[WikiEN-l] MONGO and the ArbCom

[Ray Saintonge]

George Herbert wrote:

>On 12/12/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
>  
>
>>On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 11:29:18 +1030, "Alphax wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>>Why?  Dismissing it outright is what any rational human being does.
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>NPOV says otherwise.
>>>      
>>>
>>Not so.  We can document it, in terms which make it abundantly clear
>>that *this is simply not true* even though some people are determined
>>to believe it.  NPOV would not, of course, allow the mad theory to
>>creep into the main article.
>>    
>>
>Guy, I hope it's obvious that I respect you quite a lot, but as much
>as I agree with you that the ideas the conspiracists put forth are
>intellectual garbage, I really very badly think that this attitude
>ultimately encourages them and (much worse) public perceptions of
>them.
>
>We can't make the lunacy go away; if we really want to minimize the
>encouragement we give them, let the light of neutral open review of
>their ideas expose them as garbage.  People are much less likely to
>believe conspiracy theories when the whole situation is laid
>dispassionately out for them to see what kooks the kooks are.
>Anything else ends up encouraging them.
>
When you start by calling the conspiricists kooks, and their theories 
garbage you have indeed succeeded in encouraging them.  If an 
alternative non-mainstream theory has enough of a following to make it 
notable it needs to be dealt with fairly.  That can involve diverting it 
from major articles by treating it there in links to relevent 
alternative theories.  The introduction there can briefly describe what 
the theory says, and make a simple statement that the idea is 
controversial.  We can then have a section where the theorists have a 
relatively free hand to develop their ideas without non-believers trying 
to tell them what they believe.  A further section would give the 
critics an equally free reign.  The article would not really reach 
conclusions, but it would be subject to referencing.

When dealing with such subjects it is important to allow for the 
possibility, however remote, that there may be an element of sense in 
the theory.  We have no idea where that sense may lie or that it may 
ever be discovered at all.  The burden of proof remains with the 
proponents, but a failure to carry that burden should not be read as a 
proof that the theory is wrong.  It's perhaps in that leap of faith 
where those opponents who cannot bear loose ends go off the track. 

Ec