Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] Why is WikiPedia so slow?

[Mike Miller <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

On Tue, 3 Jan 2006, Josh wrote:

> Responding to several posts with this one..
>
> Some facts can be disputed. Some can't. I checked again a moment ago and 
> the entry in question, evolution, has actually undergone a major 
> overhaul and has had dozens of edits since this happened so the exact 
> wording isn't there anymore. Perhaps wikipedia just took longer to 
> self-regulate than it usually does.
>
> You can see all of the edits/reversions/talk via links from:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Jlefler
>
> Looking at Duncharris' talk page shows a *very* clear bias with regard 
> to the evolution topic. (Not just with me, but with many other users who 
> made edits as well..some legitimate, some not.)


So, I think you are saying that your thoroughly objective and factual 
correction was to claim that it is false that every biologist believes the 
theory of evolution to be correct.  You claim that some legitimate 
scientists do not believe the theory.

You are a religious person and you want to promote the religious doctrine 
that the Earth and all animals on it, including people, were created by 
God.  Am I mistaken?  You want to use Wikipedia to promote your religion. 
Some in the Wikipedia community don't want you to do this.  They see you 
as a biased religious ideologue bent on distorting the facts to promote a 
religious, not scientific, belief system.

You want us to back you up.  You intentionally deceived us by stating that 
your edits on Wikipedia were purely factual.  In fact, you are trying to 
use us to promote your religious ideology.  I should have known you were 
dishonest when you didn't come out with the details in your first message.


> There *are* other explanations that some believe to be valid. It is 
> absurd and well outside the realm of fact to say that absolutely 
> everyone who can be considered a biologist believes completely in 
> evolution. I'm not trying to restart that old debate - but both sides 
> can admit that the other side at least exists.

As Dobzhansky put it "nothing in biology makes sense except in the light 
of evolution":

http://people.delphiforums.com/lordorman/light.htm

You really need to learn about this.  People who question evolution and 
argue about the validity of the general Darwinian view are only proving 
their ignorance.  If you can show that one biologist in ten thousand has 
allowed his religion interfere with his reason, I wouldn't be surprised, 
but that has nothing to do with the fact that evolution forms the core of 
all of biology and people who don't accept that are either deluded 
(perhaps to do religious belief systems) or ignorant of the facts.


> As to someone's suggestions that I start a wikipedia competitor: I don't 
> think you understand where I'm coming from. I am not interested in 
> destroying the wikipedia. I just wanted to share my experience with 
> regard to one example of abuse by one wikipedia administrator so that 
> others on the list can see how easy one admin can bias a major topic.

You can make a web page where you express your views, no matter how inane 
they are, and add a link to that web page from Wikipedia.

Mike

_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion