Robert wrote:

I had written:

...

...

I totally agree with Jay's point. Wikipedia will immediately lose any credibility it has if it becomes a massive repository of crank views, which it will be if people strictly follow the letter of the NPOV policy as currently written. Articles on and by cranks will outnumber serious issues a hundred to one (at least).

Ray Saintonge responded:

...

Nobody is supporting "a massive repository of crank view" Saying that Wikipedia would become so is entirely speculative. There is no evidence for this nor for the hypothetical loss of credibility. ~~~~

For goodness sake, that is a strawman argument. You know full well that NO ONE claimed that Wikipedia should be turned into "a massive repository of crank view". I certainly made no such claim.

Rather, I was pointing out the well-known fact that many Wikipedia articles constantly are being altered to include fringe and singular point-of-views. On an open Wiki-project such as this, the NPOV policy has been abused by many people to try and give the views of tiny groups the appearance of having the same level of acceptance as views held by much larger groups. Haven't you read Jimbo's posts on this issue? In any case, it is a *fact* that this is one of the many reasons why many people outside of Wikipedia do not trust us yet. Your dismissal of their concerns does not make them non-existent.

If you had intended your argument to be a strawman argument you should have attached a smiley to it. Now that you have indicated that you were not being serious I can apologize for responding as though you were.

The expression "massive repository of crank views" was yours, and it seemed as though you were lounging in idle speculation.

Knowledge is not democratic and the fact that a point of view is held by a majority is not in itself enough to make it true. NPOV policy is just as often abused by majoritarian storm-troopers who fear being knocked from their intellectual sinecures. Nowhere have I argued that cranks are anything but cranks. Neither have I ever argued that they should have unrestrained access to air their views in any and all circumstances. The "previous publication" alone is objective enough and adequate to keep such concepts from spinning out of control. That rule can and should be applied without any regard to the nature of the views expressed. If the contributor gets past that hurdle, a simple paragraph expressing the general level of disbelief about the matter is sufficient. If you have undermined the fundamental idea being presented it becomes pointless to argue about every derivative idea; those are all GIGO arguments which become very tedious and annoying to the reader. Let the reader be forwarned, and allow him to read for humour without wading through piles of henpecking troll food.

Yes I have read Jimbo's posts on the matter, and I respectfully disagree with him; with you I simply disagree. So what? In the midst of your paragraph you ask that question in isolation, and go on with another comment. It seems that you intend more by that question than just a simple "Yes" or "No" answer.

I certainly didn't deny that people have certain concerns, I merely questioned the basis for those concerns. You as an alleged scientist have made certain statements about the lack of trust that outsiders have in Wikipedia. A real scientist would give evidence.

Ray continues:

...

I agree that that article is dreadful. To begin with it is

sprinkled throughout with with words like "supposed" or "alleged" which if repeated tend to bias the commentary, and certainly detract from the flow of the text.

Sorry, Ray, but NPOV policy demands that all unproven and/or unfounded claims must be phrased in this way. We don't write about unproven phenomenon (sic!) like ESP and alien abuductions as facts; we may only write that "Person X claims that they were abducted by aliens, who them examined them with ESP. The alleged experience happened in a cornfield in Iowa in 1977." We do not write about such unproven and extraodrinary claims as if they were facts.

So where does it say that these terms need to be repeated ad nauseam? A single insertion of "The advocates claim ..." can be applied to whole paragraphs or multiple paragraphs at the same time. That makes them far more readable.

Your concatenation of two sparate subjects is deceitful. As one who happens to consider only one of the to be credible, I see that lumping them together is just another one of your strawman arguments. Your preposterous claim is designed to make the more acceptable concept less credible

For some time now you have been claiming to accept NPOV, yet at every opportunity you effectively subvert it. Please recognize this, and desist.

Supporting NPOV does not imply bowing to pretend scientists.

Ec