Wikipedia founder calls alt-medicine practitioners "lunatic charlatans"Wales to activists who want new rules for Wikipedia: "No, you have to be kidding me." Ars contacted Sanger about the use of his name in this argument, and he offered a more nuanced take on the petitioners' request: "Wikipedia's neutrality policy, at least as I originally articulated it, requires that CAM's practitioners be given an opportunity to explain their views. At the same time, the policy also requires that *more* space be given to mainstream views that are *critical* of CAM, precisely because such critical views are held by most medical health professionals. ... I am as big a defender of rationality, science, and objective reality as you are likely to find. But I also think a public resource like Wikipedia should be fully committed to intellectual tolerance and the free exchange of ideas. That, together with an interest in providing a way to resolve disputes, is just what drove me to advocate for and articulate the Wikipedia's neutrality policy. I have confidence that if CAM's advocates are given an opportunity to air their views fully and sympathetically--not to say they should be allowed to make Wikipedia *assert* their views--and skeptics are also given free rein to report their explanation of why they think CAM is a load of crap, then a rational reader will be given the tools he or she needs to take a reasonable position about the matter. Putting all ideas on the table--but giving more space to the mainstream views and putting less emphasis on the alternative views--might be problematic in practice. Requiring that Wikipedia sources be based on third-party, published, and often peer-reviewed work is an easy way to at least make a passing effort at disseminating high-quality information. But how would space be doled out to advocates of alternative theories, who are just as certain about the rightness of their ideas as any scientist, if that guideline became more flexible? Would they be allowed to present their views in a set number of paragraphs? Or as a percentage of the number of words written about mainstream theories? Such a setup might be a slippery slope to what's been termed "false balance," a subject on which Ars has written at length before<http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/01/false-balance-fox-news-demands-a-recount-on-us-warmest-year/>. In that scenario, views that have been ignored for a reason are given undeserved light to create the illusion of an even playing field.