On 02/08/05, Skyring <skyring(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Why not? We put a bit of effort into debunking the
Apollo hoax
people, and they are equally round the bend wacko.
A while ago, I did some minor edits to various pages - [[Capricorn
One]] is the one that I recall - to get rid of passing Apollo-hoax
references. There are, I'm fairly sure, none on the "serious"
spaceflight pages other than a passing cite of the page. I've always
wondered if this could be construed as messing around with NPOV... it
likely isn't, but if I wanted to should about it enough it probably
would be taken as such.
The history of the Apollo hoax article, when I have enough time,
should be an interesting thing to look at...
There's a lot of material
on wikipedia that is aimed at countering laughable notions.
In a way, I see this as quite useful. There's a couple of articles
wheich consist of pretty much nothing *but* debunking false notions -
[[Brass Monkey]], IIRC, or half of [[The Whole Nine Yards]]. Better to
have them than not have them; information is better than implicit
misinformation.
It's not just a cite, either. This thing has its
own article, complete
with photographs and circles and arrows and notes on the back
explaining what the circles and arrows mean. Perhaps rather than
voicing opposition to a notional cite, you should look into what sort
of rubbish is appearing on your own site.
It's a typical case of American blind justice!
(sorry...)
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk