View source for Talk:Science journalism

Our encyclopedia covers science better than Wikipedia in some ways. We have - or have begun - articles on:
*[[scientific dispute]]s
*[[scientific fraud]]
*[[science journalism]]


We have a much better article on
*the [[scientific method]]
*the [[politicization of science]]

Wikipedia's article series on the history of science was found to have numerous exaggerations of the role of Islamic scientists during Europe's dark ages and renaissance - no confession of error, just quietly cleaned up.

The problem with Wikipedia is that it has never made '''getting at the truth''' a priority. Its stated aim of neutrality, rather than helping readers to find the truth for themselves, has been corrupted with dismaying ease by POV-pushers. And of course, the most effective way to hide one's own crime is to blame someone else. 

Eventually, the world will see through this deception, as more Climategate-type scandals come to light. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 07:46, 31 January 2010 (EST)