Stirling Newberry wrote:
This is a security flaw in wikipedia's process, the argument of open source projects is that flaws are easily discovered, reported, and dealt with. The argument of proprietary projects is that such flaws are best dealt with by small selected groups of people out of reach of others.
There is also an argument over what a "flaw" is. I imagine people on your side of the debate would have been arguing, were this 1965, that our article on [[homosexuality]] ought to be fully scientific, drawing on the medical consensus that homosexuality was a mental illness (specifically a paraphilia), and clinically describe it symptoms in accordance with the standard consensus text on the subject (the _Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders_), perhaps at most mentioning as an aside that some activists disagree with this viewpoint ("but it should be noted that these activists do not hold medical degrees").
Not that I think intelligent design makes any sense whatsoever, but I don't think we ought to write our articles from a hardline the-current-consensus-of-scientists-is-everything point of view.
-Mark