Difference between revisions of "Directory:The Wikipedia Point of View"

MyWikiBiz, Author Your Legacy — Thursday March 28, 2024
Jump to navigationJump to search
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/20080104/criticisms-of-wikipedia Criticism of Wikipedia] by "Gomi" of Wikipedia Review.
 
 
* [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

History

'Alternative sexuality' topics

Sceptics or scientists who have been blocked from Wikipedia

Other Wikipedian sceptics

See also Expert_withdrawal

Editors who are not sceptical

Guide to Wikipedia

Sceptics

Criticism of Wikipedia

Wikipedia Review

Strange or crappy articles

'Metaphysics'

Paranormal

Fancruft

Wikipedia and Academia

Amusement