[WikiEN-l] "Rampant scientism" - actually reading too much into an edit summary

[Robert Graham Merkel]

>    1. rampant scientism (Viajero)
> 
> > (cur) (last) . . 01:30, 7 Dec 2003 . . Robert Merkel (put a big fat
> "doctors think this stuff is bogus" sentence near the top of the article,
> where it belongs, rather than burying it at the bottom)
> 
> This individual hasn't a shred of impartiality regarding the subject.
>

Whilst I would prefer not to have debates on specific articles taken to 
the mailing list, seeing it is already there...

Whilst that edit summary may have been unwise, I don't think the edit I
made was unreasonable.  In fact, did you bother to read the edit that 
comment was attached to?  

Basically, I take the view that articles should generally be written in 
"news style" with a very quick summary of the most pertinent facts at
the top, and then dealing with each point in more detail later.  As I
read the article at the time I made the edit, I judged that it would be 
improved by making a brief statement of the majority medical view of the
topic in this introductory section.  I believed this to be important and
an improvement to the article.

Now, as it happens, the majority medical/scientific view on alternative 
medicine, whether the proponents of alternative medicine like it or not, 
is that most of it is at best ineffective New Age mysticism that generates
strong placebo effects, or at worst a particularly cruel fraud on 
very sick people with nothing to lose.  They may be wrong, but I believe 
that to be an accurate summary of a majority of doctors' views, and I don't 
think there's terribly much dispute on that.

What I actually said in the article, in the fourth paragraph, was
something along the lines of 
"mainstream Western medicine views most alternative medicine as either 
[[pseudoscience]] or [[quackery]]".  In other words, a quick summary 
of a sentiment expanded greatly later on in the article.

So, in essence, I think my edit was quite reasonable and in good
faith, and my edit summary was an accurate (if indelicate) summary of
the content of my edit and my reasoning.  Read the relevant edit in full
next time before making unjustified claims.