[SharedKnowing] Episteme issue about Wikipedia appears
skn at inbox.org
Tue Feb 17 10:32:32 CST 2009
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 3:39 AM, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 10:15 AM, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2009/2/16 Larry Sanger <sanger at citizendium.org>:
> > Doesn't quite seem relevant to the Episteme issue, David. What is the
> > of posting the link to this silly diatribe here? His basic claim, that
> > "only pro-Homeopathy editors can edit" our homeopathy articles, is
> > completely and obviously false. He misunderstood or misinterpreted
> > everything he read.
> That experts are not a panacea. The Citizendium article on homeopathy
> is an NPOV disaster. See Stirling Newberry's discussions of experts as
> POV experts, e.g.:
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 10:25 AM, Larry Sanger <sanger at citizendium.org>wrote:
> David, where is this coming from? Apparently you haven't actually read the
> CZ article on "Homeopathy." Here it is:
> It's actually an excellent article, remarkably balanced and neutral,
> approved by a distinguished professor of physiology who is definitely *not*
> a homeopath.
Where can I go to see a record of the approval process that this particular
article underwent? Is there an "unapproval" process, which might take place
if someone of suitable standing came along and disputed the neutrality of
I'd be interested in learning more about Gareth Leng, and what his
particular biases are. But ultimately I don't think I could possibly
respect the opinion of anyone willing to waste so much of their time on such
a useless topic.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the SharedKnowing