The Wikipedia Review has a lot Wikipedia jargon I do not understand and references to people and events I am unfamiliar with. But there are some good essays there, especially this one:
http://wikipediareview.com/blog/20081106/181/ This seems right on the mark to me. It discusses some issues that I have never understood about the Wikipedia philosophy, especially the notion that there can be a single "neutral point of view" (NPOV) or that if there were one, it would a good idea if everyone went along with it. This seems to deny that conflict and real differences of opinion can exist, and that there are many unanswered questions out there, such as whether cold fusion produces neutrons or whether the neutrons have any connection to the heat. It seems clear to me that the best way to deal with disagreements is to let both sides state their case separately, and let the reader decide. In the case of the cold fusion article, I would let the people who think the effect is real write one paragraph, and the people who disagree write another paragraph. The formulation of both arguments should satisfy those who make the arguments, not those who disagree with them. For example, going back to the first controversy in the field (which lives on today) If cold fusion researchers think that the heat proves there is a nuclear reaction despite the lack neutrons, a paragraph in the article should say this, explicitly. And if skeptics believe the heat must be an experimental artifact because there are no neutrons (Huizenga's thesis), another paragraph should say so. Neither side should erase the other, or restate the other side's arguments. People should agree to disagree. The Wikipedia method appears to be to find middle ground that expresses opposing ideas in a single paragraph. As the critic who wrote the above essay said: ". . . it would appear that *the* central policy of WP requires WP editors to *construct* a “neutral” viewpoint that somehow through some wiki-magic absorbs bits from the various contending viewpoints, giving no 'undue weight' to any of the contending views, but still manages to be a viewpoint all its own. This way madness lies." Anyways, this is getting seriously off topic, since this is not a Wikipedia discussion forum. - Jed
