Sadly, I began editing at Wikipedia under my REAL NAME at a time when I (naively) thought that people would recognize my name as an expert on homeopathy...but instead, the skeptics of homeopathy insisted that because I am a homeopath, I could not and should not edit any article on homeopathy due to an assume "conflict of interest." When I claimed that under THIS guideline, MDs should not be able to edit anything on Wikipedia that deals with medical subjects. Needless to say, hypocrisy reigns at Wikipedia.
Oh...I see that your other name is WHITEPRIDE. How perfect! We're dealing with someone who says so much with this name. Thank you for being so obviously...white, the absence of color in this rainbow world. There's NOTHING to whiteness...a perfect metaphor of who you are!
As for "grifting," it seems that my alma mater (UC Berkeley) adores my work well enough that their alumni magazine featured a 5-page interview with me. https://homeopathic.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/scan0010.pdf (a pdf file will open if and when you click here!)
YOU must be projecting. What FRAUD have you engaged in? Curious minds want to know!
Ahhhh...do I detect a little jealousy. Did your community college not interview YOU? After all, you've done nothing...and that is par for community colleges.
And yeah, we WON a settlement that my lawyer wrote...and I got everything that I wanted. I was not found guilty of anything, and I got permission to continue practicing homeopathic medicine.
Now you are in the "Top Twelve Trusted Experts." Many people know that Wikipedia's information is slanted...and is pro Medical Industry...and makes snide comments about anyone who has a biography that might cause a monetary loss in any way to its patron, Big Pharma.
It's both disgusting and chilling: Wikipedia is indeed interested not in truth but in narrative control. Its decline, already underway, will be inevitable as readers wake up and wise up. Grokipedia just might be the answer. Yesterday an editor friend emailed me to comment: In publishing we're not allowed to use or cite Wikipedia due to its blatant manipulation of truth, and this has been the practice for many years. For example, in my line of books, acupuncture, chiropractic, TCM, and all other forms of what is arrogantly called "alternative" medicine are dismissed as "pseudoscience" by Wikipedia. Other valid subject areas are also insolently dismissed.
I wonder if anything positive can come from any collaboration with any human who needs to have a third party to tell him/her that wikipedia is a piece of crap. I'll use it for something like, say, a synopsis of the Star Trek episode, the Day of the Dove, which we are all living every day. And even then, I'll be watching for manipulation. I sure won't listen to them to find out what to eat or whose advice to seek for health matters.
Wikipedia has been doing this to respected forms of holistic medicine for years. Check the entry for chiropractic, characterized as "pseudoscience" and "fringe healing", and for acupuncture: "pseudoscience" ... "quackery".
Pharmaceutical drugs, on the other hand, "rely on the science of pharmacology for continual advancement."
No mention of conventional medical treatment as the third leading cause of death in the US.
An analysis of A. I. Chat bots shows the lion’s share majority of all A. i. answers come from Wiki-Impedia. Garbage in = Garbage out.
It is a false sense of diversity single point of failure/propaganda input. Similar to the non diversified web chip processors single point of failure, CrowdStrike. Which could kill switch the vast majority of economic, transportation and healthcare.
Long ago I realized that for any controversial topic Wikipropaganda was not reliable. Just for example anyone saying a single good word about homeopathy will have "pseudoscience" in the opening paragraphs of their article. Any time you see pseudoscience (or other code words) in a Wikipedia page you have to look elsewhere for objectivity. Jimmy Wales is on record rejecting all "alternative medicine".
Whenever searching anything, that is my first filter/parameter. Do not use any information cited within Wikipedia while searching for any information.....
Considering how their covid scam backfired, you can be proud to be in the top 12 real experts who were exposing the lies and offering the truth.
Wow...what a tour de force!
I too had a problem with Wikipedia...and I wrote about it back in 2014 when I was a regular writer for the HuffingtonPost: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/dysfunction-at-wikipedia_b_5924226
Sadly, I began editing at Wikipedia under my REAL NAME at a time when I (naively) thought that people would recognize my name as an expert on homeopathy...but instead, the skeptics of homeopathy insisted that because I am a homeopath, I could not and should not edit any article on homeopathy due to an assume "conflict of interest." When I claimed that under THIS guideline, MDs should not be able to edit anything on Wikipedia that deals with medical subjects. Needless to say, hypocrisy reigns at Wikipedia.
It looks like a pharma sock puppet account.
Oh...I see that your other name is WHITEPRIDE. How perfect! We're dealing with someone who says so much with this name. Thank you for being so obviously...white, the absence of color in this rainbow world. There's NOTHING to whiteness...a perfect metaphor of who you are!
I have NEVER been "prosecuted" for fraud. I was once arrested for "practicing medicine without a license," and we WON that court case. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/when-getting-arrested-for_b_9780342
As for "grifting," it seems that my alma mater (UC Berkeley) adores my work well enough that their alumni magazine featured a 5-page interview with me. https://homeopathic.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/scan0010.pdf (a pdf file will open if and when you click here!)
YOU must be projecting. What FRAUD have you engaged in? Curious minds want to know!
Ahhhh...do I detect a little jealousy. Did your community college not interview YOU? After all, you've done nothing...and that is par for community colleges.
And yeah, we WON a settlement that my lawyer wrote...and I got everything that I wanted. I was not found guilty of anything, and I got permission to continue practicing homeopathic medicine.
My sympathies to ya...
Now you are in the "Top Twelve Trusted Experts." Many people know that Wikipedia's information is slanted...and is pro Medical Industry...and makes snide comments about anyone who has a biography that might cause a monetary loss in any way to its patron, Big Pharma.
Thanks Barbara!
It's both disgusting and chilling: Wikipedia is indeed interested not in truth but in narrative control. Its decline, already underway, will be inevitable as readers wake up and wise up. Grokipedia just might be the answer. Yesterday an editor friend emailed me to comment: In publishing we're not allowed to use or cite Wikipedia due to its blatant manipulation of truth, and this has been the practice for many years. For example, in my line of books, acupuncture, chiropractic, TCM, and all other forms of what is arrogantly called "alternative" medicine are dismissed as "pseudoscience" by Wikipedia. Other valid subject areas are also insolently dismissed.
You are PHENOMENAL Sayer
THANK YOU for Many years of research & sharing Your knowledge & Father !
We Appreciate You
Eyes wide open , Head on a swivel
With Great Respect Collette Bristol UK - unjabbed
I wonder if anything positive can come from any collaboration with any human who needs to have a third party to tell him/her that wikipedia is a piece of crap. I'll use it for something like, say, a synopsis of the Star Trek episode, the Day of the Dove, which we are all living every day. And even then, I'll be watching for manipulation. I sure won't listen to them to find out what to eat or whose advice to seek for health matters.
Wikipedia has been doing this to respected forms of holistic medicine for years. Check the entry for chiropractic, characterized as "pseudoscience" and "fringe healing", and for acupuncture: "pseudoscience" ... "quackery".
Pharmaceutical drugs, on the other hand, "rely on the science of pharmacology for continual advancement."
No mention of conventional medical treatment as the third leading cause of death in the US.
Relevant:
When Wikipedia Creates A Profile Of Every Person On The Planet
https://www.newworldhumor.com/p/dystopian-wikipedia-profile-satire
Good one!
LOL
They are all a sickness! I used Wikipedia a lot in grad school as a source for papers with no issues, but I wouldn't use it at all today!
An analysis of A. I. Chat bots shows the lion’s share majority of all A. i. answers come from Wiki-Impedia. Garbage in = Garbage out.
It is a false sense of diversity single point of failure/propaganda input. Similar to the non diversified web chip processors single point of failure, CrowdStrike. Which could kill switch the vast majority of economic, transportation and healthcare.
Long ago I realized that for any controversial topic Wikipropaganda was not reliable. Just for example anyone saying a single good word about homeopathy will have "pseudoscience" in the opening paragraphs of their article. Any time you see pseudoscience (or other code words) in a Wikipedia page you have to look elsewhere for objectivity. Jimmy Wales is on record rejecting all "alternative medicine".
Wikipedia is pathetic. They go on full blown character attacks and opinions, not facts, like a real enclyclopedia platform. Total joke.
A BA in philosophy.
Thank you Sayer JI for your years of sacrifice for having the courage to defend the TRUTH!
Sue Wikipedia out of existence.
Boycott Wiki-Stupid-Pedia!
Whenever searching anything, that is my first filter/parameter. Do not use any information cited within Wikipedia while searching for any information.....