I saw that too, mixed in with likely legit criticism of the possibility of editors abusing their power in the community and possibly too much orthodoxy squashing less popular views, is the fact that they want there to be more prominence for ideas that don't hold up to scientific scrutiny - and worse, can create confusion among lay people about what constitutes a valid scientific theory.

where specifically do you see that? It is detailed and mentioned both on Wikipedia itself and the website that the focus was on non controversial biographical information and had nothing to do with the ideas or the theories.

I wrote a blog post about the guy behind this website. He claims to be some sort of expert who tried to "study" editor interactions on Wikipedia. He's actually a social media & SEO marketing guy in California who likes to troll skeptics and science people online in his spare time. I analyzed the editing history of the articles involved in this blog post, and show that he is not in any way serious in his interactions on Wikipedia. https://skeptools.wordpress.com/2014/04/16/nothere-wikipedia...

Where do you see any evidence of the author trying to alter Wikipedia to promote fringe science?

You list RationalWiki as the "other side of the story", yet did you note that article was written by the same editors he encountered on Wikipedia?

If you spend more time on the site, you will see that the case study involved intentional patience and only focused on non controversial biographical information.

You appear to suggest that the context of the biographies the author was editing on means he was promoting or editing false or misleading information, and therefore perhaps deserved the treatment.

I asked for the other side of the story. RationalWiki appears to fit that bill. I made no judgments on the merits of either side of the squabble. I trust the readers of HN are capable of forming their own judgements based on available evidence.

you specifically said "who has tried to alter Wikipedia to support fringe scientists & alt-medicine gurus"

That narrative is from RationalWiki, and is misinformation. This is very clearly detailed on the website.

It isn't, though. I suspect you have only read Viharo's defense, which, tellingly, doesn't link to his RW article. It simply quotes from the preamble. The rest of the article expands significantly on it and cites his own words from Wikipedia talk pages.

again, you're misinformed. it links DIRECTLY to the RW article, and that article is mentioned in many pages on WWHP. It links to comments made on talk pages out of context, read the actual links to WP pages and you will see.

This is addressed here: http://wikipediawehaveaproblem.com/2015/11/how-rational-wiki...

Viharo only quotes the RW article's preamble. The body of the article is more than ample in providing detail and citations to back itself up.

are you actually defending the RW article? It's obvious hatch job. The rationalwiki article references itself when it says "Viharo has a persecution complex.." and states that the entire site is a conspiracy theory and no evidence has been found for harassment"...with no reference what so ever.