2006/4/11, Ian Tresman <it(a)knowledge.co.uk>uk>:
For those that are interested, as an example of an
article where I
feel that significant material is being excluded on the grounds of
undue weight (and other pretenses), I would point people to an
article on "The Galaxy rotation problem".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_rotation_problem
A request for comments appears
at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Galaxy_rotation_problem (see
the section RfC: The Galaxy rotation problem: Alternative theories).
I had already suggested text (see link in RfC introduction) that was
subsequently removed. Verification can be found in the following
subsection, Results.
This is typical of many articles where "alternative views" are being
completely removed.
And rightly so. It's a small minority position, and has its own
article. The correct way to handle it in such a more general article
would be to have a one-line statement that plasma cosmology would
solve the problem, and lead people who would like to know more about
the subject to the plasma cosmology page. This is exactly the kind of
thing that undue weight is talking about.
It's very simple: If you get a consensus against you, it probably
means that you are wrong. You cannot push your own POV just by writing
about it in an NPOV way.
I think your example is a good example of why I oppose to those who
say that anything for which there are citations should be included.
Wikipedia is not a soapbox for people pushing theories. And arguing
that your statements are perfectly NPOV and referenced is simply
barking up the wrong tree. There's no reason to put the material where
you want to put it.
--
Andre Engels, andreengels(a)gmail.com
ICQ: 6260644 -- Skype: a_engels