From: WJhonson(a)aol.com Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 14:31:28 -0400 To: wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution broken? In a message dated 4/29/2008 11:25:34 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, moreschiwikiman(a)hotmail.co.uk writes: My own view is this: Wikipedia's dispute resolution process works fine when it's case of two or more good-faith contributors engaging in a genuine debate over something where debate is meaningful. The process is hopelessly inadequate to deal with editors who act tendentiously or not in good faith, or in circumstances where there is no meaningful debate to be had (homeopathy).>> ------------------- This is a no-starter because of your phrasing. Those who have followed the debate as "journalists" and encyclopedists, instead of adherents understand that the point of the homeopathists isn't to conquer all the science articles. But the point of the non-homeopathists is to destroy all the homeopathy articles. Hardly the same position. We are not a science project. We are a project to document all human "knowledge", to say homeopathy is not knowledge is tendentious. Will Johnson **************Need a new ride? Check out the largest site for U.S. used car listings at AOL Autos. (http://autos.aol.com/used?NCID=aolcmp00300000002851) _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

No, my point was that homeopathy is not science. The homeopathy editors generally do try to portray it as such. This is misleading.

I essentially agree, but it is less about non-homeopathists than about anti-homeopathists. Some of us who may have nothing to do with the practice are nevertheless respectfull of those who do. NPOV is maintained by *fairly* representing the views of homeopathists, and briefly recognizing the premises under which a large number of people reject the practice. It does not require repetitive rejection of detail. That just makes for tedious reading. It is not for us to judge the validity of homeopathy, but to provide verifiability for both sides of the conflict.