On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 7:25 PM, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
On 2/19/12 2:29 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
The key problem here is that WP:UNDUE was expressly written to address the problem of genuine ongoing controversies, and fringe views. In this case there is no ongoing controversy, but the use of the policy has for long been used to remove new research no-one has even refuted, much less there being an intractable controversy over the issue.
In some cases I think *that* is also the correct response, though it's difficult to sort out how to distinguish when it is and isn't. In my own field (artificial intelligence), there is a certain amount of excessive recentism in Wikipedia articles--- some new paper will come out with a grand new result or critique, will get a flurry of coverage in New Scientist and similar publications, and the Wikipedia article will be updated with this "cutting-edge AI" result.
I completely agree that *sometimes* it the correct response. I completely disagree that it is a WP:UNDUE issue. Maybe we should have a WP:SPECULATIVE policy page.