On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 3:29 PM, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
However, the Citizendium article on homeopathy is
still an
NPOV disaster.
I hadn't visited Citizendium for ages.
It is an interesting exercise to read through the Wikipedia article on
Homeopathy and the Citizendium one, and see the strengths and
weaknesses of both, and also the similarities and places where the
differences are very subtle (different order of sections) and less
subtle ("Professional homeopaths: who are they?"). But equally, the
Wikipedia article lacks a section on homeopaths, professional or
otherwise.
One thing that strikes me is that both articles are difficult to read
and poorly written. In other words, when something is controversial
and has a high rate of editing, the readability quality invariably
decreases in the ensuing chaos.
The name of the three editors who have approved the Citizendium
article makes interesting reading as well:
Gareth Leng
D. Matt Innis
Dana Ullman
Weirdly, most of the history is not there:
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Homeopathy&action=history
But has been moved to a draft page:
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Homeopathy/Draft&action=history
So maybe I should have read that draft instead. It would be nice to
know which versions were approved by the three editors above, and at
what stage.
Carcharoth