Dedicated to creating and adding to articles related to science and philosophy, while checking the POV currently present in various Wikipedia articles dealing with such topics as psychics, magick, "alternative" medicines, etc.
The neutral point of view must be preserved where it exists and created where it does not exist.
This WikiProject aims primarily to coordinate the efforts of Wikipedians who wish to promote science and reason in an effort to improve the general quality and range of Wikipedia articles on various topics, while maintaining the NPOV.
The goals of this WikiProject are as follows:
To create new articles relating to science and reason.
To create new Wikipedia articles regarding those topics not yet covered by Wikipedia, but which are covered by The Skeptic's Dictionary.
To place pseudoscience tags on articles related to pseudoscience, fraudster tags on articles concerning convicted fraudsters, and add to criticisms sections where criticism is due.
To identify cases of fraud and other unethical/illegal activities undertaken by religious and quasi-religious organizations, as they often go unreported.
To improve those articles which need help.
To serve as a nexus and discussion area for editors interested in doing such work.
Second sight - Has been proposed as mostly Celtic/Gaelic context of extrasensory perception but suggestions to merge in it have also been made. Recently called to attention via WP:FTN.
Chris Kilham - BLP: Promotional tone and unbalanced pseudomedical claims
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
If you wish to join this project or see it's current members then please see the subpage below. If you want to join then simply add your name to the list of "active members" and don't forget to list your interests and specialties.
This user is a member of WikiProject Skepticism, which seeks to improve the quality of articles dealing with science, pseudosciences and skepticism. Please feel free to join us. The only thing that benefits from doubt is truth.
Immanuel Velikovsky has a number of claims regarding Velikovsky being shown "correct" in his theories or flummuxoing the academic communities that need to be vetted for accuracy.
What, you mean the way the article states: "Put most concisely, it can be said that Velikovsky's theories have been wholly rejected by mainstream academia, often vociferously.", and where it notes that even in the few ironic cases where ideas V was lambasted for have made their way into the mainstream (e.g. extinction of the dinosaurs by an asteroid impact), the "mainstream academia contends that its acceptance of such ideas has little or nothing to do with Velikovsky's work, which is generally regarded as erroneous in all its detailed conclusions by academia. Moreover, Velikovsky's unorthodox methodology (for example, using comparative mythology to derive scenarios in celestial mechanics) is viewed by most orthodox scholars as an unacceptable way to arrive at conclusions"? I fail to see the problem.--feline114:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Help newcomer with Quackwatch, please! I'm new to "edit wars" and want to develop skills and techniques to make GOOD edits to these articles. I characterize changes on the talk page, address criticisms to my changes, etc. Please lend support and proper constructive criticism and help me deal with those who just don't want information presented, and how to separate them from legitimate feedback. —Długosz December 21, 2006
Ghost and Qi - These two articles, as well as a multitude of others if you look hard enough, need to make very clear that the existence of their subjects is thorough unsupported by science. This is analogous to requiring articles about fictional subjects to not be written in an in-universe style. I've tried doing this for the article ghost, but was promptly reverted for not being NPOV. --JianLi05:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove pseudoscience from the articles needing immediate attention.
Turn our Good Articles into Feature Articles.
