3,209
edits
Changes
MyWikiBiz, Author Your Legacy — Monday November 18, 2024
Jump to navigationJump to searchDirectory:The Wikipedia Point of View/Dealing with pseudoscience (view source)
Revision as of 13:51, 9 January 2009
, 13:51, 9 January 2009no edit summary
* They try to claim that a fringe viewpoint is 'controversial', as though there were a minority but substantial view held by serious scientists or academics, in controversy with the mainstream.
* They try to claim that a fringe viewpoint is 'controversial', as though there were a minority but substantial view held by serious scientists or academics, in controversy with the mainstream.
Here is a partial list of the kind of complaints one might get, from multiple editors who have a FRINGE agenda on a controversial article, and often in a CIVIL fashion:
*To disagree with an editor with a FRINGE agenda is claimed to be unCIVIL, a personal attack (violation of NPA), a violation of BITE or a violation of AGF
*It is claimed that any sources that disagree with the FRINGE POV cannot be used since they violate NPOV
*It is claimed that sources that disagree with the FRINGE POV cannot be used if they reflect poorly on any living people that are proponents of the FRINGE POV (such as critical book reviews, etc)
*It is claimed that the "N" in NPOV means that no negative or critical or mainstream material can appear at all in the article, since it is not neutral
*It is claimed that any critical or negative material cannot appear in an article since it is biased
*It is claimed that it violates [[WP:SYNTH]] or [[WP:OR]] to include any negative or critical material in a FRINGE article
* One should use only primary sources. Relying on secondary sources is POV.
*It is claimed that trying to balance positive content with negative content for [[WP:UNDUE]] is censorship.
*It is proposed that negative material be forked off into another article, or relegated into a "criticism ghetto" or criticism section or removed from the LEAD. It is said that one always states the idea first before criticizing it.
*It is claimed that the reader will not understand the idea unless it is described without criticism.
*It is stated that readers are smart enough to know that FRINGE ideas are nonsense without including any negative or critical material or sources.
*It is claimed that NPOV or NOR are faulty and must be changed or reinterpreted for this particular article. For example, recently someone on a controversial article claimed "If we follow WP:NOR, our article will be exactly as divorced and ridiculous as the reliable sources".
*It is claimed that only the proponents of the FRINGE position understand NPOV or NOR or RS, not the experienced editors with tens of thousands of edits, and FAs and GAs to their credit.
*It is claimed that there is a conspiracy against the FRINGE position and anyone who opposes an uncritical article about the FRINGE position is in on the conspiracy, has been bought off, is breaking the rules of Wikipedia, is just plain evil, etc.
*There is wikilawyering to try to redefine a FRINGE position as nonFRINGE, or the mainstream position as the FRINGE position instead.
*Some claim that sources with negative views are forbidden since they are unencyclopedic, or that an article containing critical material is unencyclopedic
*It is claimed that any negative or critical material is unusable since it is just opinion and not fact. Of course the sympathetic material in sources is usable since that is ''not'' opinion and is factual.
*There are attempts to use mainly primary sources and to reject secondary and tertiary sources, or to redefine the preferences for secondary and tertiary sources in policy.
*It is claimed that any source that has not written articles that are supportive and uncritical of FRINGE positions are not suitable as tertiary sources. For example, recently at a controversial article, someone argued "Actually, those really shouldn't be used as sources on this topic because (to my knowledge) they haven't written anything pro-X, and hence really can't be considered third party."
*There is a lot of evidence of [[WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT]]. Arguments that are rebutted and dismissed, sometimes with extensive references, are repeated over and over and over, sometimes just with a cut and paste approach. Sometimes they are presented by the same person dozens and dozens of times spread out over days and weeks and months.
*It is claimed that any critical material in an article is unfair, or violates [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPOV#Fairness_of_tone Fairness of tone].
*Writing material using facts in the same context as reliable sources do violates NPOV since they are following a "narrative". We must instead choose facts which no source describes as relevant to allow our readers to decide which "narrative" should be chosen.
*There are no facts. If a fringe minority, not present in any reliable sources, disagrees with a widely accepted fact it violates NPOV to state it as a fact in the article. Every statement of fact should be attributed, no matter how universally accepted.
*Reliable sources claims to know certain facts which I believe are impossible to know. Thus, they are not reliable sources.
*Common sense dictates that we should ignore core policies like [[WP:V]] or [[WP:UNDUE]].
Often CIVIL POV pushing is done by a group that support each other and egg each other on. The mainstream NPOV position is assaulted using a variety of the arguments listed above, over and over and over and over.
*stopping anyone from doing what they want on Wikipedia violates their rights to free speech
*applying standards like NPOV amounts to censorship.
*claiming that having more than 1 or 2 references is a violation of [[WP:NOR]] or [[WP:NPOV]]
