Difference between revisions of "Wiki rules"

From Natural Philosophy Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(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...")
 
 
(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 marginalizing and "pseudofying" scientific alternatives
+
* 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 09:14, 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