Forum:New: How do you go about explaining that the article is very one-sided as is only written by an oponent of the idea?

The link I will be referring to is http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Intelligent_design_and_academic_freedom

I know quite a bit about the subject, as does the author (obviously) but I feel that their impetus for creating the page in the first place was not to fairly report both sides accurately (the authors only wrote about what would look bad to the ID side) and ignored facts that would help give a more balanced reading experience of the article, which I deem would be more helpful for a person unfamiliar with the issue but desiring to get a more complete understanding of it.

If you followed this topic closely as it was being revealed in interviews and news you find that the authors have little intent on presenting a balanced case of the available information. No sentence could be clearer when they include linked text:

"Expelled: Leader's Guide — our side-by-side shredding of the "Leader's Guide" that was promoted at the movie's webshite (sic)"

To use the words "Our side-by-side shredding of the 'Leader's Guide'..." reveals the intent of the authors not to tell both sides of the story, but to "shred" the ideas written by the ones they disagree with.

As well, to spell "website" as "webshite" (they only misspell this word when referring to the side they disagree with) is obvious slander, which I doubt would be appropriate for a wiki of this nature.

To be clear, I am NOT interested in "defending the other side (I am not sure there is a 'right side'" - I would have just hoped for a more fair-minded approach to the wiki entry, minus the bias, leaving out aspects that would make the topic not quite as cut-and-dry as they want to make it look, and to especially leave out slander.

What is the correct way to proceed from here?

Thank you, Tim
 * This is not an impartial wiki, like Wikipedia; we have a clear pro-rationality bias. RW prefers the SPOV (snarky point of view). If you have any suggestions for the article, please leave them on the article's talk page.--Krej talk 20:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * And that's why we don't give you...Both Sides! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:49, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ignore any reference to "snarky point of view," Tim. It's bullshit. Have a look at the article and you'll see that it's so vaguely defined as to be meaningless. Long-time editors don't even know what it means. If you want to add material to ID articles that gives better context to RW's criticism, that's helpful and I will defend you against "pro-rationality" group-think. We're pro-science. Not pro-name-calling, pro-failing-to-let-someone-explain-his-own-position, or pro-creating-an-embarrassing-public-image. Ghostface Editah (talk) 21:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * And what exactly is the other side of the discussion? --Token Conservative (talk) 21:28, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * And fuck no Krej. He's entitled to edit the article and have his edits treated critically. You sound like a Conservapedia sysop telling someone to propose edits on a talk page. It's not how RW operates. Ghostface Editah (talk) 21:35, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not how we operate? Are you sure about that? Read this section and then tell me this isn't how we operate. Ochotonaprincepsnot a pokémon 22:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, and this, too. Ochotonaprincepsnot a pokémon 22:03, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * And of course, CP does it, therefor it must be wrong.--Token Conservative (talk) 21:43, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ochtocdhs,fdshj, you didn't read that very carefully. "You can always be bold - mistakes only happen 5% of the time and can be undone. But if in doubt, the talk pages for articles are open to anything and everything. … The first step to fixing an article might be to start a dialog on the article's talk page." You guys somehow missed the part about RW really and truly being about open editing to the point that Trent didn't even shut IP editing down while Krasov was using tens of thousands of proxy addresses to essentially DoS attack the server with hundreds and hundreds of thousands of hits. You don't gotta run your edits by anyone, Tim. They stand or fall on their merit. Ghostface Editah (talk) 22:04, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, there's absolutely no requirement to get "approval", no. But expect dissent, moreso if you unilaterally go in and change a significant portion of a brainstar'd article. Talk pages are where you should have the arguments over a contentious topic. How is this hard or unreasonable? Ochotonaprincepsnot a pokémon 22:14, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * What are you defending? Tim isn't proposing to unilaterally change a significant portion of a brainstarred article. He's not even proposing something that ought to garner much dissent. He's talking about sound editorial policy. One-sidedness vis a vis a coherent worldview is what RW should be about, not giving short shrift to good explanation of issues, which is what Tim seems to be proposing. Ghostface Editah (talk) 22:18, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, the best way to get what you want is to edit the article. If you find yourself getting reverted, go to the talk page, or the reverting editor's talk page if they've got a bug up their ass. Action > talk. Ochotonaprincepsnot a pokémon 22:34, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "You guys somehow missed the part about RW really and truly being about open editing to the point that Trent didn't even shut IP editing down while Krasov was using tens of thousands of proxy addresses to essentially DoS attack the server with hundreds and hundreds of thousands of hits." I call that "being a moron" and "not something to be imitated"--Token Conservative (talk) 23:10, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Fully open editing is core ethos here. You should tell Trent he's a moron for remaining dedicated to it. Pretty stupid of him to have implemented ReCaptcha to keep things open after Krasov adapted to the new bunch of text-based queries David Gerard added to the previous system, eh? You should let them both know how you feel. [[file:Nuttysig.svg|68px|link=User:Nutty Roux|Nutty Roux]]100x100 anarchy symbol.svg (formerly Ghostface Editah) 23:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If the core ethos makes us incredibly easy to attack, that's moronic at the very least.--Token Conservative (talk) 23:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This is about as much as I've got dude. You've dragged me into yet another absolutely pointless discussion. You're missing the point of open editing. It's not without cost. We were being attacked well after Trent made it essentially impossible for a bot to solve captchas. We were going to be attacked one way or the other. Brasov is a creep. Any such attack has nothing to do with open editing and therefore obviously isn't any basis for calling the policy or Trent and David's efforts to preserve it moronic. You've got the last word. Make it interesting. [[file:Nuttysig.svg|68px|link=User:Nutty Roux|Nutty Roux]]100x100 anarchy symbol.svg (formerly Ghostface Editah) 23:29, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't drag you into anything, you came into this. And "another"? The hell are you on about?--Token Conservative (talk) 23:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you all for your input. I'm afraid I did fault by leaning toward "Fair Treatment" when this is not really the place for that. I guess the main concern is that if you only read the author's article, you would literally not understand the things that happened with the denied tenure issue as a whole. This is not rationality, this is picking the things you like to think and ignoring the rest. You cannot arrive at truth that way, which I think is what you are going for here.

To be clear on something else: this is not a rant about Pro ID vs Against ID. It has little to do with that at all. It is primarily about tenure, what tenure track is, how you achieve it, is it merit-based, what is its basis at all? If we were all against the ID movement but found professors were being denied tenure only b/c of a personal belief in the apparent design characteristics in the world, whatever the source of design may be, is that a good reason to deny tenure if it is not being taught in classrooms by the professors. That's more of what I think the topic should focus on, and if I were an investigative journalist I would hope that I would be open-minded enough to follow claim, then counter-claim, then counter-claim until the side spewing the B.S. IN EACH INDIVIDUAL CASE became apparent. But this doesn't seem to be the right forum for this sort of thing so I'll let you guys do what you do and go on another road.

It's been interesting, thanks! Tim
 * If you have additional information about why these particular fellows weren't granted tenure, or anything else that pertains to the situation then lets hear it. Don't come here, complain that we are biased, mention in passing that there are things that should be included and then fuck off.  If you think you can improve the article, do so (or don't) but don't sit there complaining about it.  --DamoHi 22:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

(ec)Don't go, Tim. You're correct about a lot of this and it looks like you've got something to add. Go for it? Ghostface Editah (talk) 22:01, 12 March 2013 (UTC)