Comments on: Wikipedia: Bad for ID, DI https://gregladen.com/blog/2007/11/29/wikipedia-bad-for-id-di/ Sat, 01 Dec 2007 05:35:27 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.4.8 By: Taka https://gregladen.com/blog/2007/11/29/wikipedia-bad-for-id-di/#comment-550277 Sat, 01 Dec 2007 05:35:27 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2007/11/29/wikipedia-bad-for-id-di/#comment-550277 > The best source for information about Intelligent Design is probably the Science Blogosphere.

You mean entries like this that do little more then quoting other blogs and the wikipedia?

The “science blogosphere” usually just is a copy and paste of other blogs, with a few lines of comments added. In no way this entry adds information about ID. It just adds your opinion. Thanks. But it was not so interesting.

]]> By: Theo Bromine https://gregladen.com/blog/2007/11/29/wikipedia-bad-for-id-di/#comment-550276 Fri, 30 Nov 2007 08:31:29 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2007/11/29/wikipedia-bad-for-id-di/#comment-550276 You’d think they could at least be called the principal “cdesign proponentists”!

]]> By: Ex-drone https://gregladen.com/blog/2007/11/29/wikipedia-bad-for-id-di/#comment-550275 Thu, 29 Nov 2007 22:47:44 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2007/11/29/wikipedia-bad-for-id-di/#comment-550275 By comparison, DI’s entry on Conservapedia is:

The Discovery Institute is a Seattle-based conservative think tank. While the institute has multiple areas of focus, including economics, bioethics, and foreign policy, it is most well known for its role as one of the major proponents of intelligent design.

So on the most amenable wiki they have, they only get 40 neutral words? They don’t even get labelled “principal proponent.” No wonder they have an inferiority complex.

]]>