Difference between revisions of "Directory:The Wikipedia Point of View"
| Line 40: | Line 40: | ||
** [http://toolserver.org/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate Kate's Tool] (provides breakdown of editor contributions by article and talk page) | ** [http://toolserver.org/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate Kate's Tool] (provides breakdown of editor contributions by article and talk page) | ||
** [http://wikipediareview.com Wikipedia Review] Excellent independent discussion forum critical of Wikipedia. | ** [http://wikipediareview.com Wikipedia Review] Excellent independent discussion forum critical of Wikipedia. | ||
| − | **[http://stats.grok.se | + | **[http://stats.grok.se Page counter] Computes daily and monthly Wikipedia page statistics. |
== Sceptics == | == Sceptics == | ||
Revision as of 12:23, 21 July 2008
Welcome to The Wikipedia Point of View.
Pretty much any subject you search Google for – let's say 'Neurolinguistic programming', the article about it in Wikipedia comes first in the ranking. That makes Wikipedia an attractive target for determined groups of individuals who want to present their idea or product in a global market, free of charge. Join the encylopedia that anyone can edit, write an article about, let's say, Neurolinguistic programming, and you have as much free advertising as you want.
Wikipedia has a Neutral Point of View policy. This requires you to write not what you believe to be true – not even if you know it to be true, in the philosopher's justified true belief sense - but only what is verifiable. The theory is that any overtly biased article on NLP, crystal healing, or whatever, will be overwritten by someone else who will come along and edit the article to a more 'neutral point of view'. He, or she who can cite reputable, authoritative peer-reviewed research against the many strange and idiosyncratic views we encounter in real life, in quack medicine, from proponents of 'alternative sexuality' viewpoints, and so on.
But it has become apparent that the NPOV policy has failed Wikipedia in many areas. This has happened for many reasons, to be documented in The Wikipedia Point of View.
Pseudoscientific topics
'Alternative sexuality' topics
Sceptics or scientists who have been blocked from Wikipedia
- Flavius Vanillus
- HeadleyDown
- Dpeterson
- Peter Damian (Wikipedia editor)
- ScienceApologist (Wikipedia editor)
- R Physicist (Wikipedia editor)
Editors unsympathetic to scepticism
Guide to Wikipedia
- Neutral Point of View
- Section 230
- Wikipedia Resources
- Kate's Tool (provides breakdown of editor contributions by article and talk page)
- Wikipedia Review Excellent independent discussion forum critical of Wikipedia.
- Page counter Computes daily and monthly Wikipedia page statistics.
