On 31 August 2010 00:21, John Vandenberg <jayvdb(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Irony. David Gerard disparaging CZ using a
rationalwiki page as evidence.
The links are there if you want to read them.
Pseudo-science, pseudo-humanities, etc are no stranger
and our processes have not always been victorious over it. Simply
put, the rubbish on Wikipedia outweights the rubbish on CZ, and I
suspect that an academically sound study would indicate that,
proportionally speaking, Wikipedia pollutes the interweb more than CZ.
Wikipedia has the help of LOTS of people to get closer to NPOV. CZ
artificially limited its contributor pool in important ways.
Compare the rationalwiki page for CZ and WP. I wonder
how large their
WP page would be if a similar level of critical analysis was applied.
The WP article is about dealing with an imperfect successful thing,
not analysing a failure. Your point is unclear.