Synonym Discussion of standard. This means that both sides of the argument must acknowledge that the other side exists in the venues appropriate to the scientific community. The Standards look toward a future in which all Americans, familiar with basic scientific ideas and processes, can have fuller and more productive lives. National Science Education Standards. In the interest of describing topics fully, articles written about notable pseudoscientific concepts may require a fair amount of detail in the article about the topic, but care should be taken to clearly attribute the views of proponents without implying that such views are actually statements of fact. In this way you will help to create a more comprehensive article and more complete bibliography which will be useful to readers who come to Wikipedia looking for information (not truth) and a good start on resources they can study on their own. [2] The existence of consensus is the most common state of established science, established science generally does not have two or more legitimate scientific "sides" within the scientific community. It should be acknowledged when there are consensus statements from scientific bodies such as the International Astronomical Union or the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry. Pseudoscience should always be accompanied by the corresponding scientific view, and should not obfuscate descriptions of relevant scientific evidence or the lack of scientific evidence. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. On this view, it is a central methodological norm of science to eschew as inadmissible (e.g.) How to use standard in a sentence. National organizations provide calibration and private industrial laboratories with items, processes and/or certification so they can provide certified traceability to national standards. And even if the most experts agree, but a minority of experts have a large public following, clearly a large number of readers may be mostly interested in learning the views of "their experts" and there is nothing wrong with that, and it is in fact an opportunity to provide readers with more evidence from all perspectives. Science is a way of knowing that seeks to describe and explain the natural and physical world. Structure refers to evaluation of the setting in which care is rendered and the resources that are available. Page 6 Share Cite. When one side of the putative controversy alleges that a controversy exists while the other side (as well as any expected third-party observers) essentially ignores the papers and other allegations of those asserting the controversy, there is no way to source the existence of a real controversy without engaging in non-neutral original research. Only if the article happens upon a subject which is unequivocally subject to scientific evidence should such evidence be presented. The issue of giving due weight to viewpoints should first be understood to be a guideline, precisely because it cannot be exactly defined. Another advantage would be that the loss or damage of the artifact standards would not disrupt the system of measures. By taking into account also the citations from the recent literature, older original articles about the Big Bang will not be ignored. Ellsworth B. Cook, "Proposed Definition of A Primary Publication", Wikipedia:Technical terms and definitions, International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry, Wikipedia:Reliable sources (medicine-related articles), https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Scientific_standards&oldid=791879671, Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License, This page was last edited on 23 July 2017, at 01:30. It could be about making a product, managing a process, delivering a service or supplying materials – standards cover a huge range of activities. There is broad community support to not misrepresent science by painting pseudoscience as science. Wikipedia should describe an idea only if it has received notice by third parties, and the descriptions should be dispassionate and acknowledge the marginalization of the idea. Suggested Citation:"National Science Education Standards: An Overview." Pseudoscience has been defined as "claims presented so that they appear [to be] scientific even though they lack supporting evidence and plausibility. If a high proportion of data points lie near the meanvalue, then the standard deviation is small. The weight given to each view should be proportional to the published articles in high-impact journals on a subject supporting each view according to the number of citations such articles receive. Articles should simply state the consensus view as science. At the top of the tree are the master standards – these are known as primary standards. From bathroom scales to medical lab balances, the mass standard is now based on a value that is “woven into the fabric of the universe.” It can occur when cultural or political views of scientists or groups of scientists influence their interpretations of scientific findings or their formulation of theories to explain or discount a body of evidence. In nearly every area of science, there are areas of legitimate scientific disagreement as scientists examine and reinterpret evidence in light of one theory or another. Bias should not be introduced by politically biased selection of research presented, or by the way in which it is presented or synthesized. In choosing category names, or which categories to place articles in, adhere to the classification provided by reliable sources on the topic. standard An exact value, a physical entity, or an abstract concept, established and defined by authority, custom, or common consent to serve as a reference, model, or rule in measuring quantities or qualities, establishing practices or procedures, or evaluating results. Articles on scientific topics should include standard science taxonomy in addition to any relevant folk taxonomy. In the present day all original scientific research is expected to be initially presented in a peer-reviewed journal. This should be done in a way that does not detract from the primary significance of the subject. Such topics may nevertheless be notable enough for inclusion in other areas. The article should describe the subject acknowledging the scientific disagreement. If data values are all equal to one another, then the standard deviation is zero. Either way, Wikipedia seeks to have a neutral point of view, describing all viewpoints accurately, reliably, and in their proper proportion. In 1983, the standard metre was redefined as the distance light travels in a vacuum during 1/299792458 of a second. The IPK is a one kilogram mass of a platinum-iridium alloy maintained by the International Bureau of Weights and Measures (BIPM) in Sèvres, France. If you feel one POV is being represented by too many citations, the solution is to do your research to see if there are other peer reviewed sources representing your preferred POV that have not been included. The National Science Education Standards are premised on a conviction that all students deserve and must have the opportunity to become scientifically literate. A small number of primary sources, even when published in respected peer-reviewed journals, does not indicate a legitimate controversy if others in the community have not noticed or commented on them. Industry groups define video standards, and they specify maximum screen resolution, which is measured by the number of pixels that can be displayed horizontally and the number of lines that can be displayed vertically; for example, the … At the same time, technical content should not be removed or misrepresented just because it is difficult to understand. In contrast, less descriptive detail (or none at all) should be included in articles that are not strictly about a pseudoscience if the putatively relevant pseudoscience in question is of little or no notability. Wikipedia is not an appropriate venue for this. When dealing with scientific issues, let the published literature itself shape the weight of the article and respect the contributions of other editors. An experiment that yields data with a low standard deviation is said have high precision. (In the United States, NIST operates the NVLAP program. Standards for science education programs . When writing articles or sections involving science, we rely on the reliable sources to describe the scientific evidence accurately while weighting material in a fashion that reflects the weight of published peer reviewed literature in the field. Standard definition is - a conspicuous object (such as a banner) formerly carried at the top of a pole and used to mark a rallying point especially in battle or to serve as an emblem. The articles should not elevate minor positions to artificially create counter balance. If a source is misrepresented, delete the misrepresentation or add material from the same source that better represents the source in a balanced fashion. This is a component of the recognition that scientific knowledge is empirically based (Hoffman & Torrence 1993). In all disciplines of science, research and theories are published under a peer-review system, and all credible journals of science are indexed by one or more of the major indexes of scientific journals. One advantage of elimination of artifact standards is that inter-comparison of artifacts is no longer required. [1] Standards are the fundamental reference for a system of weights and measures, against which all other measuring devices are compared. Wikipedia articles should also give extra weight to more recent literature and the citations from the recent literature, when it is evident that the weight of recent academic research has largely shifted away from a view commonly held, say, 50 years ago. In the philosophy of science, there is a wide range of perspectives. Seek to bring balance to the article by adding material, not deleting it. Assessments provide an operational definition of standards, in that they define in measurable terms what. In articles devoted to subjects which are at the fringes of legitimate research or even clearly outside it, the conventional understanding associated with the novel idea should be discussed and framed as such. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena: new advances in science and technology. Similarly, editors should avoid turning arguments over weight into an excuse for conflict. Standard solutions are solutions that contain a known and accurate amount (i.e. Taxonomy, in a broad sense the science of classification, but more strictly the classification of living and extinct organisms. If a view is a minority view of some scientists, scientists who are respected by the mainstream that differs with them on this particular matter, then we say so. Secondly, the more controversial the article's subject, the less likely there is going to be a unanimity of opinion even among experts. a collective enterprise of researchers insuccessive generations is characteristic of the Modern Age As mentioned in a previous article here for normally distributed data, the standard distribution gives us valuable information in terms of the percentage of data lying within 1, 2, 3 standard deviations from the mean. Wikipedia does not endorse a single perspective on the metaphysical basis of science. standard [stan´dard] something established as a measure or model to which other similar things should conform. The next quality standard in the hierarchy is known as a secondary standard. And it can also occur when government, business, or interest groups exert legal or economic pressure to influence the findings of scientific research or the way it is disseminated, reported or interpreted. The goal is for editors of all levels of education and expertise to collaborate in creating quality articles that reach the widest possible audience. Historical standards for length, volume, and mass were defined by many different authorities, which resulted in confusion and inaccuracy of measurements. They provide a reference to determine unknown concentrations or to calibrate analytical instruments. For truly scientific controversial topics, there must be acknowledgment in reliable sources that a controversy exists. The presentation of science in politically-charged Wikipedia articles should be such that the most reliable and best summary of the available observations, data, and theories is presented without editorializing. Indeed, it has often been held that inasmuch as the objectivity of science is underwritten by the fact that science is evidence driven, it is the public character of scientific evidence which is crucial. Science is often collaborative with replication and confirmation done by independent teams working to address the same questions. [9] Sometimes they are (incorrectly) called "secondary standards" because of their high quality and reference suitability. In order to be used as a primary standard, a substance must meet four key criteria. Reading and editing science-related articles, Scientific evidence in non-scientific topics. And if a view is held only by a few people without any traditional training or credentials, and if that view is dismissed by virtually all mainstream scientists, then we can say that, too.[1]. A standard is an authoritative principle or rule that usually implies a model or pattern for guidance, by comparison with which the quantity, excellence, correctness, etc., of other things may be determined: … As peer reviewed articles in indexed journals are always a reliable, attributed source of vetted viewpoints, NPOV policy allows these competing conclusions to exist on the same page. A definition or format that has been approved by a recognized standards organization or is accepted as a de facto standard by the industry. Science, by definition, is limited to naturalistic methods and explanations, and as such, is precluded from using supernatural elements in the production of scientific knowledge. An empiricist contends that because natural science endeavors to be objective and unbiased, natural science has no point of view; or if it does, it is exactly a neutral point of view, while a dogmatist contends that science is biased because it holds itself as an authority over all other interpretations of life, such as religious, mythical, spiritual, or humanistic explanations. So, an article about the origins of the universe should be based primarily in the recent literature. An example of a primary standard was the international prototype of the kilogram (IPK) which was the master kilogram and the primary mass standard for the International System of Units (SI). The point of a standard is to provide a reliable basis for people to share the same expectations about a product or service. There may be an established consensus in science and the controversy is really occurring outside science. On the other hand, the best way to counteract a perceived bias (the introduction of material from a reliable peer reviewed article) is not to delete the reference but to (1) ensure that the reference is properly described and (2) add material from other peer reviewed sources of equal or greater merit which offset the viewpoint of the "biasing" article. ISO standards are internationally agreed by experts. Similarly, a solution of known concentration has been standardized. The number of units in a mole also bears the name Avogadro’s number, or Avogadro’s constant, in honor of the Italian physicist Amedeo Avogadro. They can be very specific, such as to a particular type of product, or general such as management practices. Articles which are not about a scientific topic, such as those concerned with religious, spiritual, or philosophical ideas, are properly written plainly without argumentative rejoinders or caveats. A fixed quantity or quality. The kilogram is forever changed. It is typically measured using gross domestic product (GDP) per capita. If a resource is redundant, consider if it is possible to add the citation to a section where the findings of similar studies are already reported and at least try to keep the citation...as this shows some respect for the contributing editor's contribution of the citation. [2] Historically, units of measure were generally defined with reference to unique artifacts which were the legal basis of units of measure. In particular, any extraordinary claim that purports to revolutionize a field must be acknowledged by professional experts in the field before Wikipedia reports on its existence in articles devoted to that field. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for pushing political agendas through selective presentation of scientific research. This form is used to represent a small or big number that cannot be expressed as a single whole number. Articles dedicated to such controversies merit inclusion in Wikipedia, but special care should be made not to mislead the reader into thinking that the controversy has any legitimacy within the scientific community. These solutions are … Articles should not adopt an "in-universe" treatment of such a topic (a treatment from the fringe or non-scientific perspective); nor should the proponents of such topics be given a venue to promote their proposals. In contrast, the reference standard for the metre is no longer defined by a physical object (as the former international prototype of the metre (IPM) or originally the mètre des Archives). Some degree of scientific literacy may be needed to understand sources that describe scientific observations and theories. A controversy related to science need not imply an actual controversy within science. Wikipedia does not advocate any particular perspective over any other. [2] Working standards are used for the calibration of commercial and industrial measurement equipment. The NGSS were developed by states to improve science education for all students. Not all positions or opinions in science are considered equal. This is an example of where an article on the origins of the universe may be appropriately weighted with an emphasis on studies published in the last twenty years rather than within the entire last 100 years. Learning standards describe educational objectives—i.e., what students should have learned by the end of a course, grade level, or grade span—but they do not describe any particular teaching practice, curriculum, […] Lookup your state here! Wikipedia editors should avoid edit warring over arguments about whether one POV or the other is the "accepted" or "mainstream" view. Great care must be taken to present fairly the complete range of relevant scientific evidence, including opinions of scientists who may or may not share the religious or philosophical presumptions central to the subject. The consensus is built through a complex social process centered around the body of peer-reviewed information. There is no exacting definition of proper weight that can determine precisely how much evidence for one view or another should be allowed into an article. Here's why that matters. There are three types of standards in health care: structure, process, and outcome standards. Video standard is a standard for video display adapters developed so that software developers can anticipate how their programs will appear on the screen. The marginalization and ignoring of minority opinions about observable reality that occurs within the academic communities that use the scientific method should be reflected in Wikipedia. Secondary standards are calibrated with reference to a primary standard.[2]. Care should be taken to accommodate readers that have no expertise. Learning standards are concise, written descriptions of what students are expected to know and be able to do at a specific stage of their education. In such cases, those offering alternative examples may feel discriminated against and might wish to rectify the situation by presenting their "side" of the story in Wikipedia. National Research Council. Wikipedia covers an immense number of topics dealing with natural, social, and formal sciences. Modern measurements are defined in relationship to internationally standardized reference objects, which are used under carefully controlled laboratory conditions to define the units of length, mass, electrical potential, and other physical quantities. The politicization of science is the manipulation of science for political gain. Rather than waste time on edit wars over "proper weight", the Project is more rapidly advanced by collaborative editing with a spirit of generosity and openness to seeing as much material presented as possible. Editors should, however, adhere to the standard of verifiability expected in academic and science-related work, as put forth in the Wikipedia policies that relate to sourcing, such as neutrality, verifiability and prohibition of original research. The statement that something is "backed by science" tends to carry great weight because it implies a tested, evidence-based validity to the idea. Since wikipedia is open to everyone (and not all editors are familiar with scientific citation) it is important to explicitly describe the value of potential scientific sources. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena: the science of astronomy. In situations where the proponents of the conflict are relatively equal in proportion, no claim of consensus should be made. [8]) These laboratory standards are kept in controlled conditions to maintain their precision, and used as a reference for calibration and creating working standards. Standard deviation measures how widely spread data points are. Standards are materials containing a known concentrationof a substance. In the related article on the Virgin birth of Jesus, the scientific issues surrounding this article of faith should be presented dispassionately without any hint of editorial bias toward or against any particular view. More commonly scientific consensus takes the form of agreement between multiple independent secondary and tertiary sources, such as specialized texts and textbooks. WIDA’s English Language Proficiency Standards for English Language Learners in Pre-Kindergarten through Grade 12: Frameworks for Formative and Summative Assessment and Instruction, 2007 edition, is a key component of the World-Class Instructional Design and Assessment (WIDA) Consortium’s assessment system. Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia anyone can edit, editors need not have academic credentials or affiliations to participate in science-related articles. The internationally accepted taxonomic nomenclature is the Linnaean system created by Swedish naturalist Carolus Linnaeus, who drew up rules for assigning names to plants and animals. The Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) are K–12 science content standards. Critical review is the key indicator of significant controversy. International Bureau of Weights and Measures, National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), "1 Volt DC Programmable Josephson Voltage Standard", Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, "17th Conférence Générale des Poids et Mesures (CGPM) – Resolution 1 of the CGPM (1983): Definition of the metre", Bureau international des poids et mesures, "The Dissemination of Mass in the United States: Results and Implications of Recent BIPM Calibrations of US National Prototype Kilograms", "Traceable to a National Standard (Definition)", "Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs – LARA > Employment Security and Workplace Safety > MIOSHA > Radiation Safety", "National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP) Homepage", "White Sand Test Facility – Measurement Standards and Calibration Laboratory", https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Standard_(metrology)&oldid=997594758, Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License, This page was last edited on 1 January 2021, at 08:53. Working standards are expected to deteriorate, and are no longer considered traceable to a national standard[6] after a time period or use count expires.[7]. Wikipedia is not bound by limits of space that limit published encyclopedia articles. An acceptable primary scientific publication must be the first disclosure containing sufficient information to enable peers (1) to assess observations, (2) to repeat experiments, and (3) to evaluate intellectual processes; moreover, it must be susceptible to sensory perception, essentially permanent, available to the scientific community without restriction, and available for regular screening by one or more of the major recognized secondary services (e.g., currently, Biological Abstracts, Chemical Abstracts, Index Medicus, Excerpta Medica, Bibliography of Agriculture, etc., in the United States and similar facilities in other countries).[5]. The third level of standard, a standard which is periodically calibrated against a secondary standard, is known as a working standard. Wikipedia does sometimes allow pseudoscience to be presented as a social phenomenon, if it is notable. Wikipedia articles are not battlegrounds. The peer-review process is intended to test the validity of the presented work.
First Tooth Money, Corbin Burnes Yahoo, Newman University ‑ Birmingham, Food City Dirt Race, See 104-across Wsj Crossword, Yamaha Indonesia Facebook, Travis D Arnaud Contract, Who Is The Rose On The Masked Dancer,