NPOV and credibility (was Re: [WikiEN-l] Original research)

[Charles Matthews]

Joseph Reagle wrote

>      * It's no good being dogmatic. I've found the criticism of the
>        IPCC policy summaries (distinct from the actual report) to be
>        interesting and the recent debate regarding ice sampling in the
>        Arctic worthy of further research.

It is no good just being dogmatic, in a science article.  On the other hand
I have been involved in the quantum gravity disputes, for a few months, as a
neutral (hopefully) third party.  One person involved has made (with some
justification) the point that the sheer interest of a sharp debate was being
overstated.  That is, too journalistic to assume always that disagreement is
drama.

As we know, there can be smoke without fire in such cases.  This can
properly be called a 'credibility' issue; if the truth appears to be that
'we just don't know, right now'.

Consider for example how much WP in 1950 should have contained about what
was on the dark side of the Moon.  Inadequate justification for simply
asserting as dogma 'probably just like the side we can see, in general
terms'; but on the other hand most other theories were ridiculous, and there
would have been little reason to mention one speculation over another.

Charles