On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 11:25,
????<wiki-list(a)phizz.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 24/10/2010 17:01, WJhonson(a)aol.com wrote:
Stick to what's actually occurring.
What sources would be deemed reliable for an article on Statin or Flu Virus
or Joan of Arc ?
One should use accredited independent sources, which in the case of
Statin and Flu Virus would be the appropriate international or
governmental medical bodies. Have used that information the article
should not be buggered about with.
So scientists are never wrong, government bodies are never wrong,
minority views are not worth mentioning until they become the majority
view?
Is wikipedia presenting the worlds knowledge in some serious format or
is it some nursing home for those Formosa'd by alt.usenet.kooks?
Many years ago a criticism of the BBC from those with a fringe view,
I'll use anti-vaccinationists as an example, ran like this:
The insistence of balance is unbalanced. This is because the
status quo is asserted at all the other times, so when we get
to have a program on anti-vaccination we have to put up with
the medical profession putting their view too. This isn't
fair because we don't get to present anti-vaccinationism
whenever vaccination is discussed.
it seems that they are beavering away on wikipedia getting links and a
mention whenever there is a vaccine scare. One has to ask why this is
still in the MMR article: