Difference between revisions of "Directory:The Wikipedia Point of View"
| Line 96: | Line 96: | ||
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Filll/Disgusted Disgusted] - interesting material on possible vote-rigging. | *[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Filll/Disgusted Disgusted] - interesting material on possible vote-rigging. | ||
* [[The Six Rotten Pillars of Wikipedia]] | * [[The Six Rotten Pillars of Wikipedia]] | ||
| − | |||
* [http://wikipediareview.com/blog/20080229/sam-vaknin-wikipedias-six-cardinal-sins Wikipedia’s Six Cardinal Sins] by Sam Vaknin | * [http://wikipediareview.com/blog/20080229/sam-vaknin-wikipedias-six-cardinal-sins Wikipedia’s Six Cardinal Sins] by Sam Vaknin | ||
* [[Directory:The Wikipedia Point of View/Criticisms of Wikipedia - A Compendium|Criticisms of Wikipedia - A Compendium]] | * [[Directory:The Wikipedia Point of View/Criticisms of Wikipedia - A Compendium|Criticisms of Wikipedia - A Compendium]] | ||
| + | * [http://thewebserviceblog.co.uk/2008/10/31/wikipedia-sucks Wikipedia sucks] - better than the title suggests. | ||
== Wikipedia Review == | == Wikipedia Review == | ||
Revision as of 06:02, 19 July 2009
Welcome to The Wikipedia Point of View.
Pretty much any subject you search Google for – let's say 'Neurolinguistic programming', the article about it in Wikipedia comes first in the ranking. That makes Wikipedia an attractive target for determined groups of individuals who want to present their idea or product in a global market, free of charge. Join the encylopedia that anyone can edit, write an article about, let's say, Neurolinguistic programming, and you have as much free advertising as you want.
Wikipedia has a Neutral Point of View policy. This requires you to write not what you believe to be true – not even if you know it to be true, in the philosopher's justified true belief sense - but only what is verifiable. The theory is that any overtly biased article on NLP, crystal healing, or whatever, will be overwritten by someone else who will come along and edit the article to a more 'neutral point of view'. He, or she who can cite reputable, authoritative peer-reviewed research against the many strange and idiosyncratic views we encounter in real life, in quack medicine, from proponents of 'alternative sexuality' viewpoints, and so on.
But it has become apparent that the NPOV policy has failed Wikipedia in many areas. This has happened for many reasons, to be documented in The Wikipedia Point of View.
Plagiarism
Pseudoscientific topics
- Neurolinguistic programming
- Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing
- What the Bleep
- Global warming
- Studies on Neurolinguistic programming
- Dealing with pseudoscience
History
'Alternative sexuality' topics
Sceptics or scientists who have been blocked from Wikipedia
- Flavius Vanillus
- HeadleyDown
- Dpeterson
- Peter Damian (Wikipedia editor)
- Peter Damian Evidence
- ScienceApologist
- R Physicist
- Hong Kong University Sceptics
Other Wikipedian sceptics
See also Expert_withdrawal
Editors who are not sceptical
- FT2 - see also FT2 on Animal Films
Guide to Wikipedia
- Neutral Point of View
- Section 230
- Wikipedia Resources
- Kate's Tool (provides breakdown of editor contributions by article and talk page)
- Wikipedia Review Independent discussion forum critical of Wikipedia. See also Wikipedia Review
- Page counter Computes daily and monthly Wikipedia page statistics.
Sceptics
- Michael Heap
- Sceptical associations and websites
- THE SCIENTIFIC REVIEW OF MENTAL HEALTH PRACTICE (Scott O. Lilienfeld) - slilien AT emory.edu
- Psychoceramics. A beautiful website.
- The Paranormal project
Criticism of Wikipedia
- Nature's Flawed Study of Wikipedia's Quality
- David Blomstrom Wikipedia: The Online Reference Anyone Can Edit.
- Carl Hewitt Corruption of Wikipedia (http://wikicensored.info)
- Kohs & al: Criticism of crowdsourcing
- Wikipedia scandals (see also Wikipedia Vandalism Study)
- Wikipedia Vandalism
- Creative Vandalism on Wikipedia
- Top 10 Reasons Not to Donate to Wikipedia
- Worst of Wikipedia
- Wikimoney-a
- Multiple account abuse (Wikipedia)
- Civil POV pushing
- Disgusted - interesting material on possible vote-rigging.
- The Six Rotten Pillars of Wikipedia
- Wikipedia’s Six Cardinal Sins by Sam Vaknin
- Criticisms of Wikipedia - A Compendium
- Wikipedia sucks - better than the title suggests.
Wikipedia Review
- Wikipedia Review
- Criticism of Wikipedia Review
- Members of WR who are now also here include User:Giggy (talk), User:Alison (talk), User:Proabivouac (talk), User:Moulton (talk), User:Jon Awbrey (talk), User:Blissyu2 (talk), User:Naerii (talk)
Strange or crappy articles
'Metaphysics'
- Ascended_Master_Teachings
- Ascended_Master
- Plane_(metaphysics)
- Emanationism
- Cosmogony
- Nondual
- Sri_Aurobindo
- Subject-object_problem
- Wahdat-ul-Wujood
- Energy Healing
- Astral_projection
- Apport
- Teleportation "The most famous example of teleportation in the history of paranormal phenomena is the Filipino guardia civil during the Spanish era, who suddenly disappeared from his post in the governor general’s palace and appeared in Mexico City half way around the world. The bewildered soldier could not explain how he got there."
- Category:Paranormal_worlds_and_bodies
- Category:Theosophical_philosophical_concepts
- Higher_mental_plane
- Astral_body
- Etheric_plane
- Mental_body
- Mental_plane
- The Seven Cosmic Planes
- Oversoulful_plane
- Esoteric_cosmology
- Implicate and Explicate Order
Paranormal
Fancruft
Wikipedia and Academia
- School and university projects
- List of missing journals A list of academic journals about which Wikipedia does not yet have articles.
