On 03/31/11 12:44 PM, Fred Bauder wrote:
For example, I've been looking at another article,
Astrology, where half
a dozen astrology advocates have been banned. Looking at their editing,
all the attention was on the presence or absence of the label,
"pseudoscience", supposedly based on an arbitration committee ruling.
"Pseudoscience" is one of those labels that exists for the sole purpose
of being tendentious. A perfectly good and neutral article can be
written about astrology without resorting to that word. It would make
clear that there is considerable doubt about the subject's validity
without leaving the impression that the article is nagging about it.
So, instead of working on the article, and adding
something about
astrology, there has been a sterile POV conflict. Meanwhile the article
is piss poor with one of the POV warriors, now he's gotten rid of the
opposition, re-writing it and making it even worse.
It has been a long time since I even looked at the article. I have since
graduated to become a grumpy old man. The presence of idiotic POV
pushers on both sides of the argument means it's less strenuous to keep
the article in a perpetual state of error.
So big fight over nothing, while substantial work
remains undone.
"WikiProject Rational Skepticism High-importance)" Really?
It's the kind of true-believer syndrome that turns Rational Skepticism
into a religious cult.
Ec