Difference between revisions of "Desiderata - desired contributions"
| [unchecked revision] | [unchecked revision] |
| Line 68: | Line 68: | ||
[[Wikipedia]] (no criticism) | [[Wikipedia]] (no criticism) | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[Philip Cross]] | ||
Revision as of 08:02, 13 July 2018
in German language: Desiderata - erwünschte Beiträge
Contents
Desiderata
here I list all topics to which I am currently looking for contributions. Most of them are those that I have noticed in Wikipedia as one-sided representations or that contain such. The greater part of the Wikipedia articles is usually quite okay, so that a lot of material can be taken over easily. Only individual devaluations need to be corrected or omitted facts added or other sources added. What I have noticed, I write behind the term in brackets. This page can be completed by everyone.
Examples of one-sided wikis, i.e. entries to be processed:
Medicine and Therapy:
Bach flower therapy (comments on ineffectiveness, literature references only critical side)
Edzard Ernst (no critical aspects)
evidence-based medicine (possibly expanding critical aspects)
anthroposophical medicine (tendentious selection of sources, devaluations, literature is missing)
Vaccination (sections on side effects, vaccine fatigue and contraindications grossly wrong, vaccination criticism and economic interests very tendentious)
Healing Stones, Crystal healing
Politics and History
Imperialism (current role of USA completely absent)
Genocide (hardly any Indians, not at all Aborigines)
American Indian Wars (choice of words "conflict of interest", territorial claims)
Aborigines (mass murder hardly mentioned)
NATO (choice of words "Defence Alliance", unkitic or misrepresentation of the Iraq war and NATO's eastward expansion; criticism section completely inadequate, arms expenditures unmentioned, privatization of the wars unmentioned)
UNO (not dealing sufficiently with the war ban and illegal wars of aggression)
World peace (no evidence of UN war ban and illegal wars of aggression)
Media
Wikipedia (no criticism)
Natural and Social Sciences
Pseudoscience (totally tendentious)
Parascience (totally tendentious)
Esotericism (much good, some in need of correction, literature completely insufficient)
Morphic Field, Rupert Sheldrake (unbalanced reporting aimed only at criticism)
Shamanism (section about Eliade unobjective)
