Wikipedia talk:Notability (science)

message: Please state your position, yes or no, explain your position and defend it.  This is not a vote.  SmokeyJoe 10:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The real dispute , I think, is over the notability of fringe science and whether that can be considered science in any sense at all. This is a matter in which I think there is in fact no real consensus, but at best a temporary majority, and i expect this  question to continue to be the theme of AfDs. I don't think this guideline  lays it to rest DGG 23:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This guideline cannot and should not judge whether something is "real science".  In fact, all that a determination that something is "not science" can do here is to remove a topic from being judged by this criteria with no resolution on its notability or lack thereof.  IMO, we have a set of criteria here such that anything that is meant to be judged as part of science can be ruled on here, be it mainstream or fringe.  What I think that you will find is that the least palatable topics are those which also have had the least impact and are also therefore the least notable.  --EMS | Talk 01:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Is [[Wikipedia:Notability (science)]] a consensus guideline?

message: * The introduction is too long.  Limit it to "what" and "why".  Get the commentary (i.e. "impetus") and discussion of process into its own section.  Specifically address what makes science different from other areas covered by the general guidelines.
* Criteria should define at least these categories as guidance to editors:
** topics which on their face should be include (i.e. the notable)
** topics which are going to require some judgments to be made by editors if they are new articles or added to existing articles. (i.e. the maybe notable)
** topics which, at least according to the authors of the guideline, are improbably included. (i.e. nonnotable)
* The statement "Decisions about including or excluding material must always reflect the opinions of outside authorities, not those of Wikipedia editors." is bizarre because the opinion of Wikipedia editors is what, by definition, compose the Wikipedia. "Must always" is a rather strange term to be found in a mere guideline at any rate. patsw 13:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you wish to draft an alternate version, the feel free to do so elsewhere and present it to us as a possible replacement.  We are certainly amenable to productive changes.  However, IMO the current project page works and should be considered a functioning guideline. --EMS | Talk 15:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree the reflect outside authorities wording is odd (although not any odder than "notability is not subjective" which expresses the same sentiment). The rest doesn't strike me as an improvement. ~ trialsanderrors 17:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One point that isn't being made (in the intro) and probably should be is the point that scientific theories cannot be properly presented without understanding their level of acceptance.  There's a big difference between a mainstream theory and a fringe theory, and even in an article about a fringe theory, it's important to describe it as one.  However, for some fringe theories, insufficient sources exist to back up the claim that they are fringe theories.  Thus we are left with only one real choice: disallow the article, as we cannot properly cover it while adhering to WP:ATT and WP:NPOV.  This is different from, say, an article about a band, where it may be that no source reports on their popularity or number of fans accurately, but sources do report on other things: the information we can't cover can just be left out.  In articles on science, we really can't leave that out.  Mangojuicetalk 13:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "level of acceptance" argument makes no sense to me. "Theory" in science has a very precise meaning which applies to models and descriptions which are as completely accepted as possible in an endeavor based primarily on the dubious activity of inductive reasoning. While there is a big difference between mainstream and fringe proposals, the proposals themselves are only considered "theories" when they pass the tests of the scientific method. What makes a proposal fringe is, ostensibly, its inability to pass these tests. This doesn't mean that scientists don't make mistakes in pejoratively labeling the fringe out of the mainstream, only to say that the level of acceptance is something of a binary operator: either it's in or it's out. When an idea does not generate enough interest in the scientific community to create commentary from members of the community, it must either be uncontroversial (as is the case with textbook knowledge) or it must be outside the scientific community. This is quite easy to verify. No amount of posturing and insisting on the part of a fringe idea's proponents that the idea is actually "scientific" is good enough when demarcating for our purposes. We might still have articles on the idea if there is "extra-scientific" interest in it, but we do not need to shy away from being honest about its "extra-scientific" nature. One of the problems that many pro-fringe editors have is that they believe that because proving the negative is in principle a defiance of WP:ATT that reasonable editors can't make editorial judgments with regards to the status of a particular idea. This is simply not the case at all: we are editing an encyclopedia not compiling a list of sources. After all, that's why we have editors in the first place: we are charged with summarizing the available data in the most conformist way possible. When all the data is outside the scientific community and the idea purports to have scientific importance, it is perfectly fine to delineate the contradiction. However, this discussion is probably better suited for WP:FRINGE. --ScienceApologist 14:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some suggestions on organizing this project page 

message: Are there criteria for such topics ? Would be particularly useful since any objection to these topics is considered as POV. Shyamal 10:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say, you're looking at it.  (When you look at the project page, that is.)  There's also WP:FRINGE which isn't a notability criterion page.  Mangojuicetalk 19:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability for non-science, fringe and pseudoscience

message: Can some of you knowledgable and discerning scientist Wikipedians take a look at this please? This article has currently been getting some coverage in popular "gee whiz funny link of the day... how goofy!" type blogs ( I hate it when this happens and the article in question is dubious... I think it gives a bad impression of wikipedia), but it seems to be mainly based on the idea that this one insect scientist guy wrote some goofy comments for an insect sting pain index one day. Ok, I agree that insect scientists are allowed to have senses of humour (WITHIN LIMITS, for the sake of us all), but I am concerned that 1) this scale is not really widespread and may be just one scale promoted by one guy without much acceptance in the insect expert community. 2) the pdf article linked which this wikipedia entry seems to be based on does not seem to say that Schmidt actually wrote those goofy comments. Its a bit ambiguous, but its seems to say that "the media" (without specifying what media) came up with the goofy comments to append to Schmidt's original dry scale(I think this may be another case where people exaggerate or misinterpret what an article is saying). I dont have any access to science journal databases, and am certainly no science or insect expert. But these concerns and quick scans of google books and google scholar led me to bring this issue to wiser heads. Thanks very much  for checking this out. 88.109.1.60 16:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Schmidt Sting Pain Index]]

message: It's been a few weeks. I don't see much of a recent dispute here, so I was wondering if the disagreement has been resolved? >Radiant< 13:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  So... 

message: Since the general notability guideline is central to most sub-pages, someone came up with the idea of creating a centralized template which will be consistent among the permutations from WP:N.  Please see whether we can make this work here.  The text is meant to be fairly generic, but it may make sense to add text following the template for fine tuning, or help us to make the template more applicable if it is not reflecting the consensus for notability.  I certainly didn't get everything that I wanted, but I'm very happy to see the compromises that make this a fairly representive of the attitude of the project.  --Kevin Murray 01:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  General notability guideline template 

message: What are the thoughts on merging Wikipedia:Notability (numbers) into this guideline proposal?  --Kevin Murray 19:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merging [[Wikipedia:Notability (numbers)]]

message: I may be beating a dead horse here, but all the references to NPOV, proponents and advocacy make it seem like this is about pseudoscience/fringe science, and the discussion above seems to confirm it. As it tries to apply to specialised but uncontroversial science, not much of it bears any resemblance to reality. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 02:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scope creep 

message: Note that I came here from a couple of AfDs which were trying to present this as policy criteria for an article's deleltion.  As I read down the line, I encountered several problems with the proposed guideline.  I apologize if any and all of the below have been covered in the Talk Archives, which I am not going to read now.
Problems that I have at present with the proposal:
*Introduction:
:* "A topic that is acceptable under this guideline is an appropriate part of Wikipedia."
::Pretty sweeping blanket statement, to me.  No other Notability criteria I'm aware of suggests that "if it passes this, it's in."  Indeed, it seems to violate the principle of a Guideline to me, which always limits itself to allow potential exceptions.  Further, each section usually defines which criteria are primary and which are secondary.
*Notability of topics related to science:
:*"Decisions about including or excluding material must always reflect the opinions of outside authorities, not those of Wikipedia editors."
::I know this has been mentioned above, but I want to echo this concern:  Decisions about including or excluding material must always reflect the consensus of the Wikipedia editors.  Anything else beyond that is helpful clarification, or it becomes fodder for people to WP:IAR.
::I'd feel much more comfortable with something like, "Deicions about including or excluding material on a scientific basis ought to be supported by the opinions and stated facts of outside authorities, as per Wikpedia:Reliable Sources."  Start throwing 'musts' around in anything but policy (perhaps only unbreakable/unmodifiable policy) and you'll get a lot of irate editors, scientific or not.
:*"Although publication creates verifiability and reputable journals are reliable sources, publication by itself is not a sufficient (and sometimes not necessary) standard for encyclopedic notability. Unpublished research fails no original research and often lacks verifiability, so it is unacceptable by policy. Research published in a reputable publication passes these thresholds but reflects the point of view of one researcher or research term and, unless it generates a significant outside response by the scientific community or the population at large, focusing on such research in a Wikipedia article does not adequately conform to Wikipedia's policy on neutrality, in particular the section on undue weight. This guideline clarifies how the Wikipedia community has applied NPOV to articles on scientific topics. It does however not apply to the inclusion of scientific research as authorative sources within articles. The criterion for such sources is not that they are notable, but that they are reliable."
::Wha?  Could this be any more complex?  I actually had to diagram this paragraph out to understand it.  My hypothesis is most editors will not.  Can't you simply say it is normally necessary to follow the general notability guidelines with respect to neutral, multiple, independent, verifiabile, reliable sources?  And if you do that, what is the point of this whole section - I'm seriously not understanding how this adds anything to present guidelines.
* Criteria / General
:*"1. Widely cited. Papers covering the topic have been widely1 commented on in academic writing within the topic's field.
::2. Outside notability. The topic is notable due to significant coverage in reliable sources outside of academic publications."  
::So we want articles only commented upon widely by multiple academic sources, which also are commented on outside academic sources?  Seems pretty wide, to me.
::Aside from that, I know I read somewhere that Wikipedia is not just a general encyclopedia, but can cover articles appropriate to special subject encyclopedias as well.  Thus 2. might well fail, as most specialist encyclopedias I am aware of have many articles which would only be known inside the discipline the encyclopedia represents.
:*"Notable topics which are primarily non-scientific... [etc.]"
::Boy, I'm going to love the AfDs which try to define whether a topic is "science" or not trying to use this.  Not to mention the arguments you'll get whether or not cosmology (for example) has a scientific basis or not.  Not to mention you're setting up a criteria which is so subjective it will rarely-if-ever be able to objectively define where this guideline would be relevant or not.
::Also, you will get editors asking whether the guideline itself applies or not - something I don't think I've ever seen with any of the other specialty N's about the guideline itself.  I don't need to know if Burpa-Cola has been covered in the Cola News and CNN, or if Billy Bob Arthbutnott has both parlimentary opinions as well as the Sun documenting his career to know that Corp or People:Politicians applies.
*Scientific terms
:Again, how does this get beyond neologisms in a way that Avoid Neologisms doesn't, aside from adding the words "scientific literature"?
*Numbers and Sources
:*"1. Have professional mathematicians published papers on this topic?
::2. Is the sequence listed in the On-Line Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences? (In the case of sequences of rational numbers, does the OEIS have the sequences of numerators and denominators of the relevant fractions?)
::3. Do MathWorld and PlanetMath have articles on this topic?"
:::This may be taken from WProj numbers, I don't know.  But are you stipulating that 2 and 3 are reliable sources? (The Sources section has exactly this same problem.  You're controlling what is considered a Reliable Source without allowing the Wikipedia community at large to define that.  I have a problem with that - if I were arguing Notability(Religion), I would not want it to say that the Bible is an authorized source and any other 'holy' texts by default would have to prove themselves.)
*Sources
:*"Scientific discovery is often disconnected from public discourse, so standard methods of sourcing and verifying are not always applicable. A scientific topic which yields low hit counts in the Google test..."
::That's nice.  The Google test is widely regarded as discredited anyway.  Yes, I know it's still used, but it's questionability is known.
::Also, verifying and sourcing is verfying and sourcing.  I believe what's being aimed at here is scientific notability may have a smaller and different base (with different types of sourcing) for inclusion than other forms of notability.  So why not say that?  Except that above you're demanding 'popular' coverage as well as academic.
:*"Web (and library) searches should therefore be evaluated based on the quality rather than the quantity of the finds."
::Thus, you allow extreme subjectivity creep, unless you are going to make further instruction creep in what constitutes scientific quality.  (My Jung is better than your Freud.  My Hawking beats your Einstein.  My t test is better than your bean counting.)  Common sense might be able to dictate that, but science is full of periods of flying in the face of qualitative common sense and succeeding - because it's right.
:*"The following is a list of sources with qualifications of their usefulness."
::Again, you're preaching what is and isn't acceptable as a source, without allowing the community consensus to decide this over time. 
:*"Google, Yahoo.... [etc]" 
::Uh, again, how is this any different from Google test?
Finally, may I invite you to consider that most notability guidelines are much less complex and much more tolerant of letting individual cases be decided as individual cases?  And I hope that the question about "Have we reached consensus?" is asking if you as the editors have reached consensus about what you want to present to the community as a whole, as opposed to "Are we ready to make this policy ourselves?"
It may seem like I'm pissing all over your proposal.  I hope it doesn't, because I'd like to see a Notability(Science) guideline.  But I want it to be one that's usable and used - I wouldn't do either with this, and I'd argue as need be when someone tries to use this as a vote justification (which will happen, whether you want it to or not.)  Sorry for the length of the diatribe.   LaughingVulcan  01:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal concerns (LV) 

message: What does this page do that isn't already done by WP:N, WP:RS, WP:V, Wikipedia:Fringe theories, and so on?   — Omegatron 04:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not much. --Kevin Murray 04:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

text: This page is arguably the better title at least for Wikipedia:Fringe theories. I'd suggest merging the two. >Radiant< 11:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Maybe a merge to Wikipedia:Fringe science?  Or does "Fringe theories" apply to other types of "theories" as well? — Omegatron 23:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to my knowledge. I don't mind either name. >Radiant< 09:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer some mention of "fringe" or "pseudo". As I say above, I don't believe this has much to do with current practice with respect to obscure or specialised but uncontroversial science. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 15:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Good, scientific notability determines only whether a subject is well-known scientifically, not whether it is notable for an encyclopedia. --216.155.0.100 19:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is this needed? 

message: It seems that this has died and is properly rejected.  --Kevin Murray 10:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good, scientific notability determines only whether a subject is well-known scientifically, not whether it is notable for an encyclopedia. --216.155.0.100 19:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rejected

message: It looks like a number of the contributors here are no longer active at WP: Lantreman ws banned, BDJ and Science Appologist have quit, Minder Binder, Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri, and Laughing Vulcan have not contributed substantially since June and at all since mid-July.   Trials and Errors and Radiant are advocating reinstating this as a proposal, but I don't think that there are enough editors who see this as a need.  It seems that WP:N should suffice.  --Kevin Murray 14:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * I agree.  It seems that essay is becoming a euphemism for rejected proposal.  --Kevin Murray 14:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

text: **Yep. Here's another one. It's becoming increasingly common that people want to obfuscate the fact that the community doesn't like their ideas. >Radiant< 15:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Per Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines: "A rejected page is any proposal for which consensus support is not present, regardless of whether there is active discussion or not. Consensus need not be fully opposed; if consensus is neutral on the issue and unlikely to improve, the proposal is likewise rejected. It is considered bad form to hide this fact, e.g. by removing the tag. Making small changes will not change this fact, nor will repetitive arguments. Generally it is wiser to rewrite a rejected proposal from scratch and start in a different direction." --Kevin Murray 16:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It seems to me that a lot of work has gone into turning this into something that everyone can reject.  I have now reverted the article back to a more robust form, and hope that the process of making it a serious part of Wikpedia's policies and guidelines can now recomemnce. --EMS | Talk 18:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Support or rejection for this proposal