On 29 Jan 2007 at 14:43, Mike Palij wrote: > I am not going to get involved in this argument [on the merits of > Wikipedia--SB] outside of saying that for some things Wikipedia can be > a starting point for getting info about a topic. However, I've > attached an article below that I received on another mailing list that > may provoke new concerns about certain topics on Wikipedia. > http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0107/2460.html
Concern yes, but the good news is that Wikipedia, remarkably, caught the vandalism, restored the entry, and added a section which embarrassed NIDA by publicly exposing their clumsy attempt at censorship. Here's the entry: "NIDA and Wikipedia NIDA officials have edited the Wikipedia article about their organization to remove text and links critical of NIDA and add NIDA URLs and text from NIDA literature. The article history shows a single edit in late August 2006 and a number of edits during September 2006 by an anonymous editor with an IP address from within NIH. These edits have been reverted. In January 2007, NIDA spokeswoman Dorie Hightower verified that the editing was done by NIDA officials, and said it was done "to reflect the science."[19] [20]" Yeah, right. Stephen Conflict of interest statement: I do not now nor have I ever written anything for Wikipedia. I admit to using it, though. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Stephen L. Black, Ph.D. Department of Psychology Bishop's University e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2600 College St. Sherbrooke QC J1M 0C8 Canada Dept web page at http://www.ubishops.ca/ccc/div/soc/psy TIPS discussion list for psychology teachers at http://faculty.frostburg.edu/psyc/southerly/tips/index.htm ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- To make changes to your subscription go to: http://acsun.frostburg.edu/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=tips&text_mode=0&lang=english
