[Wikipedia-l] Non-notability "abuse"

[Ian Tresman]

>There is no reason not to have an article on Immanuel, or innumerable
>other pseudoscientific phenomena / fads / people.
>
>My opinion on fringe materials is to be inclusive in terms of having
>articles or descriptions, but make the descriptions from a mainstream
>perspective.  Velikovsky was not in the end a scientist; nor was
>Hoagland, or others of note recently.  We have articles for them, and
>their most important theories, as we should.  The articles need not
>confuse the issue by telling readers to lend the fringe theory as much
>credibility as one does normal mainstream science.


Wikipedia specifically tells us to describe things from a neutral 
point of view which Jimmy Wales says is "absolute and non-negotiable".

That's not to say that we exclude the scientific point of view, or 
even the mainstream scientific point of view. But we do tell people 
there is a mainstream point of view, and point people to the 
appropriate article, and/or, provide criticisms where they exist.

When we describe the Republican point of view, we don't automatically 
counter-point from the Democratic point of view.

I would expect a scientific encyclopedia to assume a mainstream 
scientific point of view.

Regards,

Ian Tresman
www.plasma-universe.com