WereSpielChequers wrote:
I'd say it is a "site that falls on its face
when tested". I ran several
searches in it for minor articles in Wikipedia, in some cases the ads that
came up were relevant but there was no relevant information. Then I tried
their Easter Island article, which in my view gives more info than we do on
some of the fringe theories "The stones were moved from quarry to ahu using
ancient secrets known to the Lemurians, perhaps involving levitation or the
secret for liquifying stone." And omits some of the info we have as to how
archaeologists believe the statues were carved.
Well, just to be fair, most of the archaelogists theories have
nearly zero corroborating evidence in support, merely being
"OR" by people supposedly better positioned to argue the
case.
That is to say archeologists "beliefs" are supported by very
scant genuine evidence, just by "educated" hunches, which
should'nt be the the thing that wikipedia reifies any more
than tinfoil hattery. The standard on reporting should be the
widespreadedness of theories, precisely because the most
widespread theories that are based on fallacious premises
should have as reasonable and authoritative rebuttal as
possible at a website as reliable as possible (in some cases
that would be Wikipedia).
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen