Comments on: Wikipedia Hatchet Jobs on ID Leaders

By: More On Why Wikipedia Cannot Be Trusted « SUMMA PHILOSOPHIAE

More On Why Wikipedia Cannot Be Trusted « SUMMA PHILOSOPHIAE — Tue, 23 Jan 2007 22:26:36 +0000

[...] More On Why Wikipedia Cannot Be Trusted See here and here at the (terrific) Uncommon Descent blog. [...]

By: ChristopherSaint

ChristopherSaint — Wed, 20 Dec 2006 13:20:47 +0000

Hm…. here in Germany, we have the same problems…. if you are able to speak German, you will love the pdf, you can find on this blog:

http://evolution-schoepfung.bl.....html#links

This is the pdf:
http://members.aon.at/evolution/HeiligWiki

A short summery: there were two guys who tried to correct the wikipedia-article about “IC”.
They proved, that the version standing there, was abslutely wrong and they named their references.
The issue wasn’t about wether IC is an argument against evolution or not, it was just about a right IC-example: a first, “primitive” eye is an IC-structure, not the eye as a whole. But a wikipedia–author had claimed this without giving references.
Well, these two guys just wanted referneces for this claim…
Hm…. Wikipedia decided to ban them…. an unbelievable case (even more unbelievable as my bad English… )

By: Rowan

Rowan — Mon, 04 Dec 2006 16:08:54 +0000

I’m no expert on David Berlinski’s work, but his Wikipedia biography seems to be the worst hatchet job of all. It describes him as a “notable creationist” and has a whole section on creationism, based on an out of context quote where Berlinski uses a line from Genesis.

By: GilDodgen

GilDodgen — Sun, 03 Dec 2006 02:11:58 +0000

A comment from the link in comment #22:

FeloniousMonk does not understand NPOV*. He doesn't recognize the distinction between facts and values. He boasts on his userpage of "opposing irrationality, including organized religion." (Yes Ã¢â‚¬â€ I know the text is borrowed from User:Eloquence.) That opposition manifests itself in his edits. That is to say: FeloniousMonk is an anti-religous POV warrior.

* Neutral Point of View: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NPOV

By: More Defects at Wikipedia « SUMMA PHILOSOPHIAE

More Defects at Wikipedia « SUMMA PHILOSOPHIAE — Sat, 02 Dec 2006 01:49:03 +0000

[...] For yet another round of deficiencies at Wikipedia see here. [...]

By: DaveScot

DaveScot — Fri, 01 Dec 2006 22:40:47 +0000

Thanks Robo.

Try this link

http://tinyurl.com/yymqfn

and this

http://www.google.com/search?n.....holars.com

By: Robo

Robo — Fri, 01 Dec 2006 17:51:01 +0000

THe bottom of this blog entry also talks of FM and his problems:

http://spinstop.com/buzz/2006-.....:17:53+304

From the blog:

FeloniousMonk is the one who has taken charge of the Wikipedia pages on evolution controversies. He and his buddies have agreed to help each other out when blocking anyone from putting neutral information on those pages. I expect this from narrow-minded evolutionists, but I am really surprised at the extent to which he attempts to use Wikipedia to personally retaliate on me. posted by Roger Schlafly at 23:17:53

By: Robo

Robo — Fri, 01 Dec 2006 17:48:09 +0000

This make for interesting reading on the F Monk.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W.....oniousMonk

By: JGuy

JGuy — Fri, 01 Dec 2006 10:10:07 +0000

Dave,
I warned about this kind of behaviour (internet warfare) – though it was regarding the open source dirctory DMOZ:

http://www.uncommondescent.com.....9#comments

By: platolives

platolives — Fri, 01 Dec 2006 05:20:22 +0000

Kudos Joey, I’m honored to be a part of ResearchID.org as a contributor. Often I wish I had a stronger comprehensive grasp on all the relative data in order to contribute more to the ID cause. Just when I thought ID’s affect on NDE was stalling along comes Trevors and Abels 2006 paper on self-order vs. self-organization. IDists now have nothing to fear. For instance, what response could a Darwinian school board member give when asked if their paper is science, and isn’t that what students should be taught. If this only proves that all we know about the DNA process, that an unidentified, immaterial intelligent agency exist, so be it. Why multiply it into something it is not. We only know that certain math-measured properties lay behind Descartes’ “viel of perception” but not what the substance is. This is sort of like Dawkins in River Out of Eden when he writes about how genes don’t care about suffering because they don’t care about anything, i.e., it just is.