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

[Josh <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

Mike,

You are a secular person and you want to promote the secular doctrine that the Earth and all animals on it, including people, were created by random chance.  Am I mistaken?  You want to use Wikipedia to promote your beliefs, even if that means intentionally distorting the truth.  Some in the Wikipedia community don't want you to do this.  They see you as a biased secular ideologue bent on distorting the facts to promote a self serving pseudo-scientific, not truly scientific, belief system.

I don't necessarily want anyone to "back me up." My edits were purely factual from any perspective and if you can't concede that some legitimate scientists believe in theories other than evolution (not necessarily creationism) then you may need to examine your own objectivity. My edits were not designed to indicate that creationism is valid, personal beliefs aside, but rather that evolution is not the only theory in existence. To say otherwise truly is inane and deceptive.

By the way, some legitimate scientists do believe other theories. You don't see that because your criteria for "legitimate" includes "agrees with me."

Dishonest? If I were dishonest, I would've described the edits rather than providing direct links such that everyone can read and form their own opinions as they see fit. I won't lower myself to insulting you personally in response to this post. I'll leave personal insults on your side of the conversation. I will say that I left the particular details out in an attempt to keep the conversation about wikipedia and not give you (or those you frequently argue with) leverage to hijack what would be an interesting thread about the wiki.

I have studied evolution, and I'm not convinced. Too frequently some new discovery alters the theory in a very substantial way yet each time scientists claim "we have it right this time." I allow for the possibility that human beings, even those with advanced degrees, aren't perfect. Its intellectually dishonest to believe otherwise.

As far as your comment with regard to adding a link to express my views - why? There are other pages on the wiki that cover the other theories adequately and there are many other resources available that do an excellent job of it as well. My views don't belong on a page about evolution - but neither does a blatant lie that indicates that no other theories exist. It is dishonest and intentional deception to claim that evolution is the only theory for the creation of life, even if you happen to believe its the correct theory.

By the way, your link includes the following text..

"Of course, some scientists, as well as some philosophers and theologians, disagree with some parts..."

Which in itself supports that the edits I made were factual.

Mike Miller wrote:

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

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