The Astrology News Service critiqued Wikipedia a few years ago, wondering, Is Wikipedia Concept Fatally Flawed? Based on my personal experience, it is. Wikipedia alleges neutrality. But the ANS article describes how organized skeptics are waging a campaign to edit and delete opposing points of view.
My two biographies of Evangeline Adams used to be listed as sources on her Wikipedia entry. These have now been removed. I find this especially irksome since one of the main things I tried to do with the books is to substantiate Adams’ forecasts with specific, documented and published sources. I believe I was able to do that, and readers can make up their own minds based on the facts. But the skeptical “Thought Police” are so defensive that they can’t even tolerate references to any research that might support astrology.
Instead, the Wikipedia article now only has citations against Adams’ expertise. One simply quotes “skeptics.” The other, from an investment analyst, calls Adams an “obvious quack.”
Those of us who believe in astrology may want to scream, but these people are preaching to the converted. Information on astrology on the Internet only keeps expanding, because so many people want it. Why are skeptics so upset? What’s the big deal? Who really cares what someone else believes? I’m disturbed by the biased Wikipedia edits because organized groups are intent on influencing the public. That’s how we got Prohibition in the U.S. – through organized effort, not popular choice. And we all know how that worked out.