Jedi Master Radek
Arcane
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2013
- Messages
- 4,334
You're a perfect example of why we can't have anything nice.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_viewBecause labeling it as "pseudoscience' violates Wikipedia's NPOV you dumbass.You're right, what could the guy who co-created wikipedia know. Clearly you know far more than he does about the thing he created.He gets his history from wikipedia, be kind.Sawyer left aside than when SPD proposed an alliance to KPD - to gain the majority in Reichstag and cockblock NSDAP - KPD refused, for the directives from Komintern were to treat SPD as foremost enemy and NSDAP as secondary. The rest is history.
https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/
It was quite some time since I read something as stupid as this article. Thanks for wasting my time.
They guy is literally upset that labeling alternative medicine as pseudoscience is bad because its not neutral
Calling pseudoscience a pseudoscience doesn't violate any sensible neutrality guidelines. Encyclopedias exist to give their readers access to facts. If someone shouts that UK capital is Manchester, it doesn't mean that an encyclopedia should take "neutral stance" on the issue and "teach the controversy". Jesus Christ, Rusty, keep it together.
I understand you're an ESL, but come on.This page in a nutshell: Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it.
Stating facts is not taking sides. Medical pseudoscience is either an unproved therapy or therapy proved not to work. Pseudoscience is not a side in a scientific discourse. Merely having an opinion doesn't make you a side. Your reading of neutrality guideline is completely insane, because its natural conclusion would lead to every article having hundreds off "... but some think that....". Just imaging an article about cancer makes me shiver, it would have a list of 10 000 bogus medical claims from all over the internet and would end with "who knows what the truth is"
Yes, because encyclopedias not differentiating between facts or fiction are such a nice thing to have.