[WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution broken?

[WJhonson at aol.com]

You start off by saying that the editors in homoepathy do not act in good  
faith or act tendentiously.
 
We have user-policies to address blocking users who do not act in good  
faith, or act tendentiously.
 
The situation at homeopathy is that the two extreme sides are so deeply  
entrenched that they cannot see each other's position. And those who aren't  
deeply entrenched are just trying to keep the bloodshed contained.
 
I don't think the position of having a strong opinion on the issue is bad  
faith, or tendentious.  I'm an inclusionist, I don't believe that we are  here 
to document the "Truth", but rather "What people believe" as part of our  
sociological purpose.  We document what they think, what they say, what  they 
write, what they publish.  What we document is verifiable, that  doesn't mean it 
has veracity.
 
So we get a busload of "scientists" who want articles on herbs to not  
mention anything about their homeopathic use, and we get homeopathy  practicioners 
who want that included in those articles.  The scientists  want to censor in 
the name of science and truth.
 
We still have this entire idea of "true" that is so deeply embedded that we  
cannot shake it.  That's the ultimate underlying problem in my  opinion.
 
Will Johnson



**************Need a new ride? Check out the largest site for U.S. used car 
listings at AOL Autos.      
(http://autos.aol.com/used?NCID=aolcmp00300000002851)