User talk:IlikePie3636

December 2019
Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you.  Acroterion   (talk)   04:07, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes. We are biased.
Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, once wrote:


 * "Wikipedia’s policies around [alternative medicine] are exactly spot-on and correct. If you can get your work published in respectable scientific journals – that is to say, if you can produce evidence through replicable scientific experiments, then Wikipedia will cover it appropriately.


 * What we won’t do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of 'true scientific discourse'. It isn’t."

So yes, we are biased.

We are biased towards science and biased against pseudoscience. We are biased towards astronomy, and biased against astrology. We are biased towards chemistry, and biased against alchemy. We are biased towards mathematics, and biased against numerology. We are biased towards medicine, and biased against homeopathic medicine. We are biased towards venipuncture, and biased against acupuncture. We are biased towards actual conspiracies and biased against conspiracy theories. We are biased towards cargo planes, and biased against cargo cults. We are biased towards vaccination, and biased against vaccine hesitancy. We are biased towards magnetic resonance imaging, and biased against magnetic therapy. We are biased towards crops, and biased against crop circles. We are biased towards laundry detergent, and biased against laundry balls. We are biased towards augmentative and alternative communication, and biased against facilitated communication. We are biased towards water treatment, and biased against magnetic water treatment. We are biased towards electromagnetic fields, and biased against microlepton fields. We are biased towards evolution, and biased against creationism. We are biased towards holocaust studies, and biased against holocaust denial. We are biased towards the scientific consensus on climate change, and biased against global warming conspiracy theories. We are biased towards geology, and biased against flood geology. We are biased towards medical treatments that have been proven to be effective in double-blind clinical trials, and biased against medical treatments that are based upon preying on the gullible. We are biased towards astronauts and cosmonauts, and biased against ancient astronauts. We are biased towards psychology, and biased against phrenology. We are biased towards mendelism, and biased against lysenkoism.

And we are not going to change.

Morals: NoFap is peanuts, we kowtow to mainstream science and won't allow you to spoil that. That you support NoFap it's not a problem; that you edit against the hegemony of WP:MEDRS is a big problem (trouble). You don't have license to break the rules of the game with impunity&mdash;none of us has. If you'll kowtow to mainstream science you will be a good editor. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:38, 13 December 2019 (UTC)