Add your voice

Please enter a comment.

We were unable to post your comment. Please try again.

Comments

  • Most recent
  • Thanks for adding your voice.

    Benjamin Steele
    Mar 10, 2019
    The Wikipedia article about Malcolm Kendrick was deleted by pseudo-skeptical ideologues with an agenda. How is it that he isn't notable enough for Wikipedia?

    Malcolm Kendrick is a well known public figure and public intellectual, a doctor who has practiced for decades, a researcher who has been published in peer-reviewed journals, and an author with several popular books. Also, he is referenced by many authors, often about the issue of statins.

    Kendrick's views are supported by other researchers and healthcare professionals. In fact, his views are in line with what is regularly published in the peer-reviewed journal BMJ, a British medical journal that is one of the most prestigious in the world.

    There is no rational explanation for the deletion. It demonstrates the founder and many of the editors of Wikipedia are not honest actors seeking to provide balanced and honest information. That is unfortunate, to say the least.

    Thanks for adding your voice.

    Benjamin Steele
    Mar 10, 2019
    This anti-scientific and pseudo-skeptical attitude is depressing. There is a lot of scientific research out there published in peer-reviewed journals. Just because you are ignorant of it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. There have been many Wikipedia editors who refuse to allow peer-reviewed research to be mentioned in Wikipedia articles. All this accomplishes is discrediting Wikipedia.

    Thanks for adding your voice.

    Willard Sheppy
    3 years ago
    I appreciate your response. If Wiki is the a good source of information people can't just post anything. There needs to be good Scientific Information. It is a link to a reliable, published review of acupuncture

    http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/pdf/10.1089/acu.2016.1196

    I can provide more if needed. Please let me know what you would like to see.

    Thanks for adding your voice.

    Jim Humble
    5 years 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?

    Thanks for adding your voice.

    David Greene
    5 years 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.

    Thanks for adding your voice.

    Kevin Hester
    5 years ago
    Yay Jimmy!

    Thanks for adding your voice.

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

    Thanks for adding your voice.

    Cindy Casey
    5 years 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.

    Thanks for adding your voice.

    Dominic Bere
    5 years ago
    I can't believe that anyone can be such an idiot as Jimmy Wales. So naive, so simplistic. Who indoctrinated YOU, by the way? Who told you that the lunatic scientific press was somehow 'mainstream' and intelligent. Morons, they do not represent Humanity. We do not live in their world. The 'developed' world is actually the degenerate world, it is not where peace and love and true knowledge reside. Just remember the old - timeless - Celtic prayer, 'God be in my head, and in my understanding, God be in my eyes, and in my looking, God be in my mouth, and in my speaking, GOD BE IN MY HEART, AND IN MY THINKING, God be at mine end, and at my departing.' So the HEAD is the centre of UNDERSTANDING; and the HEART is the centre of THINKING. Turn your world upside-down? It had better if you want to be sane.

    Thanks for adding your voice.

    Deborah White-Machon
    5 years ago
    and the world is flat.