Wikipedia:WikiProject Rational Skepticism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject Rational Skepticism is the central hub for Skeptical Wikipedians to get together and work on improving Wikipedia.
It was created on January 9, 2006.
Contents |
[edit] Scope
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.
[edit] Guidelines proposal
See the talk page for this discussion.
[edit] Project work
[edit] Assessment
- Assessment Page, for WikiProject Rational Skepticism - Tool that will automatically categorize articles, after they have been assessed as per instructions on assessment page.
[edit] Collaboration
{{RationalSkepticismCollaboration}}
|
(blank) is the current Wikiproject: Rational Skepticism Collaboration Effort. |
[edit] To do
 |
Wikiproject:Rational Skepticism |
- Open tasks:
- Nominate and vote on RationalSkepticismCollaboration
- Identify science and philosophy articles that are in need of attention or in need of NPOV.
- Improve:
- Requests:
- Can someone with some graphic arts skills make a logo for the project?
- Peer review/POV check:
- User RfC
[edit] Article banner
 |
This article is being improved by WikiProject Rational Skepticism. Wikiproject Rational Skepticism seeks to improve the quality of articles dealing with science, pseudosciences and skepticism. Please feel free to help us improve this page. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
The only thing that benefits from doubt is truth. |
|
[edit] Project team
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.
[edit] Community items
[edit] Project member banner and userbox
{{Rational Skepticism-Member}}
|
This user is a member of WikiProject Rational 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. |
{{User WikiProject Rational Skepticism}}
 |
This user is a member of WikiProject Rational Skepticism. |
[edit] Skeptic watchlists
A page for skeptics to post their watchlist suggestions, or links to their own watchlists:
[edit] Relevant user categories
[edit] Relevant userboxes
[edit] Relevant article possibilities parked here
[edit] Recognized content
[edit] Featured articles
[edit] Good articles
[edit] Did you knows (DYKs)
[edit] Formerly recognized content
[edit] Former featured articles
[edit] Former good articles
[edit] Active alerts
- 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.--feline1 14:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- Morgellons article under attack from newbie. Needs watching and probably reverting until (s)he learns to collaborate and edit properly. -- Fyslee 19:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
- New article Joint manipulation needs to be watched. Bubba73 (talk), 01:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- 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
- Basava Premanand - skeptic and rationalist from Tamil Nadu, India - article could use expansion, pictures, and more sourced citations. Smee 11:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC).
Urgent attention needed here:
- Hair analysis in alternative medicine, medical research and in consumer experiments. The article Hair analysis in (alternative medicine) has been hijacked and renamed to the above by promoters of alt med.
-- Fyslee 17:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Some piling on here, where the editing status of a trusted collaborator, User:Fyslee, is under ArbCom consideration: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Barrett_v._Rosenthal/Proposed_decision .... thanks, Jim Butler(talk) 09:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
