I think they still don't have a point. So many people edit these articles that sooner or later they have been NPOVed, cited, wikified and brought to at least good article status. We have our standards, and they're making very opinionative comments as if they were facts.
On 9/8/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 07/09/06, Guettarda guettarda@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/7/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Guettarda wrote:
On 9/7/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Erik Moeller wrote:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/09/wikipedia_youre_on_notice.html
It would be nice to get some evolutionary biologists to review our
It would also be nice to get some creationists to review our entries on
There is constant "creationist review" of these articles; new people
Oh right, so the whole thing's an astroturfing campaign.
Sorry, I don't follow what you're saying
I don't know that it's so much [[astroturfing]] as the typical activist call to arms: POV activist sees carefully referenced as-neutral-as-reasonably-achievable Wikipedia article, gets upset, posts to list or blog about opposite-POV bias. That this one is on the Discovery Institute's news blog is a little more corporate affiliated, but it's not covert or done by deception. (Any more than anything the DI does is.)
Usually what happens is: there's an issue, the activists are called to Wikipedia, and ... being activists, i.e. sincere people working to make the world better, they often like the idea of Wikipedia and try to work with it properly. So we get new editors and better articles. Win-win.
*Maybe* this will happen in this case :-)
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l