I thought you told us before that you had not published anything. OK, you’ve published one article. I stand corrected. What was the subject? Where can we read it?
I already was clear. I’m not claiming anything at all about anything. I merely pointed out that the vast claim made by Wikipedia was false or undocumented. And I already told the others what it would take to fix the sentence I was complaining about, to make it totally acceptable in my view:
But the ideologues on Wikipedia are unable to restrain themselves to reporting facts which they can document with evidence. So they tell us that “the scientific community” (without qualification) rejects Behe’s arguments. Well, maybe it does, but how does Wikipedia know that? Not from anything they presented – the total of which falls short of what would be necessary to demonstrate the claim. Any history, philosophy, religion, Classics, etc. teacher worth his salt would mark up a student’s paper in red for an inadequately documented claim like that.
There are only two reasonable explanations for Wikipedia’s behavior: (a) the writers are below even undergraduate freshman level in understanding of what means to document a claim adequately, in which case they have no business writing encyclopedia articles; (b) the writers are deliberately overclaiming, in which case they are intellectually dishonest. Now, we already know on other grounds that (b) is true generally for Wikipedia articles on origins, and (a) is not out of the question in some cases as well; a writer might be both dishonest and incompetent.
The complaint against Wikipedia is not that it is imperfect in execution; the complaint is that it deliberately misleads its readers because of its ideological stance on origins questions. If Wikipedia merely made the odd mistake or produced the odd ambiguous sentence, that could be forgiven, but the pattern in the way the origins articles are produced and edited clearly indicate ideological intent (which no encyclopedia should ever have) and polemical motivation. The co-founder of Wikipedia, who wrote up their rules for Neutral Point of View, agrees with me. I already gave the passages and the relevant links in earlier discussions, and since everyone here claims to be such a hotshot at doing searches in mere seconds, I’ll leave people to find the spots themselves.