in fact I've heard of wikipedia spitrit in the old time : it was to express reasonable opinion, all reasonable opinions, with reference data, show controversies, ...
but on some subject I follow I've see that peer-reviewed but non mainstream point of view get thrown out by ideological non scientific lobbies... some subject that are proved scientifically are presented as controversial or fringe, while their are mainstream in the technical domain, yet unpopular in popular ideology... (see ormesis)... clearly wikipedia sine 5-8 years have been cleaned by some non scientific powerfull lobbies (and not corporate)... More over I see more and more fringe science , but popular for those lobbies. funnily on a vulgarization science , futura-science.fr, I've seen the same "thought-police", allowing very fringe discussion, but violently rejecting some serious non consensual discussion, like LENR.. 2012/9/12 Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> > I wrote: > > If the subject is controversial, you can [have] two articles, one by >> supporters, and one by opponents. Why not? >> > > This is against the rules in Wikipedia. They insist that people reach > a compromise taking into accounts all points of view. They want one and > only one article per topic. (Actually, you are not supposed to have a > "point of view.") I do not understand why they have this rule, or why they > are so opposed to articles with distinct, separate points of view. > > It reminds of newspapers and TV news from the 1950s to 1990s, when they > tried hard to be "neutral." Meaning "objective." Some people considered > Walter Cronkite the epitome of reliable neutrality. He had an aura. > > I never thought the newspapers were neutral. Frankly, I prefer the > approach newspapers had in the 19th century and again today, where you knew > which side the editorial staff sympathized with. You could judge how > objective they were by reading different accounts of the same story. > > Incidentally, you do have to give Wikipedia credit for knowing about and > discussing their own weaknesses, such as their fetish for incorporating all > points of view: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Randy_in_Boise > > The see the problems, but they don't do anything about them. > > - Jed > >
