On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 3:29 PM, David Gerard dgerard@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