[WikiEN-l] William Connelley no longer neutral contributor

[Jimmy Wales]

Gareth Owen wrote:
>Are you really suggesting that
>     "most scientists find Theory X to be beyond reasonable
> skepticism."  is not an acceptable standard for the exclusion of
> Theory X from a supposedly scientific encyclopedia.

I don't think I'm suggesting that, no.  It depends on what you mean,
so I better ask some questions before I answer.  (And I think there's
a grammatical typo of some sort in what you wrote?  I think you meant
to say 'exclusion of criticism of Theory X'?)

What do you mean by 'exclusion'?  Do you mean that if most scientists
believe something, that we should be careful not to even _mention_
alternatives that are actually held by significant critics?

I think if most scientists find Theory X to be beyond reasonable
skepticism, then that's exactly what we should say.  We should not
give "equal time" to the other side, nor make it seem as if our
opinion is that both points of view are equally valid.  But we can
achieve all of that without actually needing to make the claim
ourselves.

We do this all the time in articles on actually crackpot notions,
like the Loch Ness Monster.  Here's a very good paragraph:

>The Loch Ness Monster legend refers to the purported existence of a
>large plesiosaur-like creature that lives in Loch Ness, a large lake
>in Scotland near the city of Inverness. "Nessie" is generally
>considered to be a sea monster. In July 2003, the BBC reported that an
>extensive investigation of Loch Ness by a BBC team, using 600 separate
>sonar beams, found no trace of any "sea monster" in the loch. The BBC
>team stated that it is now conclusively proven that "Nessie" does not
>exist [1].

Notice that the reader is not given any wishy-washy nonsense about
"some say this, some say that".  And yet, at the same time, the
article *itself*, Wikipedia *itself*, takes no stand on the issue.  (I
haven't read the rest of the article just now, so I can't say if the
rest of the article is as good.)

--Jimbo