|
|
|
geni
New Member
21 Posts |
Posted - 01/28/2005 : 14:56:23
|
quote:
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, is in need of skeptical help.
In case you haven't heard of us before, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License, so it's free to read or download and it will always remain so. Anyone can edit any article at any time, you don't even have to log in. Although this may seem like a recipe for disaster, over our two year history it's worked well. Every revision is saved, so vandalism is easily reverted, and together we've created a truly remarkable resource. We now have around 400,000 articles, and our site now scores more hits than britannica.com.
Except in the case of idiosyncratic content, our policy dictates that fringe theories and pseudoscientific ideas be researched and presented academically in a neutral point of view or "NPOV".
NPOV is reasonably close to the skeptical paradigm. Instead of assertions, we present only undisputed facts. So, instead of saying "the Earth is overheating", which some mavericks dispute, we say "According to the IPCC, Earth has seen a significant increase in average global surface temperature over the last 150 years". We don't place the "burden of proof" on either side, and we try to leave the reader to draw their own conclusions.
We hope that the skeptic community will find Wikipedia a valuable resource on many subjects. However, it requires lots of hard work in doing research on the validity of new articles and fringe theories. That's why we need your help.
If you want to write, edit, or correct articles, we could really use some help in New Age, alternative medicine, etc. Editing in our software is fairly intuitive, but if you need help getting started, you can see http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_edit_a_page
This message is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL), which means that you can copy and modify it as long as the entire work (including additions) remains under this license.<br> GFDL: http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html
Taken from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Building_Wikipedia_membership/Skeptical_solicitation
For the most part major articels are ok however many about less well know belifes are not since they tend to have been writen by a beliver and not edited much since. With the number of hits wikipedia and it's mirrors recive these day bad information in these areascould lead to a lot of people being ill informed
|
|
|
|
|
|
|