Wikipedia vs Quackery – Standards vs Chaos

[progressoid]

Wikipedia, in fact, has become no less than a battleground over certain controversial topics. In essence people generally want Wikipedia to reflect their opinions on controversial topics, and if it doesn’t then there must be something wrong with Wikipedia (rather than there being something wrong with their opinions). I don’t mean to imply that Wikipedia always gets it right – it is a crowdsourced reference and the content is only as good as the editors. But at least they make honest efforts to be neutral and to have standards.

...snip...

I admire Wikipedia for holding the line. They have stated that on scientific issues Wikipedia will reflect the scientific consensus. If you want the content of Wikipedia to reflect a different point of view, then you better be prepared to back it up with science.

...snip...

Promoters of unscientific views don’t like this approach. When a fair and neutral referee disagrees with their pseudoscience, they cry conspiracy and censorship. Take, for example, this recent article on Natural News: “Unbiased: Help support a writer as he exposes the truth about Wikipedia’s censorship of alternative medicine.” In it the author claims:

As a matter of policy, Wikipedia actively denies the existence of science with which it disagrees.

No – it ignores pseudoscience with which the consensus of scientific opinion disagrees. Read their policy. The writers at Natural News are upset that Wikipedia does not reflect their pseudoscience, specifically discussing alternative medicine and GMOs.

More: https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/wikipedia-vs-quackery-standards-vs-chaos/

[Archae]

1. It's "Natural News," of course they are going to throw their little tantrums.

That site is like a huge pile of bovine manure next to a diamond mine.

It is possible a gem will be found, but finding it means going through tons and tons of bullshit.

[progressoid]

2. Maybe I should post this in the Health Group.