Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories/Archive 1

message: I created this proposal after seeing (but not participating in) some of the discussion on AFD/DRV about the "Aetherometry" article and its notability. I think we should be able to come up with some intelligent guidelines which make sense and aren't draconian in any way. I think most of the pseudoscientific theories/conspiracy theories/etc. on WP are probably well within the guidelines I have suggested which is fine with me. The goal is to avoid Wikipedia being a "launching point" for some sort of new theory or to avoid being a webhosting service for crackpots. Any suggestions and modifications are welcome, I am not dogmatic about this in the slightest, and have no vested interests one way or the other. --Fastfission 17:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to say that I think this is a good start; thanks. I'll be back in a bit... William M. Connolley 17:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

text: What WMC said, I appreciate the invite and will be back. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Launching points for new theories are great. -- Marvin147 03:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, why not? But Wikipedia isn't a launching point. --Fastfission 02:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Creation

message: Besides the historical/social examples above, this proposed policy seems to be already covered by NOR.  See especially  the origin of NOR section that notes that it was created as a sound way to prevent physics-cranks type material from being added.  --Interiot 18:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Already covered by [[Wikipedia:No original research]] 

message: I agree that existing policies (especially NOR) already exclude this type of page, or if not, I'm sure the usual crowd on AfD will happy to delete fringe theories. It is not necessary to establish any new policy, but this is a good discussion of how an average Wikipedian would rate the notability of a theory and some of the criteria they might use. I agree with pretty much all the content except the last example, which I'm not sufficiently familiar with to judge. Deco 06:37, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good guideline 

message: Hmm, clearly this is harder than it looked. DFs point is good. But on the NOR question... I have realised I was actually looking for something slightly different than what this page is: which is guidance on how disputed-pseudoscience should be handled within wiki, given that they are considered notable enough to include. I'd like a guideline that says that peer-reviewed publication is the measure of science, and anything without such publication isn't science. I have a feeling that put as baldly as this there may be some nasty counterexamples to be found, even if none immeadiately spring to mind (to deal with one possible objection, Einsteins relativity before publication wouldn't have deserved a place in wiki in 1904). Of some relevance is User:Ems57fcva's thoughtful essay on his user page: what he is doing is probably science; but it doesn't deserve a place in wiki unless published. William M. Connolley 21:37, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Looking for something else perhaps 

message: Now finally we can bring all fringe science to an end, and enable the owners of the current mainstream media to define notability. How many owners is that, by the way? -- Marvin147 02:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  media monoculture 

message: "'Mainstream' here refers to ideas which are accepted or at least somewhat discussed as being plausible within major publications (large-circulation newspapers or magazines) or respected and peer-reviewed scientific publications."
:I think there are probably a number of publications specializing in fringe theories that have large circulations.  Supermarket tabloids, for example. Schizombie 20:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So a "weird news" segment on the news automatically makes something notable?  Slow news days, or April Fools Day, or Halloween, when coverage of fringe stuff is more likely occur, make things notable?  Also the idea that debunking something that is not notable makes it notable is a bit odd; presumably the idea of debunking something is to keep an untruth from spreading, but maybe the would-be debunkers be better served by not commenting on the thing they want to debunk at all, so it doesn't become "notable."  It's a bit of a catch-22; the fringe theorist who has not been debunked will say "look, they must know I'm telling the truth!" while the fringe theorist who has been debunked will come up with explanations as to why the debunking is actually a validation. Schizombie 20:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The point is, is that if something is enough of a threat(for lack of a better word) that it needs to be debunked than that is evidence of notability. That said, I agree with your concerns about tabloids, very slow news days, April fools etc. JoshuaZ 17:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Guidelines section 

message: My previous edit summary should have read as follows:
:Rv to last by Byrgenwulf, to restore proper formatting and consistency with WP:RS.
My apologies.  Anville 16:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Truncated edit comment 

message: Hi, I'm wondering if the editors of this page consider this to be a full guideline. The tag at the top is different from more accepted guidelines, and that makes me wonder. One thing i'm proposing is that you use the Template:guideline, rather than the tag you have now. However, I wonder how useful this is as a guideline since this guildeline seems to be completely covered by NOR and V. Please discuss it here (i'll be posting this message on other pages that have this same tag). Thanks! Fresheneesz 20:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. As far as I can tell, these prospective guidelines are either an attempt to (1) clarify WP:OR and WP:V with respect to the mainstream-fringe distinction, in which case you are correct about their redundancy, or (2) weaken NOR and V in order to (a) include popular non-mainstream theories as defined by the first proposed guideline, or (b) exclude unpopular theories which have been described in the mainstream media and/or (unpopular) peer-reviewed journals. My impression is that they were most recently intended for the last purpose (2b), and because this purpose is obviously illegitimate, I've been forced to edit them repeatedly. Had they passed without objection in their original form, the tag would no doubt already have been replaced so that they could be officially invoked in order to override NOR and V as currently formulated. But as it now stands, they are merely (largely) redundant. (Of course, they may still be of clarificative value to those Wikipedians who have trouble properly interpreting NOR and V, or maintaining WP:NPOV.) Asmodeus 18:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Is this a guideline?