https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?action=history&feed=atom&title=Talk%3AScience_journalismTalk:Science journalism - Revision history2026-10-26T21:43:18ZRevision history for this page on the wikiMediaWiki 1.35.14https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Science_journalism&diff=750874&oldid=prevEd Poor: long comment on scandalously-biased coverage2010-01-31T12:46:40Z<p>long comment on scandalously-biased coverage</p>
<p><b>New page</b></p><div>Our encyclopedia covers science better than Wikipedia in some ways. We have - or have begun - articles on:<br />
*[[scientific dispute]]s<br />
*[[scientific fraud]]<br />
*[[science journalism]]<br />
<br />
<br />
We have a much better article on<br />
*the [[scientific method]]<br />
*the [[politicization of science]]<br />
<br />
Wikipedia's article series on the history of science was found to have numerous exaggerations of the role of Islamic scientists during Europe's dark ages and renaissance - no confession of error, just quietly cleaned up.<br />
<br />
The problem with Wikipedia is that it has never made '''getting at the truth''' a priority. Its stated aim of neutrality, rather than helping readers to find the truth for themselves, has been corrupted with dismaying ease by POV-pushers. And of course, the most effective way to hide one's own crime is to blame someone else. <br />
<br />
Eventually, the world will see through this deception, as more Climategate-type scandals come to light. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 07:46, 31 January 2010 (EST)</div>Ed Poor