User:Robertcurrey

Can Wikipedia ever become a truly neutral source for fringe topics?
I believe that Wikipedia is an wonderful vision. The project brings access to useful and authoritative information to billions of people around the world.

WP works brilliantly - most of the time. However, controversial topics are open to abuse. Though my experience is mostly in a subject that I have studied intensively for over thirty years, Astrology, this abuse applies to almost all so-called 'fringe' topics.

The problem is that those who are knowledgeable, interested and who care about these subjects no longer edit the pages. The reason is the majority of active editors who watch and edit these pages fundamentally oppose alternative medicine or spiritual or paranormal or metaphysical subjects including astrology. So fringe articles tend to give undue weight towards the denigration of these topics. The biased impact is well beyond the required imbalance on fringe theories and pseudoscience, published Encyclopedias and scientific consensus. The result is a failure to describe both views fairly.

Those who are strongly against fringe topics can in their fervour intimidate and gang up on editors for what they see as their advocacy of their subject. Many editors on the astrology pages have been banned for questionable reasons such as for being a Single Purpose Account and without prior warning or edit warring. Edit warring takes at least two editors, but only the fringe proponents are banned. The problem with constructive editing is that it takes time and editors tend to confine themselves to their special interests.

Opponents of fringe subjects claim that fringe practitioners have a conflict of interest as they simply wish to promote their vested interest. However, these enterprises are small-time compared with the serious business of scepticism with donations, publishing of books and journals, group memberships, conferences and lecture circuits. At least two sceptical groups report annual funding in excess of $1 million. As you will see from this link, one organisation is quite unashamed that their supporters edit in collusion as a cabal. These self-styled "guerilla skeptics" control WP pages, denigrate their opponents and promote their proponents. For evidence of this bias.

For alternative information on astrology (that includes info that you will not find on Wikipedia), visit www.astrologer.com/tests/basisofastrology.htm.

Background Info



 * Articles without bias describe debates fairly rather than advocating any side of the debate.