Mike makes some good points.
However, I think Mike agrees more often than not with what's been said.
Since anyone can start and edit a Wiki page- as he says, its pseudonymous.
And, he implies that an editor would object to slashing out whole
paragraphs. I've never slashed large sections, but Doug didn't even have the symptoms
right - and they have been published repeatedly through a variety of forums.
First glance, looks right, but he persists in getting one of the main ones
wrong - just the opposite of what we see. If he'd ever seen a case of CCD,
he'd know better.
I haven't bothered to check the Wiki recently to see if he finally realized
the mistake, but he has changed it back just as fast as I corrected it.
Mike's statement that: 'No one owns the page or has any greater weight of
voice than any other editor' is a nice thought, but simply not true.
When one editor decides that they know better than anyone else, repeatedly
changing any and all edits, than that editor does have a greater voice, sort of
like the bully in the school yard. A responsible editor might ask why
others disagree, do some fact checking.
I haven't spent much time trying to figure out if there is any moderator to
which one can send complaints. After all, the whole idea, as Mike points
out, is that anyone can edit a Wiki page. That its strength AND its weakness.
I'm sorry, but if someone starts or edits a page about a topic that has
national relevance, I expect the editor to be knowledgeable and competent, or
else let someone else do the editing.
Overall, Mike agrees with all of this - he is stating the obvious -- Wiki
pages are a form of community communication. I don't disagree, from a
philosophical viewpoint, Mike's correct about what and how Wiki
s work.
But, as a scientist, I would hope that an informed community voice might be
heard, not that of an editor who dominates the discourse. Especially when
that editor has it so wrong.
Finally, Mike commented: Jerry says he has hard evidence about CCD.
I'm not sure what Mike is saying. I have a LOT of data about CCD, have seen
as many cases as anyone in the U.S. (I'm reasonably sure of this). So, if
that's what Mike means, I'd agree. However, I don't pretend to know the cause
of CCD - if that's what Mike is implying when he talks about hard evidence
about CCD. We've some leads that look promising. I'm reasonably sure that
CCD is contagious. I doubt that it is caused by pesticides, although
pesticides may contribute as yet another stressor. And, I believe that some
beekeepers continue to have problems with pesticides - those problems have never gone
away.
Jerry
**************You Rock! One month of free movies delivered by mail from
blockbuster.com
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1212639737x1200784900/aol?redir=https://www.blockbuster.com/signup/y/reg/p.26978/r.email_footer)
****************************************************
* General Information About BEE-L is available at: *
* http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/default.htm *
****************************************************
|
