Wiki rules: Difference between revisions
Created page with "These are the reasons why the Natural Philosophy Wikipedia exists and the rules that govern it. ==Why We Are Closed to Public Editing== * Open wikis by nature are consensus-b..." |
No edit summary |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
==Why We Are Closed to Public Editing== | ==Why We Are Closed to Public Editing== | ||
* Open wikis by nature are consensus-based which is not | * Open wikis by nature are consensus-based which is not conducive for the advancement of science | ||
* Open wikis lead to marginalizing criticism of mainstream science | * Open wikis lead to marginalizing criticism of mainstream science | ||
* Open wikis lead to | * Open wikis lead to marginalizing and "pseudofying" scientific alternatives | ||
* Open wiki gatekeepers are arrogant and for the most part "Intellectuals" and not "critical thinkers" | * Open wiki gatekeepers are arrogant and for the most part "Intellectuals" and not "critical thinkers" | ||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
* Scientific knowledge will not be judged by count of references to that knowledge, work, or person | * Scientific knowledge will not be judged by count of references to that knowledge, work, or person | ||
* Politics, conspiracy theories, UFOs, and religious knowledge is not allowed | * Politics, conspiracy theories, UFOs, and religious knowledge is not allowed | ||
* [[Scientific assumptions]] are to be included any and everywhere possible including the attempt to state "inferred" assumptions | |||
Latest revision as of 11:14, 30 December 2016
These are the reasons why the Natural Philosophy Wikipedia exists and the rules that govern it.
Why We Are Closed to Public Editing
- Open wikis by nature are consensus-based which is not conducive for the advancement of science
- Open wikis lead to marginalizing criticism of mainstream science
- Open wikis lead to marginalizing and "pseudofying" scientific alternatives
- Open wiki gatekeepers are arrogant and for the most part "Intellectuals" and not "critical thinkers"
Rules for this Wikipedia
- All criticisms that have scientific merit will be allowed and described in a neutral manner
- Scientific knowledge will not be judged by an author's credentials
- Scientific knowledge will not be judged by count of references to that knowledge, work, or person
- Politics, conspiracy theories, UFOs, and religious knowledge is not allowed
- Scientific assumptions are to be included any and everywhere possible including the attempt to state "inferred" assumptions