Talk:Prometheus Society

Comments

Not sure if the Mandarinate is really a "High IQ Society", weren't they (effectively) the ruling class in Imperial China? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.8.143.116 (talk) 23:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

How the hell do you recruit people with a one in 30,000 standard? You'd need to test hundreds on thousands of people to get 100 members... Seems bogus.

Presumably they don't go round testing people themselves, they just require evidence of certain scores in certain standard tests that people are likely to have taken before. — Trilobite (Talk) 00:14, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Generally speaking, one has a certain confidence of one's intelligence before testing into an organization like this. So, while I can't say what their acceptance rate is, it's definitely better than "general population." I do not know what tests the organization accepts (if any) but it is known that the test must be supervised according to their standards, and not all high IQ societies accept "standardized" IQ tests. Surely one of their two members can come update this?  ;) Rainman420 04:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

That the above commentators don't know what tests the society accepts shows that they haven't even visited the website, which suggests either a certain superficial approach or a prior agenda.

Mensa US has 50,000 members, give or take, although more than 6,000,000 US citizens would qualify, so there will always be a discrepancy between membership and selectivity. For people searching for high-level peers in raw intelligence, the Internet has provided a quick and easy means for finding relevant potential peer groups; the idea that 30,000 people need to be tested to yield, low-and-behold, one member, is a bit naive: people who are in the ballpark are far more likely to give it a shot, not everyone in the electronic world. M. Stewart

Delete threat

There is an anti-Hi-IQ/Gifted Jihad in process at the moment. Already the Mega Society has been deleted and Ronald K. Hoeflin and The Ultranet are up for deletion. Who will be next? Marilyn vos Savant, Mensa? Don't take this lying down: the Mega Society deletion has been appealed, please go here and support its reinstatement with an overturn vote.

Possible articles under threat are:

Marilyn vos Savant, International High IQ Society, Mensa International, Intertel, Colloquy, CIVIQ Society, International Society for Philosophical Enquiry, Triple Nine Society, Prometheus Society, HELLIQ Society, The Ultranet, OLYMPIQ Society, Giga Society

--Michael C. Price ^talk 00:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

As you may have heard the Mega Society article was deleted awhile ago, at the end of an acrimonious AfD/DRV process. There is a wide divergence between deletion policy (as defined by various policy guideline documents) and deletion practice, as implemented by admins (who claim to be following the "spirit" of the law). Consequently there are lessons to be learnt from the experience, which will not be obvious from reading the guidelines. Here are some tips for future conduct:

• Single purpose users are frowned upon and were a frequent bone of contention during the AfD and DRV processes. So I urge you all to "establish" yourself as Wikipedians: create, edit and even ... delete articles! There are plenty of articles that need attention.
• It is a very good idea to put something on your user page, (it doesn't matter what) to avoid showing up as redlinked users -- being redlinked will count against you in any debate.
• When voting, include brief reasons which are grounded in policy (votes not backed by reasoning may be discounted; too much reasoning will be ignored).

Given the bias against soliciting (see judgement) I may not be able to contact you again, so I suggest you put the Mega Society in your watchlists.

The closing admin's comments on the Mega Society:

Within the argumentation of the debate, the most significant point raised by those who supported the article was that a new draft was available. The article is not protected, so this may be posted at any time and (assuming it is not substantially similiar to the older version) it will be judged anew on its merits. This is good news for you.

The bad news for you is that it is well-established practice within Wikipedia to ignore completely floods of newer, obviously "single-issue POV", contributors at all our deletion fora. I'm among the most "process-wonkish" of Wikipedians, believe me, and even process-wonks accept that these sorts of voters are completely discountable. Wikipedia is not a pure democracy; though consensus matters, the opinion of newcomers unfamiliar with policy is given very little weight. Your vote, that of Tim Shell, and that wjhonson were not discounted. The others supporting your view were. I promise you that it is almost always true that, within Wikipedia, any argument supported by a flood of new users will lose, no matter how many of the new users make their voices known. In the digital age, where sockpuppeting and meatpuppeting are as easy as posting to any message board, this is as it should be for the sake of encyclopedic integrity. It is a firm practice within Wikipedia, and it is what every policy and guideline mean to imply, however vaguely they may be worded. (I do agree that our policies, written by laypeople mostly, could do with a once-over from an attorney such as myself; however, most laypeople hate lawyers, so efforts to tighten wording are typically met with dissent.)

If your supporters were more familiar with Wikipedia, they would realize that, invariably, the most effective way to establish an article after it has been deleted in a close AfD is to rewrite it: make it "faster, better, stronger." This is, in fact, what you claim to have done with your draft. Good show. Best wishes, Xoloz 16:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

So the outcome was not entirely negative, although I was disappointed by the admin's rather cavalier approach evidenced by the response to my enquiry:

.... why did you discount the votes of, say, User:GregorB or User:Canon? They are not new users, nor did I solicit them. I presume by Tim Shell you mean Tim Smith? ...... --Michael C. Price ^talk 16:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

to which I received this rather off-hand reply:

User:GregorB offered a very brief comment not supported by policy. User:Canon did take the time to offer analysis at DRV, but he had been among the first voters at the AfD to offer a mere "Keep" without explanation; therefore, I assumed he had been solicited by someone. Best wishes, Xoloz 15:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

which didn't fill me with confidence about Wiki-"due process".

Anyway, my grumpiness aside, the Mega Society article, is presently under userfied open-development at User:MichaelCPrice/mega, and will reappear at some point, when (hopefully) some of the ill-feeling evidenced during the debate has cooled. I am very heartened by the article's continued development, and by the development of associated articles. Thanks for everyone's help!

--Michael C. Price ^talk 14:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

Good start, thank you. -- Avi 16:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia can be hostile

The society's above that have lost their page are noted by the change in color from blue to red. These are legitimate entries but have not stood the test of the wikipedia meritocracy. It seems these communities have left wikipedia and the skills they possess. It is time to return some nurture to this discussion page. Last post was 26 July 2006 over 15 months ago. Interesting subjects with good links can be developed for the widest readership. RoddyYoung 23:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Commentary

These "high IQ" societies are noted by me (OR) to mostly be badly written and content-free. Just saying. Now shut yourselves up, you people who make tests for each other. What has any of you ever contributed to society or science besides your mental masturbation? Huw Powell (talk) 05:07, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Are you aware that your chat qualifies as dribbling nonsense and can be removed from this talk page because it isn't written with the intent to improve article quality? Just saying. And you're certainly no authority on the subject... —αrgumziω^ϝ 05:40, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow. You impress me with your understanding of the topic. Huw Powell (talk) 05:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Cute. A smarmy attempt at sarcasm, hm? Your fits and spasms do well for idle amusement but not much else. You should be happy I didn't proceed to remove your "commentary" on the spot, but you see, I didn't do that because I don't want to tuck away this display of yours from eyes which would hardly go through the trouble of looking for it anyway. Cheers.—αrgumziω^ϝ 06:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Well said, Argumzio. With all his soapboxing and incivility, Huw Powell's failed attempt to wax poetic as he pours scorn upon our intelligent neighbours reveals more about himself than it does about the topic at hand. So I ask, what is Huw Powell trying to say? Uncensored Kiwi ^Kiss 10:29, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

As I said, they tend to be poorly written and lack useful content. The topic in general - "high IQ societies" - tends toward what I said. People who congratulate themselves on their ability to pass tests that they create for themselves, and little else. Huw Powell (talk) 01:05, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Intelligence Citations Bibliography for Articles Related to IQ Testing

You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of Intelligence Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human intelligence and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in these issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by suggesting new sources through comments on that page. It will be extremely helpful for articles on human intelligence to edit them according to the Wikipedia standards for reliable sources for medicine-related articles, as it is important to get these issues as well verified as possible. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 17:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

What are the current sources here?

Just how many reliable sources are available to cite about this organization? (I don't mean links to the society website, nor do I mean general books about topics related to the organization, but independent sources about the society itself). See Wikipedia guidelines on notability of organizations and the Wikipedia FAQ on organizations for what the concern is here. Is there really sufficient sourcing here for a stand-alone Wikipedia article on Prometheus Society? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 20:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I put footnotes 13 through 15 in to show notability. These are instances of Prometheus being used in passing by popular authors to symbolize high intelligence. The authors tacitly assume their readers know of Prometheus, the same way someone might use "Rolls-Royce" in passing to indicate a high-quality car. Promking (talk) 23:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

That's really stretching the concept of RS a bit further than it can go. Huw Powell (talk) 06:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for both comments. I'm still mulling over what I see cited in the article and how that relates to relevant Wikipedia policies. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 18:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I think I've put eight reliable sources in the footnotes, the same number as the article about Mensa, and my guess is that no one is questioning Mensa's notability.Promking (talk) 02:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I just removed the last three, I don't think they really meet WP:RS - especially the website that was down within hours of your adding it. Huw Powell (talk) 02:54, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

An article from Esquire magazine, an article from Wall Street Journal, a book published by a mid-size but established publisher -- how can they NOT meet WP:RS? I put the dead link because other links to the article are pay-per-view.Promking (talk) 15:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

In relation to this article, do those sources include "significant" (Wikipedia policy language) discussion of Prometheus Society, or are they references in passing? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 15:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that any big national magazine or newspaper has its own standards of notability which can make what appears to be a passing reference significant. Let's say the New York Times has an article about how to find orchids which can be grown in the continental U.S., and in that article it says, "There are many societies devoted to orchid species that can be grown in non-tropical climates, including the Cymbidium Society of America." This usually means that to the best of the reporter's knowledge, the Cymbidium Society of America is a fairly well-established group that is known to orchid people. The reporter would get in trouble if he listed a fly-by-night society that no orchid fancier had ever heard of.Promking (talk) 16:16, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't suppose anyone questions Mensa's notability. It may be that both articles have sourcing problems (many Wikipedia articles do), but I am asking about this article here. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 02:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Typo in quotation?

Hello, I'm new here, so I hope I'm posting this correctly. While reading this article, I noticed the Mike Sager quote at the end of the "Membership" section appears to have a typo in the sentence that begins thusly: "More exclusive that Mensa — which accepts..."

I imagine the word "that" should be replaced with "than", but I wasn't certain if the source material bore the error, as well. Dr. Nemesis (talk) 01:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Confusing reference - MM?

Under "Beyond the 98th percentile", it states:

Starting in the early 1960s, when the now-defunct MM was started, there were attempts to form societies accepting people at a level approaching this.

What is "the now-defunct MM"? MM isn't linked to anything, nor can I see a reference to it previous to it being abbreviated in this paragraph. Any ideas? Kailey elise (talk) 17:05, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Probably something like "Mensa squared" : 2% of 2% 212.198.141.88 (talk) 06:48, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Proportion of women in that society ?

It would be interesting to know :-) 212.198.141.88 (talk) 06:48, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Women don't care about childish things such as "High IQ" societies. 1croonjosie (talk) 12:07, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

What is validation for membership criteria?

I see the link in the article text discussing membership criteria for the society has gone dead. For an encyclopedic, neutral point of view treatment of the society and its activities, it would be good to find some current, reliable sources on the notion of four-sigma selection by IQ and whether or not there is a reliable procedure for that. The best sources on that issue suggest that such a level of selection by IQ is dubious. What sources are available on validation of the Prometheus Society selection procedures? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 14:39, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

What is the justification for keeping this page up but not other societies?

An article was made for the Epimetheus society, which was founded by the the founder of Prometheus, and got deleted for not being "notable." As an extension of this deletion, it was removed from the list on the high-Iq societies page, and the blurb on the IQ page that mentioned some societies, effectively relegating its wiki-presence to the pages for the tests that can be used for admittance, though that may change soon as well. What makes one high-Iq society more notable than another? One would think that the expulsed founder's new society would be notable if by no other means than through its connection to this one, and yet? Gone. Why the bias against fledgling or smaller societies? If Wikipedia is to climb in reputability there has got to be more consistent administration and more inclusive article standards. Should we not strive to cover "everything you want to know and more?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nodnarbivel (talk • contribs) 09:45, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Where are the independently verifiable, reliable sources on the topic? By Wikipedia's own rules, which you are encouraged to look up, Wikipedia content is to be verifiable. See the Wikipedia guideline on notability of organizations for more details. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (Watch my talk, How I edit) 12:36, 3 May 2016 (UTC)