[SharedKnowing] Episteme issue about Wikipedia appears
sanger at citizendium.org
Tue Feb 17 07:20:21 CST 2009
David Stodolsky wrote:
> The vast majority of people that type "homeopathy" into Google are
> doing so because they saw the term in promotional material
> designed to
> get the uninformed to part with their money. Therefore, the first
> point in any article like this should be clear statement that
> this is
> one of a vast number of valueless treatments offered to the public.
> That is what people want to know. Who gives a damn what it
> is, how it
> was developed, etc. if it doesn't work?
Well, David, you disagree with CZ's neutrality policy, it seems. "What
people want to know," when they read encyclopedia articles, is an
explanation of a topic, without prejudice toward any views on the topic.
Personally, I want to make up my own mind whether something is quackery
(don't you?), and I resent anyone presuming to tell me what to believe. Of
course, I want to know if mainstream scientists and physicians believe it to
be quackery. But I also want to know what beliefs and methods are supposed
to be quackery.
I'm a skeptic, but not a dogmatic one. My skepticism does not make me think
that neutrality in reference works is any less important. See:
More information about the SharedKnowing