User talk:Novem Linguae/Essays/There was no lab leak/Archive 3
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
What is this page?
Why is a cabal of wikipedia users maintaining this page dedicated to reinforcing their groupthink? Why is there not a page doing research to argue the other side of this? 2600:8804:6600:C4:8C26:74C7:8EAD:C63F (talk) 17:04, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
- You should read WP:ESSAY. Feel free to create an opposing essay if you like. No one is obligated to present both sides of an issue equally. clpo13(talk) 17:07, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
- This page has been linked to in covid templates. Presenting an essay as un-challengable fact is a loophole in the wikipedia rules. 2600:8804:6600:C4:8C26:74C7:8EAD:C63F (talk) 17:16, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
- From WP:ESSAY:
Avoid "quoting" essays as though they are policy—including this explanatory supplement page. Essays, information pages and template documentation pages can be written without much—if any—debate, as opposed to Wikipedia policies that have been thoroughly vetted by the community (see WP:Local consensus for details). In Wikipedia discussions, editors may refer to essays, provided that they do not hold them out as consensus or policy
- Wikipedia:Don't_cite_essays_or_proposals_as_if_they_were_policy
2600:8804:6600:C4:8C26:74C7:8EAD:C63F (talk) 17:16, 8 November 2021 (UTC)They should not be used as an end-run around the Wikipedia process of establishing consensus.
- There are plenty of counter essays: User:Adoring nanny/Essays/Lab Leak Likely, User:Normchou/Essays/Does common sense point to a lab leak origin?, User:CutePeach/YESLABLEAK. In my opinion, this essay is linked in COVID templates because the "what the sources say" section at the top of this essay is useful, persuasive, and policy compliant. The "arguments against lab leak" section farther down is more subjective, and I state as such at the beginning of the section. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:28, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
- It's a useful reference, a summary of the best sources on technical aspects of the topic. And the only decent user essay I've seen about it so far, that's not overly politics-centered. I suggest to carefully read it and its sources for your own research...[1] And noone will argue that this is policy, on the other hand, representing the view of the best sources in the actual articles is policy. —PaleoNeonate – 21:44, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
- Adding: since you're hopping within a /64 range and that you may not see warnings, you've been warned before about using Wikipedia as a soapboxing platform and for disruptive editing, like here and you know that there were previous temporary blocks on your range. I predict a longer block if this persists. Your edits on this essay were what we call WP:POINTy WP:VANDALISM. If you think that assessing scientific consensus is a sin of groupthink, WP is not for you, it has always sided with academia (WP:ABIAS)... —PaleoNeonate – 21:57, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
- No one has cited this essay as consensus or policy. Some have cited it as a shortcut to citing the numerous sources compiled here, which are themselves valuable. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 11:05, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
References
- ^ Bellemare, Andrea; Nicholson, Katie (24 April 2020). "1 in 10 Canadians believes a coronavirus conspiracy theory, survey suggests". CBC.
'The idea is you can learn, arm yourself with information, so that next time you see a version of one of these types of misinformation, you can say, 'Oh, that sounds like something I've heard before, and I think that's not correct,' Mai said.