Another point to be examined, regarding the controversial interpretations of the NY Times story is the interpretation of this key paragraph, where Picard's name is mentioned, along with two other scientists:

The unspoken and unexamined implication or assumption in the disputed section of this biography is that scientists such as Tour, Picard, and Skell are accurately described by the DI's claim that they are anti-evolution dissenters from Darwin and also supporters of the DI's political agenda, deserving negative publicity for taking such a laughable position.  Did Chang intentionally put that paragraph into his story to affirm the DI's characterization of those three scientists?  Or did Chang put that paragragraph into the story to cast doubt in the reader's mind on the DI's incredulous claim that all signers adhered to the DI's characterization of the signers?

Given that Chang reported both the DI's claims and the string of quotes revealing a mix of support and disdain among the petition signers, a neutral point of view requires that anyone reading Chang's article with a critical eye would ask the obvious question:  Is the reader supposed to take at face value the DI's naked claim that scientists such as those three are anti-evolution dissenters from Darwin who support the DI's political agenda?  Or is the reader supposed to take that paragragh as startling evidence that the claims of the DI stretch credulity.

The way the article is written, a casual reader could draw either conclusion.  A skeptical or fair-minded reader could also draw the conclusion that no firm conclusion can be drawn as to whether any of the signers fit the DI's characterization of them as anti-evolution dissenters from Darwin who support the DI's political agenda.

What conclusion did the various Wikipedia editors draw, and how do they justify treating any such conclusion as an established fact for the purpose of crafting authentic biographies of figures such as Tour, Picard, or Skell?