In response to Jimbo, Shane writes:
But that IS about who is more popular. We don't take each individual scientist, evaluate how good they are, and decide to rank their views according to that. Instead we shotgun it and say nearly everyone believes Albert not Gertie, so we'll declare him the winner.
No, Shane, we DO NOT do that. Wikipedia does NOT engage in original research, and it does NOT make findings of scientific fact. Rather, we follow NPOV policy by reporting who believes the findings of Albert Einstein and why; we don't declare anyone a winner.
At a more abstract level, I don't see why you think we can even evaluate credibility. You point out how we can't evaluate theories well because we're not necessarily qualified to do so, and I agree with that. But if we can't evaluate those theories, how can we evaluate how well the people who do evaluate those theories are doing?
Either this is a strawman, or you are taking a logical argument to highly illogical conclusion. I am NOT an authority on General Relativity, but there are dozens of scientists who are such authorities, and they are easy to find. Only the most obvious trolls and internet-cranks claim otherwise.
In an article we would report something like "Most physicists believe that X is correct", and explain their reasons. We would also say that "Some physicists believe that X should be re-evalutaed because...", and explain their reasons. We can even offer a brief overview of some of the popular views held by self-published cranks. We do not need to proclaim anyone the "winner". By following NPOV we just say who holds a view, and how representative their view is.
Popularity. It's a popularity contest.
No it is not, not in the slightest. Right now you are beginning to worry me. I have seen this exact argument made by cranks and trolls on the physics newsgroups.
Robert
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail