Re: a little something for all you wikipedia-lovers



On Jan 30, 4:55 pm, António Marques <m...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
graph...@xxxxxxxxxxxx:
At the beginning, Wikipedia contributed to the development of a
"common opinion". It was at the time when ARTICLES were blocked in
case of an Edit-War, so that both parties were OBLIGED to open a
public discussion, in order to reach an agreement on a redaction
respecting the Neutral Point of View basic rule.
But this is NO MORE the case, since not the articles, but the
redactors are blocked. So that, the redactor of a "good contribution"
can be hindered to publish it by a pack of partisans. This is, in my
opinion, the number one problem concerning the scientific value of
Wikipedia : instead of being informative on ALL existing theories
(with possible ponderations like "Theory A is supported by several
specialists, but not Theory B"), Wikipedia informs now ONLY on the
theory accepted by the Wiki-administrators, who are generally amateurs
in the field. So it has become completely untrustful.And I have to concur with grapheus on this point. Wikipedia suffers too
much from administrator interference. This can have both effects: not
only relevant information may be trimmed away by a group of
administrators who know little of the field but decided that '80% of
people say oranges, so oranges it is and mention of lemons is "not
NPOV"', all kinds of loony stuff may be kept in an article by a group of
administrators who know little of the field but decided that 'pink
meatball theory was proposed as an alternative to general relativity so
it should be mentioned as well'.

"Mentioned as well" is not a bad thing, provided that it is said that
this theory has no great support, if any. What is bad is mentioning
it as it was accepted, with more details than the general relativity
theory !


So, to address Peter's concern, the issue with WP is not that it hasn't
got editors, but that its editors' competence can't be guaranteed.

Not only "editors' competence", but also respect by the editors of the
NPOV rule !.. With this rule, even an incompetent editor would be
forced to accept a redaction like : "The General Relativity Theory is
supported by almost all scholars. Only Mr X. defends the Pink
Meatballs Theory as an alternative".
This would be completely INFORMATIVE, including about the GENERAL
OPINION or CONSENSUS, plus the possible concurrent theories. But the
Wiki-administrators are too stupid and biased to understand that they
are killing by their attitude a great idea !!!

grapheus

--
am

laurus : rhodophyta : brethoneg : smalltalk : stargate

--
Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com

.

Relevant Pages

  • wikipedia is often biased and has unreliable information
    ... Having known editors that have been banned by wikipedia's unfair ... Coming to wikipedia as an expert and knowing something about a topic ... Articles with information that have ... editor spinning the article to their own opinion. ...
    (alt.true-crime)
  • wikipedia is often biased and has unreliable information
    ... Having known editors that have been banned by wikipedia's unfair ... Coming to wikipedia as an expert and knowing something about a topic ... Articles with information that have ... editor spinning the article to their own opinion. ...
    (alt.politics)
  • wikipedia is often biased and has unreliable information
    ... Having known editors that have been banned by wikipedia's kangaroo ... being edited and not the rules, I can guarantee that wikipedia is at ... Articles with information that have ... editor spinning the article to their own opinion. ...
    (uk.legal)
  • wikipedia is often biased and has unreliable information
    ... Having known editors that have been banned by wikipedia's kangaroo ... being edited and not the rules, I can guarantee that wikipedia is at ... Articles with information that have ... editor spinning the article to their own opinion. ...
    (misc.legal)
  • Re: MEW No 126
    ... and Safety issues arising from past articles. ... people moaning about H&S issues is known to the mag as a writer of articles. ... You can just imagine the past editors puffing on their pipes, ... "Can you put me a hook in the wall dear to hang this dream catcher on ?" ...
    (uk.rec.models.engineering)