Charles Matthews wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote
Nobody is supporting "a massive repository of crank view" Saying that Wikipedia would become so is entirely speculative.
Agreed. My view that nonsense is gradually squeezed out of WP, by steady edits by sensible editors. It is, in the main, a salami-slicing operation.
Obviously something daft gets posted every day, and there are occasions when editors dig in their heels to defend what are, on a consensus view, cranky views. I don't think either of those facts need be used to undermine the position that the normal process - 'enough eyeballs' - works.
When it comes to cranky views, the most effective refutations can often be made with a minimum of words. Lengthy and detailed arguments in opposition are often counterproductive in that they leave the impression that there must be something there worth aguing about.
The bad history and politicised rants can be first toned down, then replaced by better points. There is always going to be some 'placeholder' material on WP, waiting for a better job. I think trying for credibility in excess of the natural trend is probably a mistake. The pages have a disclaimer; and I wonder whether anyone can foresee a time when they will not.
It will never happen. In articles touching on medical subjects in particular there will always be individuals ready to take our "advice" literally and uncritically. These same ones will be just as ready to blame Wikipedia when the "advice" doesn't work.
Ec