Robert wrote:
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.
That's what I meant by "winner". We report on Albert and not Gertie because he's the "winner" in the sense more people believe him. I'm not making any value judgement on who's right. Sorry if my meaning wasn't clear on that point.
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.
I don't have any complaint that authorities are easy to find. I don't see any policy that says we're obliged to find them, but that's not my biggest concern with it. My major concern is (at the risk of being told I'm making another strawman argument) doesn't this mean that the entirity of Wikipedia suffers from the "appeal to authority" fallacy?
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.
Representative? I agree. Representative is another way of saying popularity contest though. There's a reason why people elected in a democracy (another popularity contest) are called "representatives".
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.
I don't appreciate the insinuation. I'm not the one who chose the Albert vs Gertie example. I personally believe that Albert Einstein is the greatest scientist since Sir Isaac Newton and that the cranks are nutbags.
This isn't about what I think of Einstein though. This is about the NPOV policy. The whole point of Wikipedia is that we're supposed to put our biases aside when writing. My concern certainly isn't to push crank physics views. To the best of my knowledge, I don't even hold any such views. I want to understand the NPOV policy, since it's pretty clear to me that it means something to people that is (to me at least) quite contrary to what I'm reading on the policy page.
Shane.