User talk:Khematto
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, Khematto, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, your edit to Talk:Functional medicine does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.
There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Questions page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Below are a few other good links for newcomers:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Contributing to Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Simplified Manual of Style
- Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! tgeorgescu (talk) 09:14, 11 June 2024 (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 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.[16]
- 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.[17]
- We are biased towards blood transfusions, and biased against blood letting.
- We are biased towards electromagnetic fields, and biased against microlepton fields.[18]
- We are biased towards evolution and an old Earth, and biased against young Earth creationism.[19]
- We are biased towards Holocaust studies, and biased against Holocaust denial.[20]
- We are biased towards an (approximately) spherical earth, and biased against a flat earth.[21]
- We are biased towards the sociology of race, and biased against scientific racism.[22]
- We are biased towards the scientific consensus on climate change, and biased against global warming conspiracy theories.[23]
- We are biased towards the existence of Jesus and biased against the existence of Santa Claus.[24]
- We are biased towards geology, and biased against flood geology.[25]
- 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.[26]
- We are biased towards astronauts and cosmonauts, and biased against ancient astronauts.[27]
- We are biased towards psychology, and biased against phrenology.
- We are biased towards Mendelism, and biased against Lysenkoism.
- We are biased towards Oneirology, and biased against Oneiromancy.
And we are not going to change. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:14, 11 June 2024 (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:Facilitated communication/Archive 1#Comments to the version by DavidWBrooks
- ^ 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:Climate change 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
Introduction to contentious topics
[edit]
You have recently edited a page related to complementary and alternative medicine, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
- adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
- comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
- follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
- comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
- refrain from gaming the system.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:19, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Introduction to contentious topics
[edit]You have recently edited a page related to pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
- adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
- comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
- follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
- comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
- refrain from gaming the system.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:19, 11 June 2024 (UTC)