[Wikipedia-l] Non-notability "abuse"

[Ian Tresman]

>This can be dangerous. For instance, putting pet pseudo-scientific theories
>on Wikipedia gives them a certan credence that they would not get anywhere
>else.


We don't put our own pet ideas into Wikipedia. That is original 
research and prohibited. But we do include the sum of human 
knowledge, whether it's credible or not.

Otherwise by your line of reasoning, we should remove all the 
articles on Communism, slang, pornography, terrorists, dictators, 
morals, etc etc, just in case people get the "wrong" idea.

Let's take the prime example of pseudoscience "astrology", and its 
description on Encarta. 
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761552380/Astrology.html  It is 
not labelled "pseudoscience", not is it even criticised. Encarta does 
what any decent encyclopedia should do, describe it. Neutrally.

By the same argument, EVERY single article describing a model, theory 
and hypothesis is given extra "credence" by its very mention on Wikipedia.

Regards,

Ian Tresman
www.plasma-universe.com