On 10/08/07, Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com wrote:
2007/8/10, Yury Tarasievich yury.tarasievich@gmail.com:
What's troubling me now is that what you say seems to me likecontradicting the following pieces in the WP:OR:
- The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.
In what way is this contradictory? It is only contradictory if you take this to mean "anything that is verifiable should be in Wikipedia"
- and even then it still does not say what article it should be in.
- In many cases, there are multiple established views of any given
topic. In such cases, no single position, no matter how well researched, is authoritative. It is not the responsibility of any one editor to research all points of view. But when incorporating research into an article, it is important that editors provide context for this point of view, by indicating how prevalent the position is, and whether it is held by a majority or minority.
A bit further down, it says:
If your viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, then — whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not — it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, except perhaps in some ancillary article.
-- Andre Engels, andreengels@gmail.com ICQ: 6260644 -- Skype: a_engels _______________________________________________
Yury, you have opened a can of worms.
The critera for source is not so biased in favour of who has the largest voice. Sources must come from established notable publications. in terms of the english wikipedia, no not everything has to be in the English language, but main sources must be to be credible.
Who decides what is a fringe theory? 9/11 theorists, JFK theorists and for this list Armenian genocide theorists? I don't know what is a deciding factor apart from we should report what the mainstream writes. Should Wikipedia be wrong in these circumstances - yes. Is Wikipedia being "hoodwinked" by only reporting what is mainstream knowledge? possibly. Where do alternative theories fit? well they fit somewhere in every article, but must be played down.
Deletion because "I don't agree" was never my idea and I think the concept is against everything Wikipedia is about. I much favor moving "controversial subjects" to talk and discuss them there before we wikiarmageddon.
mikey