https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38974614
But to expand a bit, for example I'm annoyed at many of the entries calling their subject "conspiracy theory/ theorist". Not that conspiracy theories and their believers don't exist, but at this point it has become a highly pejorative and judgemental term to frame ideas and narratives that need to be stigmatized rather than explained. Passing judgements should not, in my view, be the primary focus of an encyclopedia entry.
What ever I answer in this case the easiest reaction will be; for you will be to judge me and lump me together with what you cal activists, and for those activists it will me easiest to put me in the same conspiracy theorist group as you. This is not a problem with Wikipedia, this is a human problem.
While I also think that article is abysmal, it does give context what to expect from people posting stuff by her. The biggest problem with your complaint is that you are not linking to an alternative, just do a fast draft on Wikipedia remove everything that you feel is not relevant and link that. Sure it will be reverted but that is probably because you first draft will not be a good article, those are evidently very hard to write when people think so differently about something.
Wikipedia could be an excellent attack vector for sorting out human's heads at scale.
Also they pretty clearly note that her doctorate in interdisciplinary studies focused on mammals as its subject, what would you have them do? Claim that her doctorate was in something it wasn't, instead of interdisciplinary studies, just to make her look better, because a doctorate in interdisciplinary studies with a focus on some particular thing is "essentially equivalent" in your mind to an actual doctorate in that thing? Or claim she focused on evolutionary biology, when not even her own blog bio claims it was about "evolutionary biology" (she implies it was about zoology or another similar field)? Why do you say evolutionary biology should be listed then? Is it just to make her sound better?
Likewise, why wouldn't the criticism section be mostly filled with what she's been criticized about the most? If most of her other work was unremarkable or solid and nobody criticized it, but she's gotten a lot of criticism for her climate change views, why wouldn't that dominate the criticism section?
And if she hasn't had much notable work outside of her business, books, dotgs, and polar bears, I'm not sure why you would expect her career or education sections to have a ton of other stuff? That's the stuff even herself bio on her blog focuses on. Like you look at the headings of her non-criticism sections and decry them as if they are obviously lacking or derogatory or something but if that's all her notable work is about, why wouldn't they be like that?
Like, your entire criticism seems at least to lack citations of why the material you are upset about shouldn't be there, and without them it really appears like you're just upset that a factual article about someone you are to some degree sympathetic with makes them look worse than you'd like.
Honestly this is my problem with a lot of people's complaints of bias. A lot of it boils down to "the facts make my side of the issue look bad, can you emphasize/deemphasize some facts for me so both sides seem equal?"
People seem to think that truly unbiased reporting makes all sides of a controversy seem equally correct and equally to have a point, but that is simply not true. Unbiased reporting is reporting the facts of the case, and if that happens to show that one side of a controversy is more correct than the others, then so be it. The job is to report the facts as best you can, and misrepresenting the facts and skewing their connotation or interpretation to make it look like a side of a controversy that doesn't have much going for it is equal to a side that has more of the facts on their side just in order to make everyone look equal would actually be biased, not the other way around. I'm not claiming the mainstream news media reports the facts of the case well, they don't, but they also fall afoul of this problem: on whatever issue the mainstream news media has decided they are going to be "impartial" on, every time they publish an article that is even slightly supportive of one side of the controversy, they feel it necessary to post an article from the other side of the controversy, even if that second article is a completely factually false, incoherent screed that has no facts or logic on its side, and treat it on supposedly equal footing in the name of impartiality. Or anytime they report on the issue they feel the need to use unnecessarily strained language to circumlocate around calling things what they actually are in order to prevent people from coming to the obvious conclusion the facts would lead them to, because that would make one side of the narrative be obviously more correct than the other, and you can't have that.
She also has a consulting company that specialises in identifying bone fragments of North American fish, birds and mammals- the clients are mostly universities, museums and park/ forest services. I don't see references on the company's page about searching in "the scat of wild animals for ... items", which seems at one time very specific and vague. Curious choice. (*)
More, just on the lede: "she is a blogger"- no, she also runs a blog, as many scientists do. "her blog posts on polar bear biology which are unsupported ..."- imprecise, we don't yet know what those posts are about- and yet we already know that they're "unsupported by the consensus". Ah, by the way- this is just wrong: consensus is not a support for anything- you might go with or against the consensus, certainly not look for its support.
The "Early life and education" section fails to mention the title of her doctorate thesis, but instead dedicates half of its seven lines to a completely out-of-context, minute controversy about what one "Lars Olof Bjorn" thinks of one line of one article by her in 2009.
Career section "Business" ends (after two lines) with the following sentence (again, at the same time very precise and vague): "Since the start of her career, she has worked primarily through paid contracts for specific work on a variety of topics". What is it even supposed to mean? You know, that would also apply to me. "Paid contracts" indeed, for "specific work" on "a variety of topics".
In the "Books" section, only one book is cited (Google gives me 5 or 6) and again, half of the space is dedicated to the criticism from a single person.
The "Polar bears" section is basically entirely dedicated to a controversy- and still we don't know anything about what Susan Crockford claims about polar bears, why she does it, what are her points, how does she go against the "consensus". Nothing.
I'll stop here. A cursory read is enough to understand that there has been no attempt whatsoever to approach this subject with a minimum of detachment- the entry almost reads like a parody, or a satirical piece. If you don't see it, I'm sorry, think it's a problem.
* If I can pinpoint what feels wrong with these statements, is the constant oscillation between extremely vague ("a small business", "other items", "known for posts about polar bear biology") and curiously precise ("contract scientist", "in the scat of wildlife", "gained her interest in elementary school") etc.
;-)
What we label as “centrist” isn’t guaranteed to be the “actual” center of reality’s spectrum of ideology.
Right wing people are too busy earning them sweet, sweet dollars.
This is typically done in under the guise of notability ("GPL/copyleft is notable, other alternatives aren't").
Granted, it might be the best possible way for an open-source encyclopedia to work. It is after all an incredible success. It's just pretty bad in some parts.