[BPSDB] So the Complementary and Alternative Medicine (SCA... CAM) brigade have finally grown tired of trying to insert their claims into the sewerage system of the collective consciousness that is Wikipedia, and have deployed the Schlafly Gambit - setting up their own wiki in the deluded belief that unlike every other similar project it will somehow be a success. Why have they done this? What can we expect from them? Here's the explanation in their own words, with my added commentary.

Are you wondering why do we need Wiki4CAM when we already have the Wikipedia?

Yes. It's right up there with the other big questions occupying my mind today, like can I be bothered to walk to Tescos before it shuts, and should I start trimming my toe-nails on the right or left foot first.

Wikipedia is undoubtedly the world’s biggest and most read and referenced encyclopedia. The community participation has made it a huge success. But its open architecture has (at times) also led to the use of Wikipedia for gaining political mileage and for spreading biased views by a handful of editors.

It's funny, I swear I've heard this before. Not that I'm particularly a fan of the world's biggest trivia landfill, but it's funny how the cognitive dissonance these people suffer from forces them to dismiss any source that disagrees with them as biased due to the actions of some conspiracy.

The same thing has happened to most complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) therapies on Wikipedia. A handful of wiki editors are going out of their way to discredit and disrepute nearly all alternative medicine as unscientific.

But alternative medicine is unscientific - if it wasn't, it wouldn't be "alternative", it would just be "medicine". If you disagree with me, then please feel free to point to the body of scientific research and meta-studies that demonstrates their efficacy, and how they work. If you believe that there's more to the real world than science can fine then fair enough, but why then complain when people call you "unscientific"? I find it completely weird that a community of people so diametrically opposed to scientific medicine are so desperate to try and dress themselves in the same clothing, calling themselves "doctors" and claiming to do "science".

The article then goes on to give examples of the biased way in whch alternative systems are introduced at Wikipedia. What gets me though is that I honestly can't see how the examples are biased. What's biased about: "Scientific evidence is weak and preliminary but mildly encouraging for a limited number of claims"??

This is just the tip of the iceberg. Nearly all CAM articles on Wikipedia have been hijacked by a handful of editors and they carefully plant anti-CAM data in all CAM articles.

There's no such thing as "anti-CAM data". There is just data, and all data - whether it supports or challenges your hypothesis - must be dealt with. The fact that the inclusion of such data is seen as "bias" gives you a real insight into the weird way in which these people think.

Everything that does not fall into the realm of modern medicine has been labeled as pseudo-scientific or unscientific at Wiikipedia.

Modern medicine is based on science, and forgive me if I restate my point that if alternative medicine was based on science too, then it would cease to be "alternative", and would just be "medicine". And again, I don't understand why people who are opposed to science are so upset about not being in the science club...

Nearly every person using search engines (like Google) to find information about any CAM therapy, lands up at Wikipedia because Wikipedia pages usually rank in top 10 search results for nearly all CAM therapies. This is alarming!!

They're right, it is alarming that so many people rely on a hobby site for information! I suspect my alarm has a different basis from their's though. That basis being "reality".

Millions of people who use internet to search for alternative medicine are being systematically exposed to anti-CAM data.

Brilliant! People interested in any therapy, alternative or mainstream, should be able to easily find out about the pros and cons involved. Why would anyone want to prevent this, unless, say, they were promoting a dodgy therapy for their own private financial gain?

It is the quality of content about CAM therapies and undue skeptical intervention at Wikipedia, that has led us to create a secure environment for the CAM therapies in the form of wiki4cam.org. This is why we need a place where the CAM community can build its own knowledge base without the undue interference of skeptics. We need a place where the CAM practitioners themselves write articles and create a true picture of its history, development, efficacy and positive research.

...

This wiki is open ONLY to CAM practitioners.We strongly discourage skeptics from registering here. Anybody found posting any anti-CAM data will be quickly removed.

But science is built around strong criticism - that's how we make progress. How on earth can you demand to be regarded as "scientific" in one breathe, and then throw hissy fits about how criticism is not allowed in the next? Can you imagine if this was how real medicine worked? All negative results must be censored. Criticism of ideas or theories will result in expulsion from the community. Nobody must deviate from the mantra that all alternative medicine works. Nobody must challenge our beliefs! Any tests or studies that disprove our hypotheses must be purged from history!

I hope this new wiki does become a success - I can't think of any better way to expose CAM for the nonsense that it is, and its practitioners as the sensitive bunch of anti-science clowns that they are.