Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: HIV/AIDS in Wikipedia

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    5

    Default HIV/AIDS in Wikipedia

    Wikipedia’s HIV/AIDS articles are propaganda. Orthodox-minded editors are effectively in control of them, and dissident editors, less outnumbered than disorganized, dissipate their energy in fruitless attempts to convince their opponents instead of defeating them. Yet there is no better place to begin to change public perception of HIV/AIDS than Wikipedia, the de facto headquarters of popular culture. The key is to make the kind of edits that are important enough to make a difference, and that enough dissidents can agree on to keep enforced. I don’t think it would take more than a handful of editors to do this. If successful, it would be a revolution.

    There are two issues that could successfully unify dissidents. On my Wikipedia talk page I discuss the need for real user-names instead of pseudonyms; and how primary sources are currently being misused by orthodoxist editors, and what to do about it. I'd appreciate any feedback.

    Thanks,

    Bruce Swanson

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    US
    Posts
    1,791

    Default Re: HIV/AIDS in Wikipedia

    I agree that editors on wikipedia should provide their actual names. If they are correct they should stand by their contributions responsibly.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Houston TX
    Posts
    2,341

    Default Re: HIV/AIDS in Wikipedia

    Bruce,

    I've been browsing your discussion page. Is it true that an image (in the absence of copyright issues) can only be deleted "if there is proof that the image is not actually what it [purports to be]."?!?

    ...Does that mean that the Bush administration's pictures of "mobile bioweapons labs" in Iraq could not be deleted until Colin Powell himself appeared on Meet the Press to say that the intelligence he'd presented before the UN Security council was "inaccurate and wrong, and in some cases deliberately misleading"?

    What about pictures of UFOs? Does there have to be proof that they are not alien craft before edits can be made to text claiming that they are? Can I post a picture of Bigfoot and no one can take it down unless they can prove that it's not really Bigfoot?

    ...But on the other hand, nothing objective (much less favorable) can be said about Peter Duesberg on Wikipedia, and the only "proof" required to delete any such entry is the consensus among a certain subset of the scientific community who make their living from AIDS research.

    By the same token, Wikipedia should acknowledge the existence of God and denounce Dawkins because the consensus of Christian ministers insists that he is wrong.

    For that matter, until the early 20th Century it was the consensus of scientists that masturbation causes blindness. They also used to believe in vampires, and many reputable physicians even claimed to have examined vampires. The consensus was so universal that Jean-Jacques Rousseau remarked, "If ever there was in the world a warranted and proven history, it is that of vampires. Nothing is lacking; official reports, testimonials of persons of standing, of surgeons, of clergymen, of judges; the evidence is all embracing." Until 200 years after Galileo's death, the geocentric model of the universe remained the consensus position of scientists, and Ptolemy was taught exclusively in every notable University.

    ...So I guess that while they're censoring anyone who has anything to say about Duesberg that doesn't involve him wearing a tinfoil hat, they should also edit Wikipedia to reflect the existence of vampires, the scientific fact that masturbation causes blindness, and the infallibility of the Pope in regards to astronomy.

    I've heard before that Wikipedia is run by people who wouldn't be qualified to edit the National Enquirer much less an encyclopedia, but reading some of these discussions really drives the point home.

    --- Gos
    --- http://nerosopeningact.bandcamp.com

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    1,149

    Default Re: HIV/AIDS in Wikipedia

    Yes Bruce, but as you well know all mainstream HIV/AIDS articles are propaganda. Wikipedia is no exception and just one more example that as Celia said. "The truth doesn't matter. what matters is the PR" ...

    Like this gratifying tid-bit: "But identifying people with HIV within a few days or weeks of infection has become a public health imperative, in part
    because the virus level tends to be highest during the early infection stage — making transmission to others more likely"

    Rowena Johnston, vice president AMFAR.
    Early detection hope of S.D. researchers

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    5

    Default Re: HIV/AIDS in Wikipedia

    Quote Originally Posted by Brian Carter View Post
    Yes Bruce, but as you well know all mainstream HIV/AIDS articles are propaganda. Wikipedia is no exception and just one more example that as Celia said. "The truth doesn't matter. what matters is the PR" ...

    Like this gratifying tid-bit: "But identifying people with HIV within a few days or weeks of infection has become a public health imperative, in part
    because the virus level tends to be highest during the early infection stage — making transmission to others more likely"

    Rowena Johnston, vice president AMFAR.
    Early detection hope of S.D. researchers
    The PR and the money are indeed essential.

    We can't rewrite articles of published journalism, but we can delete misused primary sources from Wikipedia articles. Doing so would inflict a kind of AIDS on an article's credibility, slowly destroying it.

    Regarding the "Early Detection Hope of SD Researchers", they're probably using PCR or similar tool to find the tiniest genetic bits (dead) of HIV at the molecular level, not actual viruses. Thus the expense. Did you notice this quote:

    It can take as long as three months for the body to begin producing enough antibodies to trigger a positive reading. During that lag time, people can unknowingly spread HIV through unsafe sex . . .

    Doesn't that imply that after immune suppression HIV can't be transmitted? But the standard theory (as I understand it) states that HIV can be transmitted sexually at any time after infection.

    By contrast, take a look at this, at POZ of all places -- an article on the near impossibility of the sexual transmission of HIV from women to men.

Similar Threads

  1. Rethinking AIDS Wikipedia Project
    By BruceSwanson in forum General Discussion of HIV/AIDS
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: February 4th, 2011, 10:31 PM
  2. AIDS In Africa (Wikipedia) (ame-g2349)
    By msn_EdMurphy2 in forum [archive] General
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: November 11th, 2005, 12:03 AM
  3. AIDS Re-appraisal in the Wikipedia (ame-g2087)
    By msn_EdMurphy2 in forum [archive] General
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: July 22nd, 2005, 01:34 AM
  4. Wikipedia (ame-a45)
    By msn_Kevin_C in forum [archive] Activism
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: February 28th, 2003, 06:48 AM
  5. wikipedia (ame-a26)
    By msn_jerry in forum [archive] Activism
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: March 24th, 2002, 09:12 AM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •