Radio talk show host Bill Greene said
something like the following about Wikipedia:
If you come in with an alternative point of view, a cabal of politically correct, brown-shirted fascists immediately descends upon you and reverts your entry. . .they say that your entry just gives undue weight to a point of view, a fringe theory, pseudoscience, blah blah blah . . . . They have set up these rules . . . and they lawyer you to death with the rules. They hound you out. You either change over to their point of view, or you just leave. Or they ban you . . . Don't think it doesn't happen, because it does happen all the time.
The Wikipedia article about the Discovery Institute has a section on the DI's report that charges that the Dover opinion's ID-as-science section was nearly entirely ghostwritten by the ACLU. On Aug. 27, 2007, I made the following innocent addition to this section, which is shown here
as it appeared immediately after I made the addition:
Casey Luskin of the Discovery Institute wrote a rebuttal of the preceding criticisms of this DI study. 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
86. Analogical Legal Reasoning and Legal Policy Argumentation: A Response to Darwinist Defenders of Judge Jones' Copying from the ACLU Casey Luskin, Discovery Institute, January 22, 2007
Believe it or not, this innocent, NPOV (Neutral Point of View) addition sparked a colossal argument
under the title "Casey Luskin" on Wikipedia's Discovery Institute discussion page (the page is shown as it appeared just before a Wickedpedian thug named "Felonious Monk" started deleting my comments). The arbitrariness and capriciousness of the Wickedpedian control freaks' comments in this discussion are readily apparent.
Another commenter besides myself, Veritasjohn, strongly advocated mentioning Casey Luskin's rebuttal and providing a link to it, but in the end, the mention and the link were censored. The Wickedpedian control freaks refused here to give a single crumb to the opposition. These "discussions" on Wikipedia are just charades -- the Wickedpedian control freaks have no intention of ever being persuaded by others' arguments.
Below are my comments in this discussion section that were censored (the comments are not shown in order). For the contexts of the comments, go to the preceding link to an archived discussion page.
"The section as it now stands is a reasonable summary of the situation."
No, it is not a reasonable summary of the situation -- it is a completely one-sided summary of the situation.
One of the biggest problems -- if not the biggest problem -- with Wikipedia has been the utterly false assumption that online encyclopedias should attempt to have the NPOV and verifiability of printed encyclopedias. Because online encyclopedias can link instantly to external sites where controversial items are discussed and debated in detail, online encyclopedias can handle a much larger number of controversial items than can printed encyclopedias.
"It is not about the DI particularly."
This one is about the DI particularly because it was the DI that blew the whistle on Jones. Had it not been for the DI, this Jones' copying probably would have gone unnoticed.
You folks are really making a mountain out of a molehill by making such a big stink about adding a rebuttal from the Discovery Institute. You are contributing to Wikipedia's already bad reputation as an unreliable source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 22:12, August 29, 2007 (UTC)
The bottom line is that the Discovery Institute has a right to defend its report here. It does not matter whether or not Casey Luskin is an attorney, whether or not he graduated from law school, whether or not he graduated from grade school, or whether or not he is "notable." It does not matter whether or not his rebuttals are valid, reasonable, or "scholarly." It does not matter whether or not Luskin and the rest of the DI practice what they preach (re: Peter Irons' accusation concerning the Montana Law Review article). It is ridiculous that the right of the DI to defend its report here should even be questioned here at all.
A summary would be unnecessary and superfluous. Luskin's rebuttal is only six pages long. It has its own summary. The Wikipedia text that is rebutted is identified -- this text itself summarizes the issues addressed by Luskin's article. There is no Wikipedia rule requiring that references be summarized, and such a rule would result in cluttering up Wikipedia with unnecessary summaries. Also, it may be impossible to reach any kind of consensus here on a summary of Luskin's article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 18:28, August 28, 2007 (UTC)
Does it matter where this section is placed? Wikipedia articles can be cross-linked. Both the Discovery Institute article and the Kitzmiller v. Dover article would be appropriate locations. The DI article is an appropriate location because probably no one would have raised this copying issue if the DI had not raised it. Judge Jones' copying went unreported for nearly a year. People outside the DI probably noticed it -- e.g., the Dover defendants' attorneys from the Thomas More Law Center (the TMLC website has posted nothing about the case since the day after the decision) -- but said nothing. IMO since the section is here already, it might as well stay here. IMO Veritasjohn's summary of Luskin's article is good: "The Discovery Institute issued a rebuttal to criticism of the study, arguing that case law supports the policy that 'the verbatim or near verbatim adoption of a party's findings of facts is disapproved by courts' even if it is not prohibited." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 01:30, August 29, 2007 (UTC)
As I indicated above, other editors agreed that DI's rebuttal should be linked, and one asked for a summary. I'm willing to drop the summary and just end the sentence at "issued a rebuttal."
I was the one who proposed having no summary of the DI rebuttal, but I have changed my mind. I think your proposed summaries are good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 07:02, August 29, 2007 (UTC)
"I don't know if he has sought admission to the bar in other states"? How is that relevant? The Wikipedia article on the State Bar of California says, "California administers what is widely considered the nation's most difficult bar examination twice each year" , and Casey Luskin passed.
This section of the article cites the legal opinions of you and Ed Brayton, who are not even attorneys. Ed Brayton by his own admission is not even a college graduate (though I don't hold that against him). So if we are going to talk about credentials, then let's talk about them.
There is just no satisfying you people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 05:55, August 29, 2007 (UTC)
No, Filll and Odd Nature, you are the ones who have crossed the line. Veritasjohn's comments here were civil and reasonable. Filll initiated the personal attacks here with his statement, "veritasjohn, you are giving yourself away by your edits. Don't think I don't know who you are." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 23:15, August 28, 2007 (UTC)
Labels: Wikipedia (new #1)