Talk:Scientific skepticism

Unproven

I used "unproven" instead of "undocumented" because we should apply skepticism to documented claims as well. "documented" is not really a scientific term. I hope that's okay. Tarantallegra 03:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Notes for article

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_skepticism

hmmmmmm

This is worrying

This deletion and its edit summary are worrying. What's the purpose of the See also section, if not for such things? Are we going to see censorship of comparative and supplementary information? If the link had been moved to the External links section, that would have been an improvement, since the See also links should be reserved for existing articles here at WikiSynergym but that's not what happened. Tarandus 02:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Well I only deleted that because I thought it was just a repeat of what we had. But looking again I see that they are claiming that the skeptics who question particular subjects are actually scientific skeptics. I think that's propaganda and totally unsupported by sources, but I'm not going to object if you want the link back (; Tarantallegra 04:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Done, but as an external link. See also links are to internal articles. Tarandus 04:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

But why are you linking to that little section and not the article [1]? Oh, and why are you going with WP conventions? We don't have to do that unless there's some reason we know of. I really would like it to not look like WP, unless there is a good reason, just to show we're different. But what you do with sources and such is nice (: Tarantallegra 05:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I was just using the existing link and hadn't noticed it was to a section. I'll fix that. It's true that WikiSynergy doesn't have to follow WP conventions, but most of them are good and it will be a big help for editors who are accustomed to them. There are other ways to note differences than in the basic editing conventions. Your policies here are one area where you already are different. So I would think it would be an advantage to be like WP, unless there's a reason not to. Tarandus 05:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

This could be so. In order to promote controversy, I planned to have external and internal links at the top of the pages, in the see also boxes. Perhaps we should have special article sections only after there are a certain number of links in the boxes. However, it is true that we should separate internal and external links because I do not plan to prevent spam type links to the extent Wikipedia does. P^uR^{ple scissor} 05:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)