"Jeff" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Jan Drew" wrote in message
.com...

"Jeff" wrote in message

(...)

Either that or they want *accurate* information on vaccines on the site.
Clearly, the whale.to site is not accurate. The author does not have a
clue about science or medicine.

I guess the editors at wikipedia are doing a good job of keeping only
evidence-based information on medicine present.

Jeff

Like you guessed the FDA was doing it's job?
Wait a minute. That was not a guess......

Guess again.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia

No one ever said that the FDA is perfect.

Right. You said (your were glad) they were doing a good job.
When in FACT they were covering up the truth.

Wiki's aren't perfect.

But if the editors are preventing unproven treatments (aka alternative
medicine) as being represented as having been proven and only allowing
proven information to be represented as proven, then they are doing a good
job.

Jeff

If?

The lack of authority, accountability...

Academic circles have not been entirely dismissive of Wikipedia as a source
of information. Wikipedia articles have been referenced in "enhanced
perspectives" provided on-line in the journal Science. The first of these
perspectives to provide a hyperlink to Wikipedia was "A White Collar Protein
Senses Blue Light"[8], and dozens of enhanced perspectives have provided
such links since then. However, these links are offered as background
sources for the reader, not as sources used by the writer, and the "enhanced
perspectives" are not intended to serve as reference material themselves.

Wikipedia contains no formal peer review process for fact-checking.

OOppsssss!