[Foundation-l] Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing, was Re: Ban and...

Sun Oct 24 18:41:06 UTC 2010

On 24/10/2010 18:42, SlimVirgin wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 11:25, ????<wiki-list at phizz.demon.co.uk>  wrote:
>> On 24/10/2010 17:01, WJhonson at aol.com wrote:
>>> Stick to what's actually occurring.
>>> What sources would be deemed reliable for an article on Statin or Flu Virus
>>> or Joan of Arc ?
>>>
>>
>> One should use accredited independent sources, which in the case of
>> Statin and Flu Virus would be the appropriate international or
>> governmental medical bodies. Have used that information the article
>> should not be buggered about with.
>>
> So scientists are never wrong, government bodies are never wrong,
> minority views are not worth mentioning until they become the majority
> view?
>

Is wikipedia presenting the worlds knowledge in some serious format or 
is it some nursing home for those Formosa'd by alt.usenet.kooks?

Many years ago a criticism of the BBC from those with a fringe view, 
I'll use anti-vaccinationists as an example, ran like this:

    The insistence of balance is unbalanced. This is because the
    status quo is asserted at all the other times, so when we get
    to have a program on anti-vaccination we have to put up with
    the medical profession putting their view too. This isn't
    fair because we don't get to present anti-vaccinationism
    whenever vaccination is discussed.

it seems that they are beavering away on wikipedia getting links and a 
mention whenever there is a vaccine scare. One has to ask why this is 
still in the MMR article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMR_vaccine#Claims_about_autism

and why is this described as a controversy rather than a deception:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMR_vaccine_controversy