Global warming is a bad example. That's an area that involves considerable controversy and contention among scientists, there really is no scientific consensus on it. Also, all sides are at least capable of being scientific (as they are very falsifiable) and there is science being practiced , to some extent, on both sides.
This is quite a bit different than well-established, non-controversial theories for which there is near unanimous consent in the scientific community. Especially in cases where the only opposition is religious and/or political in nature.
Agreed. And of course the line of reasonable doubt has to be drawn somewhere. I think that it is noble and a sign of the high quality of Wikipedia editors that they are generally willing to err on the side of caution. It's just that I don't think we should err *enormously* on the side of caution. Let's look at a few propositions:
A 1. The Earth is less than 10 thousand years old. A 2. Homeopathic remedies are more effective than can be explained by the placebo effect.
B 1. Human beings did not land on the moon in the 1960's. B 2. Jews were not systematically exterminated in Europe under the Nazi regime.
- - - My line of reasonable doubt - - -
C 1. Human activities are not having a significant effect on global weather patterns and average temperature. C 2. When presenting the case for invading Iraq, the Bush administration made no attempt to exaggerate the threat of Iraq's purported weapons of mass destruction.
I'd say the propositions in the B class are an order of magnitude more reasonable and probable than those in the A class. They don't break any laws of physics. They do, however, involve vast forgery of documents and a conspiracy to conceal the truth which is so enormous as to be entirely improbable.
The propositions in the C class are again an order of magnitude more probable than those in the B class. They don't break any laws of physics and they don't require vast conspiracies. They do, I think, require interpreting a lot of data in creative ways but I'd say they are tenable enough for Wikipedia to take into account when discussing the relevant phenomena.
The line has to be drawn somehwere. There comes a point where attempting to take every theory into account gets in the way of writing a useful encyclopedia. We shouldn't need to qualify statements about the Earth's age and we shouldn't hestitate to put a discipline that involves shaking water and pretending it's medicine into a pseudo-science category.
- - -
I think the Neutral Point of View is a good policy. When reasonable people disagree about a subject we should report all sides of the argument. That's what I try to do myself, take my article on [[Hrafnkels saga]] as an example. There are many theories on the saga's origins and the article tries to describe each of them fairly.
Of course Wikipedia can't settle every argument and establish the truth of every proposition. But when the truth is known beyond reasonable doubt we should report it. And we do.
Regards, Haukur