Ray Saintonge wrote:
The term "crackpot" should really be
avoided, because of the attitude
that it carries.
I support allowing each of them to have
an article where the proponent has virtually free reign to explain his
ideas. Opponents of the theories should learn to apply some restraint,
and to note that it will suffice for the purpose of NPOV to make a note
at the end of the article saying something like, "The ideas in this
article are disputed by the mainstream of scientific thought." The more
outrageous and ridiculous you consider a theory to be, the less you
should say about it.
I thoroughly disagree, for three reasons:
* nobody should ever get virtually free reign over any Wikipedia
* NPOV, as well the duty to our readers, requires that people are
informed *why* mainstream scientists dispute a given theory. How
else would they be able to properly judge the matter?
* A theory that only exists in one head and maybe in an incomplete
outline in some usenet articles and web pages is not a proper
subject of encyclopedic coverage. An encyclopedia reports about those
things that *have had* an impact, it does not help people along who
want to *make* an impact.