Homeopathy Forums - wikipedia and homeopathy

"Wikipedia" is nothing more than bunch of ego-maniacal Information
Ministry drones continually "revising" history to their liking.
Forget it.

See:

http://www.fireflysun.com/book/Wikipedia_user_page.php

Ignorance Is Strength

you may feel gratefull that homeopathy survived the attempts of allopaths to destroy it- MARK TWAIN

(classical Homeopathy Los Angeles,Calif,USA)

The informatin on Homeopathy is currently "uneditable."

Murthy

Avoid doing things to others which will make you red when others do it to you.

Mahabharat-Hindu Epic

Wikipedia started out as a wholly public effort that I believe everyone could, and was encouraged to, expand. Over time it has been taken over by a number of agendas and editing capabilities in many areas are strictly limited.

Just a slave to my cats

The Quackbuster manipulation of Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia: www.bolenreport.net

Wikipedia is an odd thing. It is made up of a so-called "volunteer system." Several years ago, a team of quackbusters

infiltrated various levels of the Wikipedia operation, and are now entrenched in the middle, and lower, level volunteer management system.

If you try and put any positive information about advanced medicine/homeopathy, or the problems of US health care, on Wikipedia, or change false or misleading information the quackbusters have installed, you will fail.

You will be blocked from further "editing" and the pages of Wikipedia will now carry information about what a "terrible person you are." The only way to have ANY influence over what Wikipedia says about subject is to approach them with a legal threat letter at the highest levels. Nothing else works. Even that has problems, for Wikipedia management operates on a financial shoestring, and apparently has no ability to police its own encyclopedia. Unfortunately, people use the encyclopedia - and they get very bad information about health care.

Below is a paragraph from the editor’s section of Wikipedia. The editor, here, is discussing the problem of the quackbuster slime,

acting to control the information flow on Wikipedia - and what to do about it. so you understand the abbreviation POV stand for Point of View, and NPOV stands for No Point of View, which Wikipedia wants. The part in red is for emphasis. Read this:

I guess it depends on what purpose the External Links section serves. Do the links have to serve the NPOV interests of the article or can the links section be a place where specific points-of-view can have a chance to be expressed? As it is now, the chiropractic link section is broken down into Advocacy and Critiques. I think that this warns the researcher that they are leaving the NPOV environment that Wikipedia tries to provide and will be entering a POV external site.

If these links are truly just linking to the page for marketing reasons and don't serve a primary function of adding to the knowledge-base, I would then say to axe them. I haven't checked every critical link, but they do seem to link to essays or research on pages that don't directly try to sell you anything (other than their POV). If they are all offering the same POV with no really distinguishing differences, then they should be reduced in number.

The soapbox point is interesting. These are external links so it would seem that Wikipedia is not being directly exploited as a soapbox. However, the abundance of critical links could be seen as an attempt to present bias... using the amount of negative criticisms to invoke a negative POV about chiropractic. My solution up until now has been to add to the advocacy links to balance out the criticism. You can certainly try to delete the critical links and claim NPOV but I can almost guarantee you that you be quickly (and improperly) accused of "vandalism" by one of three specific chiroskeptics who police the chiropractic page all day long as far as I can tell. They love to throw "vandalism" accusations around - and usually are vastly overstating the matter. That being said, I have suggested a "disarming" strategy, where both sides would remove links in a balanced way, but my suggestion was met with silence.

Now as far as the link farming goes. Yes, virtually all of the critical sites are linked together through the SkepticRing, Anti-Quackery Ring,

Chiropractic Subluxated Ring and other ways fashioned specifically for the purpose of boosting Search Engine ranking. A lot of those sites are operated by "Stephen Barrett"....................

and his buddy Sammy Homola - Chirobase.org, Quackwatch.org,

and NCAHF. They're three organizations all saying the same thing. What's really slimy is that they state opinions then reference their sister-sites support to that opinion. A lot of the links are operated or moderated by Fyslee (one of the three chiroskepics users who regularly accuse people of vandalism for removing links to his sites). Check out his userpage to see which sites he operates and moderates for. These chiroskepitics are working together to actively employ search engine tricks such as artifically boosting Google ranking by adding external links to their sites all over Wikipedia. Their goal is for a researcher curious about homeopathy/chiropractic to encounter their anti-chiropractic sites first on a Google search.

Given these organizations' objective, I can certainly understand why they would want to do this. Unfortunately, the tactics that they employ are objectionable to both Google and Wikipedia. Hopefully these organizations will get wise to the chiroskeptic ring and ban their sites.

I think that if you showed that some of these links are not providing anything new and are just marketing tools, you should be able to justify deleting them on the discussion page... just prepare yourself for an attack and false accusations. If you can handle all of that with a cool head, I say, "Be bold with your edits!"

The articles in the media criticizing Wikipedia are on target, and there needs to be more of them. Wikipedia deserves the criticism.

------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------------

Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org

The Great Lie of Wikipedia: "the....encyclopedia that anyone can edit."

[This is a large web based encyclopaedia. Anyone can edit it in theory, but in practice Medical/Allopathic editors (most known as Physicians Wikipedians, 178 of them) will not allow any text critical to Allopathy or non-Allopathic thinking, delete any external links they don't like, as well as deleting or attempting to delete pages they don't like--in effect it should be treated as a Pharma shill. You can see the page deletion attempts here. All of the vaccine, disease pages and psychiatric drug pages (basically just an on line PDF of BNF) are written by Allopaths, and policed by Allopaths. The main Allopath dealing with vaccination is known as Midgley. All links to whale.to were officially banned after rfc, even to original Smallpox vax books. Now Whale.to is on what is called a "spam blacklist" block. Not only whale but the conspiracy free vaccine site www.vaccination.org.uk What are they afraid of? They are afraid of the truth on vaccination and the vaccine diseases.]

------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------ --

Wikipedia HOMEOPATHY

Medical and scientific analysis

Homeopathy is unsupported by modern scientific research.

The extreme dilutions used in homeopathic preparations usually leave none of the active ingredient (atoms, ions or molecules) in the final product.^[111]^[112] The idea that any biological effects could be produced by these preparations is inconsistent with the observed dose-response relationships of conventional drugs.^[113] The proposed rationale for these extreme dilutions – that the water contains the "memory" or "vibration" from the diluted ingredient – is also counter to the laws of chemistry and physics.^[111]

Thus critics contend that any positive results obtained from homeopathic remedies are purely due to the placebo effect.

^[114]^[115] Critics cite the lack of viable scientific studies for the effectiveness of homeopathic remedies as evidence that they are not effective and that any positive effects are due to the placebo effect.

Critics also contend that homeopathy is inherently dangerous, because homeopaths offer a false hope that may discourage or delay proper treatment.

you may feel gratefull that homeopathy survived the attempts of allopaths to destroy it- MARK TWAIN

(classical Homeopathy Los Angeles,Calif,USA)

Gina, I went to wikipedia and typed in homeopathy and there seems to be a "challenge" to the entry, which I take it is by Dana Ullman? And a decision is pending? Do I have that right?

So, what you're saying if I read this thread correctly, is that all the alternative medicine entries have been altered by "quackbusters" and they've made it so no one else can make edits?

Snoopy

Elaine's Online Office

Details on the challenge and pending arbitration here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitrat ion/Homeopathy

Just a slave to my cats