News article on Wickedpedia cybercensorship
A recent news article in the Christian Post is titled 'Design' Proponents Accuse Wikipedia of Bias, Hypocrisy.
My proposed solution for most Wikipedia disputes is simply to add the disputed item along with a note that the item is disputed and links to external websites where the dispute is discussed or debated. IMO this is the only solution because it is impossible to reach a consensus on a single Wikipedia presentation of a controversial subject.
BTW, ID proponents are not the only ones who are having problems with Wikipedia.
My proposed solution for most Wikipedia disputes is simply to add the disputed item along with a note that the item is disputed and links to external websites where the dispute is discussed or debated. IMO this is the only solution because it is impossible to reach a consensus on a single Wikipedia presentation of a controversial subject.
BTW, ID proponents are not the only ones who are having problems with Wikipedia.
Labels: Internet censorship (new #1), Wikipedia
posted by Larry Fafarman | 5/12/2007 09:29:00 AM
4 Comments:
It appears that Wikipedia has acted responsibly again. One can mention the early belief that the Earth was carried on the backs of four elephants which themselves were standing on the back of a giant tortoise. There is no need to describe that idea as a theory even though it is every bit as scientific as ID.
I protest discrimination!
According to Casey Luskin: "It seems clear that only certain ‘points of view’ are acceptable on Wikipedia when it comes to intelligent design."
On what grounds are scientific theories regarding turtles excluded from science teaching?
>>>>>According to Casey Luskin: "It seems clear that only certain ‘points of view’ are acceptable on Wikipedia when it comes to intelligent design."
On what grounds are scientific theories regarding turtles excluded from science teaching? <<<<<
Casey was not talking only about scientific issues. He was also talking about other things, like a dispute over the interpretation of the results of a public opinion poll.
As I said, it is impossible to reach any consensus on how a controversial subject should be presented by Wikipedia. IMO the only solution is simply to add disputed items to Wikipedia along with notes that they are disputed and links to external websites where the dispute is discussed or debated. IMO if this solution is not implemented, the reputation of Wikipedia will continue to go down the tubes. That would be a shame, because I consider Wikipedia to be an excellent reference on non-controversial subjects.
BTW, that news article said,
"You obviously have no understanding of what a scientific theory is,” read a moderator response on the Wikipedia site. “Please read Wikipedia's article on this subject, ‘Theory.’ Something can be a scientific theory and also a fact. Please do not make any more such contentious edits on subjects you have an incomplete understanding of.”
Sounds to me like that moderator is arguing in favor of calling ID both a theory and a fact.
> As I said, it is impossible to reach any consensus on how a controversial subject should be presented by Wikipedia. <
There already is a consensus. A consensus is not unaninimity.
> if this solution is not implemented, the reputation of Wikipedia will continue to go down the tubes. <
It it is implemented it will definitely go down the tubes (as has the reputation of this blog.
> Please do not make any more such contentious edits on subjects you have an incomplete understanding of.” <
That certainly would be good advice. Why didn't you take it?
> Sounds to me like that moderator is arguing in favor of calling ID both a theory and a fact. <
That is why they refer to your incomplete understanding. You have proven their point.
Post a Comment
<< Home