libertarian wrote:

Wikipedia is full of conspiracy theories and claims which science would consider to be rubbish.

Can you give me an example?

He who shouts the loudest wins on Wikipedia. This is the reason that it has not evolved into real storehouse of knowledge. It is more like USENET groups but in a more academic tone. In other words, it is full of urban legends and anyone who relies on it for facts is walking a dangerous path.

Can you give me an example?

It is several weeks since Ed Poor and Angela tried mediating on at least one issue (their mind was made up already but they were pretending to mediate), but when I confronted them with FACTS and EVIDENCE, they quietly withdrew from the mediation. This is a clear case of dishonesty, but never mind.

This sounds like an example, can you give more details? What page?

--Jimbo