Difference between revisions of "Directory:The Wikipedia Point of View"
| Line 87: | Line 87: | ||
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_necklace_(sexuality) Pearl necklace] | * [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_necklace_(sexuality) Pearl necklace] | ||
| − | * | + | * [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cum_shot Cum_shot] |
| − | * | + | * [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creampie_(sexual_act) Cream pie]] |
| − | * | + | * [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fellatio Fellatio]] |
| − | * | + | * [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cunnilingus Cunnilingus]] |
| − | * | + | * [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_ejaculation Female ejaculation]] |
== Wikipedia Review == | == Wikipedia Review == | ||
Revision as of 21:37, 13 October 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
- Neurolinguistic programming
- Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing
- What the Bleep
- Global warming
- Studies on Neurolinguistic programming
History
'Alternative sexuality' topics
Sceptics or scientists who have been blocked from Wikipedia
- Flavius Vanillus
- HeadleyDown
- Dpeterson
- Peter Damian (Wikipedia editor)
- Peter Damian Evidence
- ScienceApologist
- R Physicist
- Hong Kong University Sceptics
Other Wikipedian sceptics
See also Expert_withdrawal
Editors who are not sceptical
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 Independent discussion forum critical of Wikipedia. See also Wikipedia Review
- Page counter Computes daily and monthly Wikipedia page statistics.
Sceptics
- Michael Heap
- Sceptical associations and websites
- THE SCIENTIFIC REVIEW OF MENTAL HEALTH PRACTICE (Scott O. Lilienfeld) - slilien AT emory.edu
- Psychoceramics. A beautiful website.
- The Paranormal project
Criticism of Wikipedia
- David Blomstrom Wikipedia: The Online Reference Anyone Can Edit.
- Carl Hewitt Corruption of Wikipedia (http://wikicensored.info)
- Kohs & al: Criticism of crowdsourcing
- Wikipedia scandals (see also Wikipedia Vandalism Study)
- Wikipedia Vandalism
- Top 10 Reasons Not to Donate to Wikipedia
- Worst of Wikipedia
Most revolting Wikipedia articles
Wikipedia Review
- Wikipedia Review
- Criticism of Wikipedia Review
- Members of WR who are now also here include User:Giggy (talk), User:Alison (talk), User:Proabivouac (talk), User:Moulton (talk), User:Jon Awbrey (talk), User:Blissyu2 (talk), User:Naerii (talk)
