[Wikipedia-l] Non-notability "abuse"
Ian Tresman
ian2 at knowledge.co.uk
Mon Sep 17 22:30:29 UTC 2007
>There is no reason not to have an article on Immanuel, or innumerable
>other pseudoscientific phenomena / fads / people.
>
>My opinion on fringe materials is to be inclusive in terms of having
>articles or descriptions, but make the descriptions from a mainstream
>perspective. Velikovsky was not in the end a scientist; nor was
>Hoagland, or others of note recently. We have articles for them, and
>their most important theories, as we should. The articles need not
>confuse the issue by telling readers to lend the fringe theory as much
>credibility as one does normal mainstream science.
Wikipedia specifically tells us to describe things from a neutral
point of view which Jimmy Wales says is "absolute and non-negotiable".
That's not to say that we exclude the scientific point of view, or
even the mainstream scientific point of view. But we do tell people
there is a mainstream point of view, and point people to the
appropriate article, and/or, provide criticisms where they exist.
When we describe the Republican point of view, we don't automatically
counter-point from the Democratic point of view.
I would expect a scientific encyclopedia to assume a mainstream
scientific point of view.
Regards,
Ian Tresman
www.plasma-universe.com
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list