[WikiEN-l] Re: Example vs. Original research

Wed Aug 3 13:34:38 UTC 2005

On 02/08/05, Skyring <skyring at gmail.com> wrote:

> Why not? We put a bit of effort into debunking the Apollo hoax
> people, and they are equally round the bend wacko.

A while ago, I did some minor edits to various pages - [[Capricorn
One]] is the one that I recall - to get rid of passing Apollo-hoax
references. There are, I'm fairly sure, none on the "serious"
spaceflight pages other than a passing cite of the page. I've always
wondered if this could be construed as messing around with NPOV... it
likely isn't, but if I wanted to should about it enough it probably
would be taken as such.

The history of the Apollo hoax article, when I have enough time,
should be an interesting thing to look at...

> There's a lot of material
> on wikipedia that is aimed at countering laughable notions. 

In a way, I see this as quite useful. There's a couple of articles
wheich consist of pretty much nothing *but* debunking false notions -
[[Brass Monkey]], IIRC, or half of [[The Whole Nine Yards]]. Better to
have them than not have them; information is better than implicit
misinformation.

> It's not just a cite, either. This thing has its own article, complete
> with photographs and circles and arrows and notes on the back
> explaining what the circles and arrows mean. Perhaps rather than
> voicing opposition to a notional cite, you should look into what sort
> of rubbish is appearing on your own site.

It's a typical case of American blind justice!

(sorry...)

-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk