[Foundation-l] Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing, was Re: Ban and...
wiki-list at phizz.demon.co.uk
Sun Oct 24 18:41:06 UTC 2010
On 24/10/2010 18:42, SlimVirgin wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 11:25, ????<wiki-list at phizz.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 24/10/2010 17:01, WJhonson at 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
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:
and why is this described as a controversy rather than a deception:
More information about the foundation-l