libertarian wrote:
Wikipedia is full of conspiracy theories and claims
which science
would consider to be rubbish.
Can you give me an example?
He who shouts the loudest wins on Wikipedia. This is
the reason that
it has not evolved into real storehouse of knowledge. It is more like
USENET groups but in a more academic tone. In other words, it is full
of urban legends and anyone who relies on it for facts is walking a
dangerous path.
Can you give me an example?
It is several weeks since Ed Poor and Angela tried
mediating on
at least one issue (their mind was made up already but they were
pretending to mediate), but when I confronted them with FACTS and
EVIDENCE, they quietly withdrew from the mediation. This is a
clear case of dishonesty, but never mind.
This sounds like an example, can you give more details? What page?
--Jimbo