"Wikipedia's zealots" describes how Lawrence Solomon attempted to correct a global-warming-related Wikipedia entry with additional information, and how his changes were immediately and repeatedly reverted by a not-so-disinterested editor. I read though the page history myself, and the story is quite funny: The editor/zealot claims a particular critic has recanted his views, admitting error. Solomon contacts said critic, who says he's done no such thing. Solomon changes the page to reflect this. The editor says he can't make said change, it's "original research." Of course, the previous false claim came from the editor herself, who had done no such research!

So I thought I'd see how Wikipedia is covering Expelled. As of this moment, the page is deeply saturated in a particular POV; false and misleading claims abound, as well as violations of Wikipedia's own alleged standards.

For example, the first four paragraphs of the "Overview" quote extensively from critics of intelligent design, but only obliquely reference arguments in favor it. (And the article should be about the movie anyway, rather than attempt to convince readers of the rightness or wrongness of ID.) Sadly, this pattern is repeated throughout the article.

Nazis!

Of course, it wouldn't be an Internet article without Nazism! The Wikipedia article asserts, seemingly over-broadly, that Expelled claims "acceptance of evolution leads to Nazism" -- as if Stein were saying all evolutionists were bound to become Nazis. Nothing like a nice straw man or two to enlighten your readers, eh? (It bases this claim on the opinion of a movie reviewer, rather than quoting the movie -- seemingly incapable of distinguishing the two.)

To refute this herring, the article deftly points out that antisemitism existed before Nazism (no kidding!) "particularly Martin Luther's book" (as if Martin Luther were particularly related to Nazism, or Expelled -- the topic, if I recall correctly).

The article also promulgates the absurd claims that Hitler was deeply opposed to the idea of survival of the fittest, and banned teaching evolution! Incredible. What next: The Nazis weren't racists either? Not committed to eugenics? (And where did their support for eugenics come from, if not Darwinism? Martin Luther again? You'll "learn" all kinds of interesting new 'facts' on Wikipedia, I suppose.)

This incredible claim is based on a single entry in a "Guide to Cleaning Libraries" which bans the teaching of "primitive Darwinism" and references Haeckel and "Monism". The Wikipedia editors conveniently overlook that part of their own footnote, but more information can be found here:

First of all, Matzke himself apparently realized that by modifying Darwinism with the word primitive, this list did not really mean Darwinism per se. Good observation, but then why does he persist in maintaining that Darwin's works were banned? Darwinian biologists (and Darwinian theory) under the Nazi regime were promoted, not silenced. There are many good scholarly books that clarify this issue, such as Ute Deichmann's Biologists under Hitler (Harvard UP, 1996)and Paul Weindling's Health, Race and German Politics between National Unification and Nazism, 1870-1945 (Cambridge UP, 1989). These works and many others show that Darwinian biologists thrived under Nazism....

Haeckel's ideas were not universally well-received in Nazi circles. An essay I published in 2002 about the Monist League showed that Haeckel and the Monist League supported pacifism and feminism, which did not sit well with the Nazis. Also, the Monist League had many socialist members, making it suspect. No wonder the Nazis dissolved the Monist League when they came to power. But it had nothing to do with any supposed antipathy toward Darwinism.

Rather than a "just the facts, ma'am" kind of approach, the editors (and authors, often) want us to know that Darwinism was NOT, NOT, NOT important to promoting Hitler's eugenics.

"Hitler did not need Darwin to devise his heinous plan to exterminate the Jewish people." From a scientific viewpoint, any distorted misunderstanding of evolution incorporated in Hitler's thinking is irrelevant to the scientific validity of Darwin's theory of evolution.

Nope! Eugenics did not originate in Darwinism, and Hitler was not influenced in any way, shape, or form by eugenics. And even so, we're not supposed to discuss its social impacts, only it's scientific merits. That's a fact.

People presented in the film

After learning that Nazism was deeply opposed to the idea of evolution and survival of the fittest, we are now presented with list of people who were allegedly persecuted for their beliefs. As usual, "favored" claims include extensive quotes, but disfavored claims are referenced obliquely, if at all.

For example, here's the blurb about Richard Sternberg. Notice Sternberg's critics are quoted, and there is, apparently, nothing to be said in his favor:

... submitting his resignation in the previous year, he arranged for his last issue to include publication of a paper by leading intelligent design proponent Stephen C. Meyer. The review procedure was questioned and the journal subsequently declared that the paper "does not meet the scientific standards of the Proceedings" and would not have been published had usual editorial practices been followed.

(NB: I don't know anything about the Sternberg case. But you don't have to in order to detect an utter lack of balance.)

That's all I have time for. Undoubtedly, there are some useful tidbits buried elsewhere in the Wikipedia article. For instance: I haven't had time to investigate both sides, but it I find their case persuasive that the producer may have misled a few interviewees about the nature of the film. Though I don't notice similarly breathless protests in the articles about Michael Moore's films, which use similar tactics. (And I notice several things going on this article, itself, which are far worse than those alleged.)

But overall, well, I think Wikipedia is showing itself to be an excellent source of information for, um, what Wikipedia's editors believe -- however fantastic. The Nazis were opposed to evolution and survival of the fittest? All in a day's work at Wikipedia.