User talk:FloresTindall
Welcome!
[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia, FloresTindall! Thank you for your contributions. I am Barkeep49 and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- Introduction
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- How to write a great article
- Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Barkeep49 (talk) 02:29, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes. We are biased.
[edit]Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, once wrote:[1][2][3][4]
Wikipedia's policies ... are exactly spot-on and correct. If you can get your work published in respectable scientific journals – that is to say, if you can produce evidence through replicable scientific experiments, then Wikipedia will cover it appropriately.
What we won't do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of "true scientific discourse". It isn't.
So yes, we are biased.
- We are biased towards science, and biased against pseudoscience.
- We are biased towards astronomy, and biased against astrology.[5]
- We are biased towards chemistry, and biased against alchemy.[6]
- We are biased towards mathematics, and biased against numerology.[7]
- We are biased towards medicine, and biased against homeopathy.[8]
- We are biased towards venipuncture, and biased against acupuncture.[9]
- We are biased towards solar energy, and biased against esoteric energy.[10]
- We are biased towards actual conspiracies and biased against conspiracy theories.[11]
- We are biased towards cargo planes, and biased against cargo cults.
- We are biased towards vaccination, and biased against vaccine hesitancy.[12]
- We are biased towards magnetic resonance imaging, and biased against magnetic therapy.[13]
- We are biased towards crops, and biased against crop circles.[14]
- We are biased towards laundry detergent, and biased against laundry balls.[15]
- We are biased towards augmentative and alternative communication, and biased against facilitated communication.
- We are biased towards water treatment, and biased against magnetic water treatment.
- We are biased towards mercury in saturated calomel electrodes, and biased against mercury in quack medicines.[16]
- We are biased towards blood transfusions, and biased against blood letting.
- We are biased towards electromagnetic fields, and biased against microlepton fields.[17]
- We are biased towards evolution and an old Earth, and biased against young Earth creationism.[18]
- We are biased towards holocaust studies, and biased against holocaust denial.[19]
- We are biased towards an (approximately) spherical earth, and biased against a flat earth.[20]
- We are biased towards the sociology of race, and biased against scientific racism.[21]
- We are biased towards the scientific consensus on climate change, and biased against global warming conspiracy theories.[22]
- We are biased towards the existence of Jesus and biased against the existence of Santa Claus.[23]
- We are biased towards geology, and biased against flood geology.[24]
- We are biased towards medical treatments that have been proven to be effective in double-blind clinical trials, and biased against medical treatments that are based upon preying on the gullible.[25]
- We are biased towards astronauts and cosmonauts, and biased against ancient astronauts.[26]
- We are biased towards psychology, and biased against phrenology.
- We are biased towards Mendelism, and biased against Lysenkoism.
And we are not going to change. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:59, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
References
- ^ Farley, Tim (25 March 2014). "Wikipedia founder responds to pro-alt-med petition; skeptics cheer". Skeptical Software Tools. Archived from the original on 19 October 2021. Retrieved 4 November 2021.
- ^ Hay Newman, Lily (27 March 2014). "Jimmy Wales Gets Real, and Sassy, About Wikipedia's Holistic Healing Coverage". Slate. Archived from the original on 28 March 2014. Retrieved 4 November 2021.
- ^ Gorski, David (24 March 2014). "An excellent response to complaints about medical topics on Wikipedia". ScienceBlogs. Archived from the original on 19 October 2021. Retrieved 4 November 2021.
- ^ Novella, Steven (25 March 2014). "Standards of Evidence – Wikipedia Edition". NeuroLogica Blog. Archived from the original on 20 October 2021. Retrieved 4 November 2021.
- ^ Talk:Astrology/Archive 13#Bias against astrology
- ^ Talk:Alchemy/Archive 2#naturalistic bias in article
- ^ Talk:Numerology/Archive 1#There's more work to be done
- ^ Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 60#Wikipedia Bias
- ^ Talk:Acupuncture/Archive 13#Strong Bias towards Skeptic Researchers
- ^ Talk:Energy (esotericism)/Archive 1#Bias
- ^ Talk:Conspiracy theory/Archive 12#Sequence of sections and bias
- ^ Talk:Vaccine hesitancy/Archive 5#Clearly a bias attack article
- ^ Talk:Magnet therapy/Archive 1#Contradiction and bias
- ^ Talk:Crop circle/Archive 9#Bower and Chorley Bias Destroyed by Mathematician
- ^ Talk:Laundry ball/Archives/2017
- ^ Talk:Ayurveda/Archive 15#Suggestion to Shed Biases
- ^ Talk:Torsion field (pseudoscience)/Archive 1#stop f**** supressing science with your bias bull****
- ^ Talk:Young Earth creationism/Archive 3#Biased Article (part 2)
- ^ Talk:Holocaust denial/Archive 12#Blatant bias on this page
- ^ Talk:Flat Earth/Archive 7#Disinformation, the EARTH IS FLAT and this can be SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN. This article is not about Flat Earth, it promotes a round earth.
- ^ Talk:Scientific racism/Archive 1#THIS is propaganda
- ^ Talk:Global warming conspiracy theory/Archive 3#Problems with the article
- ^ Talk:Santa Claus/Archive 11#About Santa Claus
- ^ Talk:Flood geology/Archive 4#Obvious bias
- ^ Talk:Quackery/Archive 1#POV #2
- ^ Talk:Ancient astronauts/Archive 4#Pseudoscience
Hi, FloresTindall
[edit]My name is CJ Rhoads, and I've been trying for over ten years to get acceptance here in Wikipedia of the scientific evidence for Integrative Medicine. I'm going to attempt, once again, to get Complementary and Alternative Medicine to be separated from Integrative Medicine because, of the three, Integrative Medicine is the only one that has scientific evidence behind it. Please help me in my quest by supporting my statements and identifying others who are willing to go onto Wikipedia and support these statements and the sources that I plan to document here under what I hope will be a separate wikipedia page for Integrative Medicine.
Thanks CJ (talk) 19:10, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- I have created a new section at the AM article for your idea and commented there. -- Valjean (talk) 19:40, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Integrative medicine
[edit]At Talk:Alternative medicine I requested a list of which AM practices used in IM fit under "ONLY those practices for which substantial evidence for efficacy and efficiency has been developed" but haven't received a reply. Will you help me? -- Valjean (talk) 02:10, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- Please help me with this information. The AM article needs it. -- Valjean (talk) 15:54, 20 March 2022 (UTC)