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.