Quote:


The unfortunate reality is that Wikipedia has a very strong bias towards atheistic/materialistic rationalism, or what we might also call "mainstream" scientific thinking...which in turn leads to an extremely limited view of the universe in general.  This perspective is actually enshrined in Wikipedia's formal policies, which is what the atheists are able to point to for justification if their perspective is challenged.

It's also worth pointing out that the above perspective, despite being called rationalist, in fact does not really have anything to do with rationality at all.  Most people with the above perspective that I've seen are almost entirely emotively oriented, and they also tend to refuse to research a given subject before refuting it outright.  Given that, I'd actually suspect that most of the people accusing John Edward of fraudulence are actually those who know virtually nothing about what he really does at all, and also have no desire to know.

Another example of this is Stanley Meyer, an inventor who was actually assassinated for his attempts to develop hydrogen electrolysis from water into a viable means of power generation.  You would think that the assassination itself by economic interests would serve as ample evidence of the scientific legitimacy of his work.  However, even after he had been killed, promoters of the atheistic status quo on Wikipedia ridiculed him in nearly every concievable way short of directly labelling him as a crackpot.

Another thing to know about Wikipedia is that each article is maintained/authored usually by a specific group of people, and they are very often a group with a vested interest in maintaining a specific bias regarding the subject.  One example is the article about Amway, where virtually all information critical to the organisation has been removed over time.  Another very good example of this is the article about Richard Stallman which again, is authored by a group of his followers who, rather than maintaining actual neutrality, again refuse to allow any information critical of him to appear on the page.

I've often said to people that Wikipedia is only really good for topics which are entirely harmless/emotionally neutral, such as zoological information or material about television series.  For anything related to individuals or politics, it should be strictly avoided.