User:Ed Poor

Ed Poor is a prolific (if erratic) contributor to the Wikipedia. He is right more often than not, which leads him to believe he has a mission to correct others -- which is probably one of the things he is not right about.

'Joke:' There are three kinds of statisticians: those that can count, and those that can't.

Articles I started:

Proposed articles:

UN Conference on Environment and Development (Rio de Janeiro, 1992
National Environmental Trust
National Wilderness Preservation System
National Center for Atmospheric Research
Conference of the Parties
Earth Charter
SEICUS (Sexual Information and Education Council of the US)
Millennium Summit of Religious and Spiritual Leaders

Nice catch on Sergio Aragones last week, by the way. RjLesch

From old Ed Poor article

I've decided that my bias is not an insuperable obstacle to my participation in Wikipedia.

However, I no longer think that the Wikipedia can be a useful resource for resolving controversies. At best, it can be a starting point for someone researching a controversial subject such as global warming or evolution. If my fellow Wikipedians will allow me to link from articles on "settled" issues to other articles outlining objections by skeptics, I will be satisfied.

I do not wish to place the Wikipedia imprimatur on my viewpoints or to abuse the Wikipedia for advocacy. But I think it's useful to the general reader if viewpoints, even if wildly different and seemingly false are described. The alternative is censorship.

Perhaps one effective way to incorporate veering points of view such as creationism or environmental skepticism is to link from main articles (e.g., evolution and global warming) to articles about alternative views. We did that successfully with feminism and masculism -- at least, the vandalism of feminism stopped. This way, the main article on a belief would be from the point of view of its adherents, and articles about alternative beliefs would also be included. Thus global warming can keep its "scientists generally believe" viewpoint, while another article, possibly entitled environmental skepticism, could outline objections to the generally accepted theory. -- Ed

Deprecated:

I am suspending my participation in Wikipedia indefinitely, due to a conflict of interest. I think I may be abusing the concept of NPOV to cloak my own desire to advocate the points of view I believe to be right.

Now, I might actually be right on several or even all of the points I advocate. The question, though, is not whether I am right but whether my advocacy of these points fits in with the purposes that Larry and Jimbo have in mind for the Wikipedia. -- Ed Poor

Software Engineer, father of two. Interested in philosophy, science, pizza, music, children, and world peace -- not necessarily in that order.

Mistakes I've made (thanks for catching 'em!):

I made a mildly offensive joke in a discussion with Wesley, who graciously and patiently explained my error. Thanks, Wesley. (I guess the lesson for me is not to be such a wise guy, especially if I have a "poor" sense of humor.)

I erroneously wrote that the New Yorker was known for its leftist bias. I guess that would be like saying sharks were "known" for being wet. Thanks, Larry, I stand corrected.

Stubs I started (which then blossomed due to others) include:

Bible stories

Among my contributions are:

Unification Church, Sun Myung Moon, deprogramming,

sexual orientation

I have mucked around with:

Evolution, Falsifiability, Intelligent Design, Creationism,

Homosexuality

Global warming

I love science but am only a layman.

Articles I'm trying to write or edit:

SEPP

I try to remove "bias" from Wikipedia articles on controversies dear to me, but I recognize that what I call "bias" may merely be ideas I misunderstand. I may in some cases also fail to distinguish between personal belief and documented fact, whether through wishful thinking or sheer sloppiness. Feel free to set me straight at any time. When I feel I've absorbed the lesson, I'll add it to my Learning page.

I respond to praise, reason, and pizza -- not necessarily in that order!!

Hi Ed, I just wanted to say welcome to Wikipedia, and tell you not to be discouraged by criticism of your contributions; its par for the course around here. You don't seem to be taking it personally though, and that will take you far around here. :) --STG

Hi Ed, If you are going to make "Race and Intelligence" a separate article, couldn't you provide a link in the "race" article to that new one? I just skimmed over it and didn't see it -- if it is there and I missed it, I apologize. I didn't put it in myself because I think it should come sooner than the list of links at the end, but I am not sure where would be most appropriate. Can you remember where the "race and intelligence" section used to be, write a sentence calling attention to the debate (it is a big part of race, however you look at it -- scientifically, racistly, whatever), and providing the link? SR

Talk