QUOTE(lilburne @ Thu 20th January 2011, 7:44pm)
QUOTE(Lar @ Thu 20th January 2011, 7:24pm)
But some people seem to, and if there are enough of them that do, under WP's wacky rules, it should be reported as such in the article (and duly categorized).
I say fuck 'em.
Hold their feet to the flames and burn 'em (IMG:
smilys0b23ax56/default/yecch.gif) (IMG:
smilys0b23ax56/default/yecch.gif) . There are plenty of encyclopaedias of nonsense and fallacies they can hang out at.
Yes, but Wikipedia's not supposed to be a forum for doing that. In my opinion, the ID article should first present the theory as its proponents present it, then go into an extended discussion on its merits and problems, as Kelly Martin and few others here have eloquently elucidated. The current IDCab watching that article won't let that happen, IMO, because they're apparently afraid that if there is any section in the article that presents ID in any kind of favorable light, some reader might, just might be influenced to believe that there is something to the ID theory. They can't allow that to happen.
They don't seem to understand that their approach to the article is counterproductive for their agenda. By ensuring that the article remains as an obvious attack on ID, it provokes people into wanting to know why Wikipedia hates ID so much. Also, people will continually try to NPOV the article in ways the IDCab don't approve of, so they'll be forced to constantly watch the article 24 hours a day, seven days a week. If the article was written more fairly, then it wouldn't get messed with as much. As Kelly says, hardcore ID proponents would probably still have a problem with it, but I assume they're fewer in number than the general reader who happens on the article and realizes that, as it is currently written, it is a thinly disguised hit piece.
This post has been edited by Cla68: