Seraphita wrote: > Re "How do you know they weren't challenged, but the challenges were > overruled? Do you > ever click the Talk tab at the top of a Wikipedia page to read the > discussions among the > editors?": > > No - I hadn't noticed the Talk tab before! I've learned something new. > > Having clicked on said tab I see one (would-be) contributor says . . .
> > "I made some additions and changes to this very one-sided and > skeptic/negative article (see > history). They were deleted very fast (3 minutes) and without any comment" . > . . > > so clearly the sceptics/skeptics are in the dominant position on this topic. I don't know that that single example indicates this "clearly." There's a lot of stuff on that Talk page, but I'm not inclined to go through it. There are senior editors who have more authority than pipsqueaks who decide they're going to pop in and change things around their way; they don't usually get very far unless they have very solid documentation. But well-informed, careful folks with good sources and a convincing argument can often make a difference. On a controversial topic, "balance" is considered a virtue. > This is the key problem with Wikipedia: who finally has the upper hand in > these disputes? I > give Wiki credit though for at least letting us see the debates going on > behind the scenes. Sometimes the debates can be excruciating and endless, with some particularly acrimonious disputes being spun off to be adjudicated by a more authoritative body. In many cases who wins depends on who can dig up the best evidence, but that isn't always cut-and-dried. Wikipedia has elaborate rules about what kinds of sources are acceptable, and those rules are also subject to debate as to whether they apply in specific cases. I don't have the patience to participate, but I do often look at Talk pages on controversial topics. You really have to be pretty dedicated to deal with it all. It's quite a subculture. > With other "encyclopedias" it's more like Moses coming down the mountain > with the > engraved tablets. Which some prefer, I guess. I think Wikipedia's existence is not far short of a miracle. It's certainly not perfect, but it would be hard to live without at this point, IMHO. Some here whose opinions and/or facts have been challenged based on information gleaned from Wikipedia tend to disparage it, but that's more because they don't like being challenged than because they have genuine complaints about its reliability. ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, <authfriend@...> wrote: How do you know they weren't challenged, but the challenges were overruled? Do you ever click the Talk tab at the top of a Wikipedia page to read the discussions among the editors? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <s3raphita@...> wrote: There's a highly sceptical account of past-life regression on Wiki. (I wonder how some of these Wiki entries aren't challenged by those who beg to differ.) The conclusion is: "scientific consensus is that the memories are the result of cryptomnesia, narratives created by the subconscious mind using imagination, forgotten information and suggestions from the therapist." I have often thought, though, that past-life regression therapy would be a shoo-in for a horror-movie plot. The sinister hypno-therapist who comes up with a criminal scheme to exploit a victim by persuading him that he had lived a particular life in a previous existence . . . Hmmmm. Is there an email address where people can pitch film ideas to Hollywood producers? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Past_life_regression http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Past_life_regression
