[WikiEN-l] SPOV threatens NPOV

Thu Dec 22 00:10:47 UTC 2005

> In that, I actually agree.  Wikipedia isn't a judge or critic 
> of scientific methodology.  In such cases we should report 
> what was done and how the world responded to it.

I admit I haven't read most of this discussion.  However, wouldn't the
normal approach work here?  If reputable science magazines claim a field
is "pseudoscience" and only the field itself claims it is "science",
would we not conclude it is "pseudoscience" simply based on the quality
and range of sources that say so? Or is the issue that we are incapable
of deciding whether "Creation Science Monthly" is a "reputable"
"scientific journal" or not?  If so, how do we decide that *any*
publication is "reputable"?

Steve