2007/8/10, Yury Tarasievich yury.tarasievich@gmail.com:
I perceive a contradiction here in an additional notion of some ill-defined "truthfullness" threshold, which may be freely abused -- and is abused.
I don't see how this would be the case. If something is verifiable, it seems to me it cannot be judged untrue.
And once again, I'm not talking of POVs of some sects or cults.
Well, you may not be talking about it, but you cannot make a general statement and then decide to only apply it where you want it.
Okay, let's simplify the issue -- let's talk about whether academic views, which weren't actually challenged on their factual or interpretational basis, may be blocked from inclusion on basis of their unfamiliarity to some of the editors?
It depends on the knowledgeability to the editors involved. If they are in such a position that they would have known of the theory if it were actually an important theory in the field being discussed, then it might be an issue. Even if not, they can still argue from 'negative sources' ("It's not mentioned in this source and that source, both of which would be expected to mention any important theory in the field").
Academic views don't deserve their inclusion in Wikipedia by being published by an authority in the field, but by being considered important enough by his or her colleagues. A Wikipedia editor who has some knowledge in the field may use his own knowledge to judge that - although there is a good chance of misjudgement, so such a decision is not really 'final'.