Comments on: How the Guerilla Sceptics are undermining Wikipedia’s neutrality

By: Rome Viharo

Rome Viharo — Sun, 29 Dec 2013 18:34:10 +0000

Hello Michel. I just wanted to bring to your attention. I was involved in that wiki war on the Sheldrake article and have compiled a personal case study on the abuses you mention.

http://www.wikipediawehaveaproblem.com

By: Rob Myers

Rob Myers — Thu, 31 Oct 2013 01:10:00 +0000

The talk page is informative, especially the section for new editors:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake

Wikipedia is a hornet’s nest, but failing to act as an uncritical promotional platform for fringe beliefs isn’t one of its sins.

By: Marco Fioretti

Marco Fioretti — Wed, 23 Oct 2013 14:45:54 +0000

"They have occupied and controlled it ever since..." This issue is the main reason why, even for much less controversial topics, personally I've never contributed to Wikipedia and probably never will

By: Matthew Slater

Matthew Slater — Wed, 23 Oct 2013 08:05:50 +0000

>If nothing is done, Wikipedia will lose its credibility
Perhaps we should start by acknowledging that ‘neutral’ is an aribtrary point between other arbitrary points.

Instead of fighting to change wikipedia, wikipedia content could be mirrored, on another site and altered by a team which inspires trust and states its biases.

Another solution is this wikipedia plugin which overlays wikipedia with dissenting opinions from the crowd. http://www.wikipediaplus.org/wiki/Main_Page