Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
#] ''']''', that actually means that if nobody notices what you have written, it's OK. Due to heavy linking from Google, wikipedia has become the best place to present your weird ideas.
#] ''']''', that actually means that if nobody notices what you have written, it's OK. Due to heavy linking from Google, wikipedia has become the best place to present your weird ideas.
The catch is not in the obvious spams, advertisements, blatant nonsenses etc. The catch is in normal articles, that are not watchedall the time, and that can be changed seamlesly to contain the minority POV, because the mainstream editors are just not that interested to edit them all the time if their work is being changed into something weirdregularly.
The catch is not in the obvious spams, advertisements, blatant nonsenses etc. The catch is in normal articles, that are not censored full time, and that can be changed seamlessly to explain the minority POV, because the mainstream editors are just not that interested to edit them all the time if their work is regularly being changed into something factually correct.
For instance, most mainstream health professionals reject most of the complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) methods,howeverthe articles about them are usually written and maintained by people who are CAM enthusiasts or even CAM practitioners. Although the books on CAM topics are not considered reliable by vast majority of health professionals, they are used as reliable and verifiable sources on wikipedia because the majority of editors (or the most diligent editors) do consider them reliable. As a result, those articles contain very much of the CAM POV, whereas in the real world, the mainstream POV is skeptic towards CAM.
For instance, many mainstream health professionals reject the competition of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) methods out of hand. The articles about them are usually written and maintained by people who are researchers, enthusiasts or even practitioners. Although the books on CAM topics are not considered reliable by vast majority of health professionals, they are used as reliable and verifiable subject sources on wikipedia because the majority of editors (or the most diligent editors) do consider them reliable sources about actual practices, philosophy, rationale and technical references. As a result, those articles contain very much of the CAM POV, whereas in the real world, the mainstream pharmaceutical based POV is skeptic towards CAM.
If we followed the wikipedia guidelines etc., we would have skeptic articles with the minority POV included under some appropriate section. This is one place where wikipedia rules fail - such articles attract people with weird ideas, and no one will stop them from presenting those ideas to the world. '''''Unless you do.'''''
If we followed our wikipedia guidelines etc., we would have skeptic articles with the minority POV included under some appropriate section, somewhere between AfD and speedy oblivion . This is one place where wikipedia rules fail - such articles attract people with weird ideas - freedom of speech, freedom of inquiry, encyclopedic knowledge, scholastic rigor, and scientific POV, and no one will stop them from presenting those ideas to the world. '''''Unless you do.'''''
Revision as of 10:25, 9 July 2006
Essay on editing Misplaced Pages
This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Misplaced Pages contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Misplaced Pages's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.
This page is NOT official policy, it is a new essay, describing the current status quo on wikipedia, although its author, among others, is working towards changing the described weak points.
Misplaced Pages is a chatroom, anyone can add anything to the article, contributions are made by incompetent editors AND the contents of articles changes constantly. No way you could call this encyclopedia.
Misplaced Pages is free content, so all text is available under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and may be distributed or linked accordingly. That means that any extremist's view that is left on the page can be reproduced on some mirror site, thus spreading the "truth" further.
Misplaced Pages doesn't have firm rules, that actually means that if nobody notices what you have written, it's OK. Due to heavy linking from Google, wikipedia has become the best place to present your weird ideas.
The catch is not in the obvious spams, advertisements, blatant nonsenses etc. The catch is in normal articles, that are not censored full time, and that can be changed seamlessly to explain the minority POV, because the mainstream editors are just not that interested to edit them all the time if their work is regularly being changed into something factually correct.
For instance, many mainstream health professionals reject the competition of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) methods out of hand. The articles about them are usually written and maintained by people who are researchers, enthusiasts or even practitioners. Although the books on CAM topics are not considered reliable by vast majority of health professionals, they are used as reliable and verifiable subject sources on wikipedia because the majority of editors (or the most diligent editors) do consider them reliable sources about actual practices, philosophy, rationale and technical references. As a result, those articles contain very much of the CAM POV, whereas in the real world, the mainstream pharmaceutical based POV is skeptic towards CAM.
If we followed our wikipedia guidelines etc., we would have skeptic articles with the minority POV included under some appropriate section, somewhere between AfD and speedy oblivion . This is one place where wikipedia rules fail - such articles attract people with weird ideas - freedom of speech, freedom of inquiry, encyclopedic knowledge, scholastic rigor, and scientific POV, and no one will stop them from presenting those ideas to the world. Unless you do.
