Wikipedia: Land of the Bizarre

I just caught this post on Wikipedia, famous for it’s ID bashing. It is almost hysterical in it’s tone and seems to feel the need to brow beat anyone who doesn’t accept Darwinian evolution. Among some of the more amusing statements are these:

The petition was produced by the Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity (PSSI), a nonprofit organization formed by the Discovery Institute, and is intended to support the Discovery Institute’s campaign to portray intelligent design as a scientifically valid theory by creating the impression that evolution lacks broad scientific support.

Is it? I thought it was to discredit the notion that “no practicing scientists dispute evolution”. Of course their third party source for this is Barbara Forrester’s hysterical expose of the diabolical theocratic madness lying behind the ID movement. The Wedge Document provides ample proof of a secret theocratic master plan. I enjoyed the DI’s response to the shocking revelation that Intelligent Design sought to overthrow materialistic bias in science. They wrote a wonderful response document called “The Wedge Document: So What?”. Ask any ID proponent of they are a theocrat and they’ll probably look a little puzzled. That doesn’t stop the saviours of science, it’s just more evidence that you’re hiding your true motivation. You can’t possibly want to promote proper scientific enquiry, all you’re striving for is recognition that the earth is flat, storks carry babies and leeches are good for a cut finger.

Here’s another

Therefore, the PSSI statement is overly vague and worded in a misleading fashion, since few real evolutionary biologists would subscribe to the version of evolution presented by the statement.

And their reliable, third party source for this is a regular writer for Panda’s Thumb on her personal blog. I enjoyed this paragraph on her website.

Tara C. Smith is an Assistant Professor of Epidemiology. Her research involves a number of [...]
Please note the views expressed on this site are Dr. Smith’s alone and may not be representative of the groups mentioned above.

Oops, doesn’t that violate Wikipedia’s reliable sources policy which says

Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process;

Apparently, someone who writes a blog is eligible as such. Strange. Heaven forbid if someone from Uncommon Descent should be regarded as a reliable third party source, after all, they’re only the one’s who are pushing the ID agenda. Apparently they can’t be relied on to exposit their own work

Now watch this

There were 100 signatories on July 30, 2006. By December 2006, 167 had signed the statement. By May 22, 2007, 252 appeared on the list. As of July 30, 2007, the list included 264 names.

What’s their source for this? That’s right folks, it’s the Discovery Institute itself. Apparently, the DI is a reliable third party source when it comes to figures regarding it’s work and when it’s caught with it’s trousers down discussing it’s theocratic masterplan but when it comes to actually explaining what the scientific dissent is, who do we have to rely on? We have to rely on Barbara Forrester’s research. Apparently the Discovery Institute can’t be trusted to explain what it’s operation actually is as oppose to what the Darwin Army think it is. Can we let the DI speak for themselves?

I have attempted to point these things out a number of times on Wikipedia (I know, I know) but alas my efforts have been fruitless. I enjoy the hysterical nature of the ID and Creationism articles but balanced encyclopedic work this is not. All that is left to do is warn my students that it’s not exactly reliable and if they ever hand me an essay that cites Wikipedia as a source I will tear it up in front of them.

TRF