in Reason magazine, Ronald Bailey accused opponents of genetic research involving the modification of animals as indulging in alarmism when they speculate about the creation of sub-human creatures with humanlike intelligence and brains resembling those of Homo sapiens. Bailey insists that the aim of conducting research on animals is simply to produce human health-care benefits. This wording could come before the current sentences about Hughes, etc., as it is a less radical approach. Some massaging in might be needed for it to run smoothly. All three references would be relevant. Metamagician3000 08:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I've added the text to the article. By the way, someone left you a message at Talk:Transhumanism#Playing God counter-argument. --Loremaster 10:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did see that. As the person concerned says, it isn't that responsive to the particular point I make, but still ... Metamagician3000 10:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder whether we can declare our work done now. I have seen the way you incorporated my material and I am very pleased with it. Metamagician3000 13:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I consider my work done. I'm on watch duty from now. :) --Loremaster 05:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Smart Edits

I appreciate your intentions in cleaning up the Derek Smart article, but I question the fact that you are doing it while everyone else is blocked from editing. I also note that you misinterpret the phrase "typically verbose" as just some editor taking a hack at Smart: the wording comes from the Gamespot.com article the section was referencing. It's not some editor passing judgement on Smart, it's some editor reporting someone else passing judgement on an event notable enough to be reported in a reliable source. --Beaker342 09:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know of no policy that stops admins editing protected articles - we have that power because we are trusted not to abuse it, but to use it in good faith to benefit the encyclopedia. Furthermore, I don't believe I have abused it in this case, and I am totally neutral about Smart. If what you say is true, it was not at all obvious from the way the version I edited was worded (I just re-checked that version). Whatever the intention, the old wording was unclear, perhaps in part because there was a missing set of inverted commas somewhere. As it stood, that wording gave the impression that this was Wikipedia's view, so I am not going to self-revert. Nor do I think it appropriate to try to come up with some ideal wording while the dispute is going on; it's only a matter of enhancing Wikipedia's appearance of impartiality, not of protecting Smart or taking a side in the dispute. The other edit I made was cosmetic, though a definite stylistic improvement. I made both edits while checking the article a couple of times to get a better idea of what form the article it was currently in, and I still consider them both to be improvements and to have been in the interest of the encyclopedia, which is the only interest I care about. Metamagician3000 10:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Granted it may not have been clear from the way it was worded, it defintiely needed some quotes, and as I said, I appreciate your intentions. I do think it's less informative with the "typically verbose" taken out. I point it out because you've been eager to denounce the Smart editors as just a bunch of hacks that like to kick Smart around. The vast majority of us are normal Wikipedians who make an honest effort at objectivity. The "typically verbose" line, which may have given the appearance of POV, was simply one instance of that effort at objectivity.--Beaker342 17:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also cite WP:FULL, which advises against administrator editing during full protection without consensus: "Edits to protected pages should be made with the full agreement of all parties involved in the dispute." --Beaker342 18:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Well, in my own discretion I would not do anything of substance anyway without getting a lot of agreement on the talk page, as I did when the Eric Lerner page was protected. In this case, I have no intention of doing any nore edits on the page. However, I routinely do copyediting edits on articles that I read and saw no reason not to make two very small edits, in the interest of the encyclopedia. I suggest that you assume good faith and that you do not distort my words. Your statement "you've been eager to denounce the Smart editors as just a bunch of hacks that like to kick Smart around" is insulting and a total misrepresentation of anything that I said. On the contrary, I have been having fruitful amd courteous discussions with some of those people. You are getting very close to attacking me personally in that comment, so please stop. Metamagician3000 23:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are in general agreement on just about everything. As for the distorition you cite, I'm thinking of your comment on the RfA Workshop page, "I have had some peripheral involvement and formed the view that a group of editors wanted to use the article to do a hatchet job on Smart in breach of WP:BLP." If I misprepresented that statement in my comment above, I apologize. It was not my intent be discourteous or insulting, and I hope you do not think of me as anything less than a good faith editor.--Beaker342 00:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[Un-indent]I do think there's a group of editors who meet that description, but I don't think you're one of them or that they are the majority of editors on the Smart article. Metamagician3000 00:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Request for Adminship

Thank you for your support in my my RfA, which passed with a tally of 117/0/1. I hope that my conduct as an admin lives up to the somewhat flattering confidence the community has shown in me. Whilst my RfA was clearly a shoo-in in the end, I did not treat it as such and tried to treat every step of the process with the respect it deserves; an attitude I hope to carry over to my sysop activities. Please don't hesitate to leave a message on my talk page should you need anything or want to discuss something with me.--Nilf anion (talk) 22:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second Life - thanks

Just to say thanks for the good work you're doing on the Second Life article. I see it was proposed as an FA candidate at the end of Dec 2006, but rejected (not surprisingly). I've been working on it a bit recently, and I intend to continue helping until it's in better shape and can be put up for peer review. With everyone's help, maybe we can get it to FA status one day :) —Slowspace 16:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yes, I'd like to get it through the usual processes, culminating in another FA application. The first one was rather premature, but it did focus me on thinking about what would have to happen for the article to be a genuine FA contender. Metamagician3000 22:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the second Playing God argument

Since I felt that the transhumanist reply to the second Playing God argument didn't address the most critical objection that was being made, I've significantly changed it, using James Hughes' book as my main source, so that it now reads:

Transhumanists and other supporters of human genetic engineering do not dismiss the second argument out of hand, insofar as there is a high degree of uncertainty about the likely outcomes of genetic modification experiments in humans. They suggest, however, that one possible ethical route to genetic manipulation of humans at early developmental stages is the building of computer models of the human genome and the proteins and tissue engineering that it codes for. With the exponential progress in bioinformatics, they believe a virtual model of genetic expression in the human body will not be far behind and that it will soon be possible to accelerate approval of genetic modifications by simulating their effects on virtual humans. They also point to artificial chromosomes as a possible safe alternative to existing genetic engineering techniques. Transhumanists therefore argue that parents have a moral responsibility called procreative beneficence to make use of these methods, once they are shown to be reasonably safe and effective, to have the healthiest children possible. They add that this responsibility is a moral judgment best left to individual conscience rather than imposed by law, in all but extreme cases. In this context, the emphasis on freedom of choice is called procreative liberty.

As I assume you know, the second Playing God argument is StN's main criticism of transhumanism. I therefore suspect that he might protest virulently. Do you know of or can you find some non-transhumanist scientific sources that we could cite to support this text? --Loremaster 09:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I need to think about this, but, as it happens, I don't necessarily disagree with StN on this narrow point. It seems to me a rather peripheral one, since no sensible transhumanist would advocate going ahead with genetic manipulations that run a significantly increased risk of causing congenital deformities. That would hardly be "procreative beneficence". I know that James thinks we'll be able to overcome the problem with advanced computer simulations, and that may turn out to be correct, but it remains to be seen.

The best reference, I think, for the artificial chromosomes idea is Gregory Stock's Redesigning Humans (see the early chapters), but I think he may be making a somewhat different point about it.

It does strike me that a whole lot of things are getting mixed up here: PGD to select a certain phenotypical trait; genetic engineering to replace one allele with another (but a recognised allele within the human genome); genetic engineering to introduce a mutant form of some base pair(s); genetic engineering to introduce a non-human sequence of DNA from the genome of another organism. The first of these does not seem to run any particular risk of the kind that we're talking about. Nor does the second, as far as I can - it's what already happens in nature. The others do sound very risky, but no one is suggesting that we do them in the immediate future - our ability to know their effect in advance would need to be vastly greater, and it is not currently clear how we'll achieve that level of prediction. But if all that is being objected to on this ground is the more extreme kinds of genetic modification until we have some way of predicting their effects (plus some scepticism about whether we'll be able to do so in the foreseeable future), that doesn't seem to go far as a criticism of transhumanism. My own feeling is that this whole argument is a bit of a red herring, as it criticises something that no one would ever want to do, and that it should not be laboured too much either way in the article. Metamagician3000 09:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree with StN either on the point you are discussing. My concern is that he may unfairly attack the transhumanist claim to an ethical route to germline engineering if we don't have sources other than Hughes. That being said, I know you are often concerned about the possible red herring factor in many of the criticisms mentioned in the Transhumanism article but what you seem to be unaware of is that there many rank-and-file transhumanists (a few of whom I've actually met in person) who do advocate going ahead with genetic manipulations despite the risks. --Loremaster 10:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, fair enough. Well, StN has good reason to oppose those people, I think. Be that as it may, perhaps the approach is still to say that Hughes thinks it will be possible to avoid the risk, blah, blah. I don't have time to dig out my copy of Stock's book right now, but it might be the other obvious place to look for something on this subject. Stock believes that nothing will be done if there is risk, but I'm not sure how he thinks it will be obviated. If someone has actually said that the risk should be taken, then I suppose we should cite it, but I'm not aware of anyone who has said such a thing in print. Metamagician3000 13:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The previous version of the article had the following text, which used the Transhumanist FAQ as a source:

Transhumanists and other supporters of human genetic engineering do not dismiss the second argument out of hand, insofar as there is a high degree of uncertainty about the likely outcomes of genetic modification experiments in humans. However, transhumanists say that a greater risk lies in not using genetic engineering and other emerging technologies, [...] and large numbers of humans die from potentially solvable problems. The implication is that the potential benefits of enhancement technologies outweigh the potential harms, with the moral imperative, if any, being to use the technologies as quickly as possible.

Later caveats aside, this sounded pretty close to someone arguing that risk should be taken, don't you think?

Regardless, I guess I am looking for a scientific source (other than Stock) that supports the whole computer simulation argument. If you find something, let me know. --Loremaster 13:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen anyone other than James argue this (i.e. the computer simulation idea). Metamagician3000 21:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. --Loremaster 23:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As expected, StN isn't happy with the recent edits. ;) --Loremaster 23:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ebionites

Hello Meta, could you lower the Ebionites article from protected status to semi-protected status? It was locked due to an edit war that started between me and a user adept at wikilawyering to try to impose his POV on the article but we have come to an uneasy truce and have been peacefully working on a Ebionites/wip page together. --Loremaster 09:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've done as you requested, but does it really need to be semi-protected if the edit war is over? Metamagician3000 09:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Although the edit war is over, there are some anonymous lurkers with an agenda who vandalize the article on a regular basis. --Loremaster 10:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please reapply protection: a majority of the active editors support protection of the article until a full consensus is reached. Only Loremaster seeks to remove protection.--Michael C. Price ^talk 10:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are no active editors beyond you and me. (User:Codex Sinaiticus and User:Alecmconroy have never expressed an opinion on the issue). The only other editor has stated that is no longer interested in the article so his opinion is no longer valid. --Loremaster 11:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meta, the edit war, as was inevitable, has restarted. Can you please reapply full-protection? --Michael C. Price ^talk 11:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The edit war seems to be solely between you two. Why don't you just stop doing it and talk about the issue? Surely there is some compromise text you can both live with while you're discussing it. You're also both getting close to 3RR violations here. Metamagician3000 11:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've made my case in the New Beginning section of on the Ebionites talk page. I've never reverted the article. I've always made an original change to the article when editing it. Thank you for being the voice of reason, Metamagician, since Wikipedia doesn't think full protected articles for long periods of time is a good thing. --Loremaster 11:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the article to my watch list; I'll review it in the morning to see what needs to happen, and I'll continue to check whether edit warring is going on. I suggest you use the dispute resolution procedures if you're deadlocked over a content dispute. Metamagician3000 11:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for dragging you into this. --Loremaster 11:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meta, protection was applied to force consensus seeking behaviour; without it Loremaster just applies edits straight to the article and makes no meaningful attempt to reach consensus -- he did not seek consensus to get the protection lifed, for example. The majority of active editors on the talk page wish full-protection to remain. See how he denies ever reverting the article! Yet he received (along with me) a 3rr block. --Michael C. Price ^talk 11:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As User:Ovadyah can testify, I have sincerely made every possible effort to reach consensus. However, User:MichaelCPrice's antagonistic behavior has made this almost impossible. Ovadyah is the only other editor who wanted full protection... because he was tired of Michael's edits (which he considered to be vandalism) and his personal attacks against me! I haven't reverted the article to a previous version. Every single time I've edited the article after Michael, I've made an original change to the content. I've done this, in part, to avoid being tricked into a 3rr block again. --Loremaster 11:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a good way to avoid 3RR block. Admins will apply the spirit of it, not look mechanically at whether the edit was an exact revert. The point is that you should not edit war - it's not a matter of being entitled to 3 exact reverts in 24 hours; that is an absolute outer limit, but we can impose blocks before that situation is reached if we deem it necessary. I'm going to re-apply protection because on my count you are both very close to being blocked - one more edit from either of you would be the last straw. I have no idea whether this is the "right" version. Metamagician3000 12:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to avoid an edit war by explaining my actions in the talk page and providing edit summaries whose arguments are unrefutable. However, this obviously hasn't worked. That being said, I am taking a much-deserved break from anything related to the Ebionites article. Again, I apologize for having dragged you into this. --Loremaster 12:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is impossible to reach a consensus with some one who regards his arguments as "unrefutable". A certain degree of objectivity is required, which is lacking.--Michael C. Price ^talk 13:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By "unrefutable", I am refering to a record which shows that User:MichaelCPrice has not refuted my arguments but, instead, chosen to simply ignore them while engaging in an edit war. --Loremaster 13:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your interpretation of the record. I see your promise to take a break didn't last very long. --Michael C. Price ^talk 14:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Show us that my interpretation of the record is wrong or give it a rest. My decision to take a break from anything related to the Ebionites article has nothing to do with defending myself from personal attacks on some other user's talk page. --Loremaster 20:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meta, please revert the article to this version before the latest round of insanity. I will work with Michael on cleaning it up as I can find the time. Ovadyah 02:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and please drop the level back to semi-protected. I'm none to happy with Michael's behavior at the moment, but I'll get over it. Despite all the incivility on the talk page, it's a fact that Michael and I have never been in an edit war. Rational behavior may yet prevail. :-) Ovadyah 02:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We don't protect a "right" version - we just protect whatever version happens to be there when the decision is made that protection is needed. The template reflects this. I'd only revert to a particular version if I was sure there was consensus to do so. I'm also unwilling to unprotect unless there is consensus to do so. Admins will review the protection anyway - in a few days time - since we don't like to keep articles protected for too long. But if I were to unprotect it now, can you all guarantee that an edit war will not immediately break out? Metamagician3000 02:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am opposed to reverting the article to a previous version. Despite the issue regarding the Lead section, the current version took into account many of Michael's suggestions so I think it has a reached a new level of neutrality and factual accuracy. --Loremaster 15:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly I can almost guarantee that the edit war will restart because I do not believe Loremaster can restrain himself from adding non-consensual updates. I agree with Ovadyah, I believe that Ovadyah, CS and myself can work together -- but that is not sufficient. --Michael C. Price ^talk 11:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Since Michael is the only who objects to my updates while Ovadyah supports them, no consensus can be reached. --Loremaster 15:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The core problem is that Michael and Loremaster can't work together on this article for some reason. That is just an observable fact. I agree with Michael that this conflict is not likely to resolve itself soon if ever. However, that is a poor reason to hold an encyclopedia article hostage indefinitely. The show must go on, so to speak. I agree with Michael; I can work productively with him and CS to improve the article. I can also work with Loremaster and CS to improve the article. I don't have a perfect solution. I favor whatever solution serves the best interests of the encyclopedia. In Loremaster's defense, it should be noted that he is responsible for at least half the content of the article going back to early 2004. I give a lot of credit to his service and record of accomplishments. Michael has proposed on the article talk page that Loremaster be banned (I assume from editing the article, not Wikipedia). That seems like an extreme, one-sided solution. Maybe both of them should be banned until they can find a way to overcome their differences. Ovadyah 14:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with what Ovadyah describes as being the core problem. --Loremaster 15:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk of banning people won't solve the problem, especially when it's talk of banning someone who has made a huge contribution to Wikipedia (regardless of who, if anyone, is in the right on this particualr dispute). We'll doubtless have another go at dropping the article back to semi-protect in the next few days, since no one wants to keep it locked up forever. Meanwhile, you have a content dispute that can only be solved by agreement among yourselves or through dispute resolution processes. Why don't you try mediation? Metamagician3000 22:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am satisfied with the comprehensiveness, neutrality and factual accuracy of the current version of the Ebionites article (the only thing left to do is complete and standardize the Notes and references section). Although I moved the content from the Ebionites/wip page to the Ebionites article without Michael's "permission", as an act of good faith, I left in the wip page the sections that Michael and I agreed he could expand without interference from me. So I am still waiting patiently for him to get to work. I therefore don't see mediation as necessary. --Loremaster 22:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]