Changes

:::The ''real'' standard on Wikipedia is "editorial consensus," and that breaks down when factions prevent consensus formation, and especially if there are administrators among them, and they ban one side of a dispute, ipso facto. That happened with cold fusion; many editors knowledgeable about cold fusion were blocked and banned ''because of support -- in discussion! -- for a point of view''. It started happening long before I was involved, and simply continued, including after I was myself banned. The faction involved is the "anti-pseudoscience" faction, which generally advocates against NPOV ("Neutral point of view"), claiming that SPOV should rule. ("Scientific point of view," which is actually an oxymoron.) These people are generally pseudoskeptics. Cold fusion was, for them, a minor skirmish, they were much more concerned about global warming, homeopathy, and all forms of "superstition." If you want to find out how they define "superstition," the real meaning, in practice, is "what I and my friends believe is false." Cold fusion was a beautiful test case, because the science has actually moved on, after 2004, but these people refused to read the sources. After all, why should they read nonsense? And then they made up excuse after excuse as to why the balance of publication has radically shifted toward peer-reviewed articles that assume cold fusion is real, including the most comprehensive review of the field ever published under peer review, I've linked it from [[Cold fusion]]. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] 13:29, 5 August 2012 (EDT)

:::The ''real'' standard on Wikipedia is "editorial consensus," and that breaks down when factions prevent consensus formation, and especially if there are administrators among them, and they ban one side of a dispute, ipso facto. That happened with cold fusion; many editors knowledgeable about cold fusion were blocked and banned ''because of support -- in discussion! -- for a point of view''. It started happening long before I was involved, and simply continued, including after I was myself banned. The faction involved is the "anti-pseudoscience" faction, which generally advocates against NPOV ("Neutral point of view"), claiming that SPOV should rule. ("Scientific point of view," which is actually an oxymoron.) These people are generally pseudoskeptics. Cold fusion was, for them, a minor skirmish, they were much more concerned about global warming, homeopathy, and all forms of "superstition." If you want to find out how they define "superstition," the real meaning, in practice, is "what I and my friends believe is false." Cold fusion was a beautiful test case, because the science has actually moved on, after 2004, but these people refused to read the sources. After all, why should they read nonsense? And then they made up excuse after excuse as to why the balance of publication has radically shifted toward peer-reviewed articles that assume cold fusion is real, including the most comprehensive review of the field ever published under peer review, I've linked it from [[Cold fusion]]. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] 13:29, 5 August 2012 (EDT)

:::I just noticed [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:2012_Summer_Olympics&oldid=998460#Proposed_table_entry this]. I hadn't looked at the history of [[Bias in Wikipedia]]. It was a coincidence that the netball thing leaped out at me, I really was looking for criticism of "structural problems." --[[User:Abd|Abd]] 14:44, 5 August 2012 (EDT)

:::I just noticed [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:2012_Summer_Olympics&oldid=998460#Proposed_table_entry this]. I hadn't looked at the history of [[Bias in Wikipedia]]. It was a coincidence that the netball thing leaped out at me, I really was looking for criticism of "structural problems." --[[User:Abd|Abd]] 14:44, 5 August 2012 (EDT)

== the other place ==

== the other place ==