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