Suppose I believe that the Earth is not round but
cube-shaped. And I have
arguments for it. So I put these on [[Earth]]. Next someone else comes, and
says that that's bollocks. He adds all kids of arguments on why the Earth
is really a sphere, and arguments against mine. Then I put arguments against
his. And soon we spend most of the Earth page discussing arguments for and
against a cubical Earth. Is that really the way to go?
Sure. And when this takes up a substantial portion of the [[Earth]]
article, someone will complain on [[Talk:Earth]] that this is a fringe
theory, held only by very few persons, and in accordance with [[NPOV]]
should probably be moved to [[Cubical Earth]]. We already do have [[Flat
Earth]] and [[Flat Earth Society]], by the way, and I rather like it. :-)
We have managed to deal with historical revisionism regarding the
Holocaust, we have managed to deal with fringe philosophical views, and so
on. I see no reason why NPOV should not be scalable. People are smart.
They know when to split up stuff, remove arguments which are obviously
Actually, my problems may lay deeper. A cubic Earth I
can refute. But what
if someone claims that Siberia had a tropical climate until 4000 years ago?
Evidence? Studies? References? Is this just their opinion? Then delete it.
Can they provide references to authorities who have actually made that
claim? Then discuss it together with other studies on the subject. Nobody
on Wikipedia knows about the subject to refute it? Then it will possibly
be wrong until someone who does comes along and fixes it. Big deal.
If you want an encyclopedia that is carefully checked not to contain
idiosyncratic, unchecked material, the Sifter project is for you. I
predict that this will be up and running in less than a year.