Jimmy Wales responds:

Jimmy Wales

No, you have to be kidding me. Every single person who signed this petition needs to go back to check their premises and think harder about what it means to be honest, factual, truthful.

Wikipedia's policies around this kind of thing 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.

Posted on March 23, 2014
  • Jim Humble YERINGTON, NV
    • 3 months ago

    There is another side to the coin. The total acceptance of the scientific and scientific medical viewpoint is also a problem for this entire world. Why have anything that is not questioned?? For example: Why has the scientific medical people not found one single cure for a major disease in the past 100 years? There are literally hundreds of claims of cures in the alternate medicine world, and the fact is that thousands of cures have happened. But the fact that the scientific medical people claim that it hasn't happened Wikipedia accepts without question. It is about time that the world takes a true look at who are the "lunatic charlatans" and what is a "true scientific discourse." Do you really believe that it could happen??? Billions of dollars of research and not one single cure for a major disease in 100 years?

  • David Greene COLLEGE STATION, TX
    • 6 months ago

    While I agree there should be an accurate and unbiased portrayal of all topics on Wikipedia, I am reluctant to sign this petition due to the fact that it seems to be endorsing a sort of bias and misinformation that is no better than the bias and misinformation it purports Wikipedia articles on so-called "holistic healing."

    I applaud your willingness to maintain integrity of Wikipedia's accuracy and credibility, and I believe everything you have said above is an opinion with which I concur. However, I urge the both you and the petitioners to provide a more detailed elucidation on exactly how Wikipedia's articles on the pertinent topics are incorrect, or in the case of you Mr. Wales correct. Given that Wikipedia relies on rigorous standards of credibility and source citation, I strongly recommend you both develop a convincing argument before closing this topic.

    Having said that, there does appear to be some censorship and bias in terms of excluding credible sources supporting known or purported pseudosciences. While I also agree that all this holistic healing stuff is a bunch of bullshit, they have a right to be represented fairly as is the standard Wikipedia claims to endorse. If there are credible sources which have been excluded, such as those below, perhaps you should personally investigate into this issue.

  • Kevin Hester BELMONT, CA
    • 11 months ago

    Yay Jimmy!

  • Karin Davidson MEDIA, PA
    • 11 months ago

    So the American Psychological Association journal isn't "respectable"?! http://www.howtotap.com/wp-content/uploads/Acupoint_Stimulation_Research_Review.pdf

  • Cindy Casey HUGHES SPRINGS, TX
    • 12 months ago

    Not true Jimmy Wales. I wish it were that simple. Not every subject is in black or white. There are a lot of gray areas where peer reviewed literature is available to support both sides of the argument. In this case...even the minority POV deserves mention. NPOV is missing from both The Morgellons and the Lyme disease article. A certain group of wiki editors see to it that medical journal publications that do not support their POV are denied. They've even gone so far as to say that PubMed indexed articles should not be used because they favor Medline. For instance, a chapter on Morgellons disease exists in a medical textbook. The chapter presents both sides of the debate and yet they will not allow it to be cited in the Wiki Morgellons article. I thought a textbook chapter trumped peer reviewed publications but they claim that a medical textbook has not undergone peer review.