In an NPOV encyclopedia, we do not take sides with one group or another. Rather, we show the range of positions that exist, we document these positions with quotes and sources, and allow readers to make up their own minds.
Which is the problem when it comes to facts. If flat-earth theory is given the same legitimacy as what science accepts the shape of the earth to be, Wikipedia loses its credibility.
Wikipedia is full of conspiracy theories and claims which science would consider to be rubbish.
He who shouts the loudest wins on Wikipedia. This is the reason that it has not evolved into real storehouse of knowledge. It is more like USENET groups but in a more academic tone. In other words, it is full of urban legends and anyone who relies on it for facts is walking a dangerous path.
It is several weeks since Ed Poor and Angela tried mediating on at least one issue (their mind was made up already but they were pretending to mediate), but when I confronted them with FACTS and EVIDENCE, they quietly withdrew from the mediation. This is a clear case of dishonesty, but never mind.
The point is that Wikipedia is full of errors (even in areas where I wasn't involved in any confrontation) and the reason is that it allows those with the loudest voice to win. How about new words - Wikipolice and Wikicop? A Wikicop is one who solves problems by judging someone a winner in a shouting match.
-libertarian
_______________________________________________ No banners. No pop-ups. No kidding. Introducing My Way - http://www.myway.com
Libertarian wrote
It is several weeks since Ed Poor and Angela tried mediating on at least one issue (their mind was made up already but they were pretending to mediate), but when I confronted them with FACTS and EVIDENCE, they quietly withdrew from the mediation. This is a clear case of dishonesty, but never mind.
This is not true. All I did was initiate the mediation by suggesting that Brian help with it as he had been the one to list it on [[Wikipedia:Current disputes over articles]]. I was not involved in the mediation myself. Your suggestion that my mind was already made up is also untrue as I've not even read the article and therefore have no view on it.
Libertarian wrote
He who shouts the loudest wins on Wikipedia.
Not necessarily the loudest, but there have certainly been suggestions in the past that whoever shouts the longest will win. The problem is we have no policies for dealing with people who continue to do this.
Angela.
________________________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html
libertarian wrote:
Wikipedia is full of conspiracy theories and claims which science would consider to be rubbish.
Can you give me an example?
He who shouts the loudest wins on Wikipedia. This is the reason that it has not evolved into real storehouse of knowledge. It is more like USENET groups but in a more academic tone. In other words, it is full of urban legends and anyone who relies on it for facts is walking a dangerous path.
Can you give me an example?
It is several weeks since Ed Poor and Angela tried mediating on at least one issue (their mind was made up already but they were pretending to mediate), but when I confronted them with FACTS and EVIDENCE, they quietly withdrew from the mediation. This is a clear case of dishonesty, but never mind.
This sounds like an example, can you give more details? What page?
--Jimbo
Just look at RK's activities with respect to the article, Chiropractic medicine.
Fred
From: Jimmy Wales jwales@bomis.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 19:29:32 -0800 To: libertarian@myway.com, English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] NPOV means that we acknowledge all views
He who shouts the loudest wins on Wikipedia. This is the reason that it has not evolved into real storehouse of knowledge. It is more like USENET groups but in a more academic tone. In other words, it is full of urban legends and anyone who relies on it for facts is walking a dangerous path.
Can you give me an example?