[WikiEN-l] Re: Pseudoscience category - GSPOV

Tue Jun 28 14:59:25 UTC 2005

> Your definition, I'd say, is unusual. As far as I can see, quackery
> really have two meanings. One is stated in the beginning of
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quackery
> It is a disputed article needing improvement, but it starts
>
> "Quackery is the practice of producing fraudulent medicine"
>
> and thus, if someone believes in what they are doing they are not
> quacks.
>
> ...
>
> If you can show good reasons to believe that homeopathy is a
> deliberate fraud, that it is illegal in at least a few countries, _or_
> a definition of the word "quackery" from a good source where the main
> meaning of the word supports you then please go ahead.

I got my definition of quack medicine from Webster's.

By your definition medicine that doesn't work is only
quackery if the practitioner is intentionally deceiving
the subject. I'm sure most homeopaths act more or less
in good faith. But I don't see any particular reason to
doubt that this is also the case for practitioners of the
stuff currently in the quackery category.

Our medical disclaimer notwithstanding I believe Wikipedia
should do its darndest to provide people with accurate
information on medical subjects. This includes making a
clear distinction between quackery/alternative medicine
and useful medical care.

I think the alternative medicine and quackery categories
should be merged because I don't believe that the difference
between them can be defined in a workable way. If there is
strong resistance to merging the alt. med. category into
the quackery category then I suggest merging the quackery
category into the alt. med. category.

Regards,
Haukur