True, but as the opinion comes from the man who crafted Wikipedia’s neutral point of view (NPOV) policy, it is likely to be a well-founded opinion. If you want to see one of his documents on the general principle of NPOV, you can find it here:
In the particular place I cited, he does not get into details about that particular Wikipedia article. He seems to imply that he has already had numerous arguments with Wikipedia editors about the biases, and that he doesn’t want to go into them again, so he simply refers the reader to the general principles, in the article I just cited.
Our topic here is not the faults of Wikipedia, so I’m not going to try to demonstrate that the ID article is biased. It is, and flagrantly so, as are almost all the articles on Wikipedia dealing with either ID or creationism, but that is an argument for another time and place, not here.
Thanks for clarifying your meaning. I’m beginning to understand, but I’m not quite there yet. I need (a) a definition of indirect costs (as opposed to direct costs) and (b) examples of indirect costs, preferably some examples taken from the sciences and some from the arts. With this in hand, I think I can come back to your paragraph above and digest it fully.