[rdm_blackhole]

> I looked at the 5 examples for a bit. Reading the Wikipedia talk pages, I'd tend to agree that the sources removed are representing a fringe idea and that the Wikipedia process has been followed normally.

Your comment is contradicted by this direct quote from the article:

> In the rejected New York Times articles, Wade was not presenting any controversial hypotheses, but simply reporting the findings of various genetics studies published in mainstream journals.

Maybe Wade put his own spin on the findings in his book/in the articles but does that undermine the credibility of the papers published in the mainstream journals?

In many subjects where we don't have a clear answer, we have different theories, some are bogus and others will eventually be disproved until we finally reach a consensus.

Until such time, it is perfectly reasonable to expect that all points of view are represented.

> When Wade is “the only science journalist to cover a study” [...] around six paragraphs of text were removed from this article

The fact that they removed a point of view/theory on a subject because there are no other competing theories is simply wrong.

Imagine if we applied the same rule to physics. We don't know why the universe is expanding faster than anticipated. It could be dark matter, it could be something else.

Until such a time as we can prove one of the other, then all theories should be presented with caveats/warnings that these findings are not definitive and will most likely change in the future.

Instead of doing that in this case, it was decided that some theories should simply be removed because they do not fit with the conventional wisdom of what we consider acceptable or believable.

But science does not care about what is believable or acceptable. You gather evidence, you create a theory and you or someone else proves your it or disproves it. You don't simply sweep things under the rug because they make you uncomfortable.

And before you take this comment as supporting all fringe theories, we are not talking here about the flat Earth or that vaccines cause autism. Both of these theories have been disproved extensively.

Heck, there is even a Wikipedia page that was created just for this purpose: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccines_and_autism

So in conclusion, if there were multiple theories on this subject, I would expect them to be presented on Wikipedia warts and all so that the readers can see where we stand on the subject. Instead what we got is simple one sided censorship.

This is the same exact playbook used by the Church when Galileo came out with his theory of Heliocentricism. His idea made the Church uncomfortable and instead of trying to disprove him, they simply decided to silence him. Maybe we should avoid repeating the same mistakes?

[Worf]

> In many subjects where we don't have a clear answer, we have different theories, some are bogus and others will eventually be disproved until we finally reach a consensus.

> Imagine if we applied the same rule to physics. We don't know why the universe is expanding faster than anticipated. It could be dark matter, it could be something else.

There is consensus around the topic discussed in the article. There is no consensus about why the universe is expanding faster than anticipated.

A consensus doesn't obviously mean 100% of people agree. For the physics example, where we don't have a consensus of opinion, we don't have to mention all alternative theories, as some will be ridiculous or fabricated. Like with the racialist people - most of the scientists and their studies have been discredited, so why put any weight on what they publish?

> And before you take this comment as supporting all fringe theories, we are not talking here about the flat Earth or that vaccines cause autism. Both of these theories have been disproved extensively.

So there is a line we can draw, you just think we should draw it elsewhere.

> And before you take this comment as supporting all fringe theories, we are not talking here about the flat Earth or that vaccines cause autism. Both of these theories have been disproved extensively.

> Heck, there is even a Wikipedia page that was created just for this purpose: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccines_and_autism

For the Vaccine article, there are 2 sentences about the autism claims even though lots of people still believe in this bullshit. But you don't see any mention in most (as I can't check all of them) articles about types of vaccines like "Subunit vaccine" as it's not a real alternative theory.

There is an article about Time Cube, but it's not mentioned in the Day or Earth articles.

There are a couple of paragraphs about religion and creationist bullshit at the end of the Evolution article because a huge part of the world is stupid, naive, brainwashed and uneducated enough to believe in such bullshit.

There is an article called "Scientific racism", as well as articles for most of the famous scientists the article about censorship mentions. It's not referenced in every article about race and intelligence because it doesn't have to. If there are several big, important, influential studies that aren't flawed or misrepresented, they will be added sooner or later. But what we have so far is people clinging at straws, from what I gather.

> This is the same exact playbook used by the Church when Galileo came out with his theory of Heliocentricism. His idea made the Church uncomfortable and instead of trying to disprove him, they simply decided to silence him. Maybe we should avoid repeating the same mistakes?

I get that some editors are motivated by their beliefs, but I don't agree they suppressed or silenced anything.

Disclaimer: I have edited Wikipedia only 2 or 3 times in my life and have never made an account. I don't follow their dramas.