I noticed that, at some point in the last week, I was mentioned on Wikipediocracy regarding the controversies at March Against Monsanto and the broader GMO food movement/controversy. Some quick notes:
- I am not aligned with any pro-GMO groups, anti-GMO groups, political action committees involved in genetically modified food legislation in either ideological direction, or paid by any organization involved in those areas. My employment, which I do not disclose on Wikipedia, is not in politics or science, I merely have an interest in both.
- Wikipediaocracy places me in a list of "apparent pro-GMO editors." I have not, to my knowledge, expressed any opinion on Wikipedia regarding genetically modified foods or the entities that create them. While in my private life, I have very strong opinions on a variety of subjects, I make it a point to leave those out of my editing at Wikipedia, and the GMO situation is no different. I had no intention of getting involved this deeply in the topic here, and will likely become uninvolved again once the lingering issues are solved.
- I bring two clear points of view to Wikipedia. One involves cleaning up the significant sourcing issues we have in the encyclopedia, especially involving highly partisan and inaccurate "news" sources from all sides of the ideological divide, such as Media Matters for America, Alternet, Policymic, NewsMax, WorldNetDaily, etc. My other is ensuring that the encyclopedia continues to reflect the scientific point of view wherever possible, including areas such as global warming, vaccinations, and genetically modified food. This does not mean that fringe viewpoints should not be noted anywhere in the encyclopedia, but that said viewpoints should be tempered with the scientific consensus on matters. This is the basis of our policy on neutral points of view and our guidelines regarding fringe science.
- I will not name names, but there is bad behavior from both sides of this particular conflict. The blocks, to this point, have been proper but also disproportionately on one side. We may very well have problems of conflicts of interest from both sides of the coin here, but without evidence it is worthless to consider. I can only speak for myself in that matter.
- My goal is a high quality encyclopedia. This means not entertaining fringe theories without question, this means reflecting the science on the matter, and this means not assuming that someone who is taking an opposite editorial position than you is automatically working for one side (paid or not) or necessarily agrees with the content personally. I cannot make this more clear: just because I believe a certain source is inappropriate for Wikipedia does not mean I believe this to be the case in the "real world," just because I advocate for a certain editorial position in an article does not mean I'm sympathetic to that specific cause. We must follow the sources in this case.
References for GM food edit
- Futurist/author/writer Ramez Naam has offered a blog post discussing the safety of genetically modified food, accessable here. In it, it notes the international consensus of the food's safety based on independent, government-run studies, both from nations that accept genetically modified food and nations/regions hostile to it. When I talk about the "scientific consensus," this is what I talk about.
- Reason Magazine, a libertarian publication backed by the Reason Foundation, published an article earlier this year debunking many of the myths from the anti-GM lobby, including many of the problems apparent regarding the Serliani affair. The article is heavily hyperlinked to independent research.
- When Scientific American puts out an article noting that "scientists cheer" following the demise of California's Proposition 37, we should listen.
- Along the same lines, Slate noted the "scientifically baseless" labeling claims in a pre-election article worth reading.
Endnote edit
I'm open to discussion on any aspect of my editing. I will not disclose personal information about myself or my personal points of view, as they're simply irrelevant to my editing. I do not edit in areas I am professionally aligned, and have no intention of changing that.
Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:52, 19 August 2013 (UTC)