as a nasty conservative guy, I won't moan too much on that... however seeing how is consensus on cold fusion , I realize that no consensus is desirable.
I just read the aricle by jed on titanic and I extracted the part about Cold fusion critics Morisson and taubes (Huizenga was not cited, was he serious ?) http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/183-Jed-Rothwell-makes-a-paralle-between-Cold-fusion-denial-and-Titanic-aftermath/#post362 what I read is incredible. basic highschool mistakes not spotted by Nobel supporters... and those toilet paper book are the only one accepted on Wikipravda... 2014-03-26 3:34 GMT+01:00 Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com>: > > http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/03/wikipedia-founder-calls-alt-medicine-practitioners-lunatic-charlatans/ > > 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. > > >
