Darwinists have been abusing Wikipedia to spread propaganda
We received this e-mail recently from a friendly engineer. He gave us permission to post his letter but only if we put his name in bold.I am an engineer. I am not a biologist. I became interested in Intelligent Design recently and decided to investigate it a bit. Naturally I consulted Wikipedia for information on the subject and was stunned by the one sided tone of the material I found there . . . . . . . .
I agree that the Wikipedia article on ID is slanted against ID. For example, the article says of ID, "Its leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute . . . . ."(emphasis added) The corresponding NPOV statement would be, "many of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute" -- for example, Ann Coulter and Cardinal Christophe Schonborn are leading ID proponents but are not affiliated with the Discovery Institute. The article says, "An overwhelming majority of the scientific community views intelligent design as unscientific, as pseudoscience or as junk science," but there is no reference to any formal opinion poll. The article stereotypes ID proponents -- e.g., the article says, "The intelligent design movement arose out of an organized neocreationist campaign directed by the Discovery Institute to promote a religious agenda . . " The article is full of dogma, stereotypes, and unsupported claims of unanimity or consensus of opinion. This article now has this message: " This page is currently protected from editing until disputes have been resolved. " There is a talk page with a lot of discussions of many disputes over the article. A lot of these disputes may not be necessary, because often a biased point of view can be changed to a neutral point of view just by adding a qualifier like "so-and-so thinks" or "some people think."
I also found bias in a Wikipedia article about PZ Myers and some of the bias has been removed, apparently in response to my complaints posted on PZ's blog. The article now says of PZ's blog Pharyngula, "It has become particularly well-known for Myers' writing style (characterized by polished and biting sarcasm) and criticism of Intelligent Design creationism . . ." Any statement or implication that intelligent design and creationism should be combined into a single concept should be reserved for the Wikipedia articles on those subjects. The PZ article also previously called ID creationism a "pseudoscience," but that definition has been removed. As for the statement that PZ's writing style is characterized by "polished and biting sarcasm," that is a matter of opinion -- I consider his writing style to be characterized by abusiveness.
Wikpedia has a special procedure for resolving disputes.
Labels: Evolution controversy (3 of 4)