This
essay is in development. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Consider these views with discretion, especially since this page is still under construction. |
Wikipedia's Fringe Content guidelines are an important tool against abuse of Wikipedia to promote pseudoscience and discrimination. However, these guidelines can also be mis-applied to censor valid information.
If there ever appears to be a conflict between FRINGE guidelines and the Five Pillars of Wikipedia, FRINGE must take a back seat.
One of the pillars is the Neutral Point of View Policy:
“ | We avoid advocacy, and we characterize information and issues rather than debate them. In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view; in others, we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context rather than as "the truth" or "the best view". | ” |
— WP:5P2 |
FRINGE is an explanatory guideline that emphasizes certain aspects of WP:RS and NPOV. There is nothing truly original in FRINGE. Reading Fringe guidelines should lead to the same conclusions as reading the core policies would.
When a fringe theory is the main topic of an article, the page should "first describe the idea clearly and objectively, then refer the reader to more accepted ideas, and avoid excessive use of point-counterpoint style refutations." The presentation of the theory should be complete, neutral, and uninterrupted. The views of adherents should be drawn from the best available sources for those views. Adherents should not be excluded from the theory's own page on the basis of lacking peer review.
When the fringe theory is not the main topic, the details may be relegated to a different page. In that case, criticisms should also be as parsimonious as possible. There is no case where a theory can be excoriated in detail without reply.
Fringe and due weight guidelines affect the quantity of text devoted to minority views, but not the quality of that information. Selective presentation of evidence violates NPOV. Once the decision has been taken to discuss a minority view rather than exclude it, the view should be supported with the best evidence available in reliable sources. It is not valid to withhold strong arguments and advance weak arguments on the basis that an idea is considered fringe.
An article should only say that there is a consensus to accept or reject an idea if there is a secondary source that says this explicitly. Supporting this kind of claim just by stacking a large number of citations that agree with it is synthesis. The most appropriate source for this kind of claim is a review article. More weight should be given to assessments by practitioners in the field. If a news source is used to describe an academic consensus, prefer attributing this as an opinion.
There can be disgreements on whether examples of questionable science are pseudoscience or not. A theory should not be unambiguously described as pseudoscience if there are legitimate academic sources that dispute that characterization.
Regardless of how the consensus is described, Wikipedia should only describe a disupute, not participate in it. Applying value-laden labels including "racist" or "sexist" should only be done as the attributed opinion of a source. Wikipedia should let the facts speak for themselves and leave readers to make their own value judgements.
This
essay is in development. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Consider these views with discretion, especially since this page is still under construction. |
Wikipedia's Fringe Content guidelines are an important tool against abuse of Wikipedia to promote pseudoscience and discrimination. However, these guidelines can also be mis-applied to censor valid information.
If there ever appears to be a conflict between FRINGE guidelines and the Five Pillars of Wikipedia, FRINGE must take a back seat.
One of the pillars is the Neutral Point of View Policy:
“ | We avoid advocacy, and we characterize information and issues rather than debate them. In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view; in others, we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context rather than as "the truth" or "the best view". | ” |
— WP:5P2 |
FRINGE is an explanatory guideline that emphasizes certain aspects of WP:RS and NPOV. There is nothing truly original in FRINGE. Reading Fringe guidelines should lead to the same conclusions as reading the core policies would.
When a fringe theory is the main topic of an article, the page should "first describe the idea clearly and objectively, then refer the reader to more accepted ideas, and avoid excessive use of point-counterpoint style refutations." The presentation of the theory should be complete, neutral, and uninterrupted. The views of adherents should be drawn from the best available sources for those views. Adherents should not be excluded from the theory's own page on the basis of lacking peer review.
When the fringe theory is not the main topic, the details may be relegated to a different page. In that case, criticisms should also be as parsimonious as possible. There is no case where a theory can be excoriated in detail without reply.
Fringe and due weight guidelines affect the quantity of text devoted to minority views, but not the quality of that information. Selective presentation of evidence violates NPOV. Once the decision has been taken to discuss a minority view rather than exclude it, the view should be supported with the best evidence available in reliable sources. It is not valid to withhold strong arguments and advance weak arguments on the basis that an idea is considered fringe.
An article should only say that there is a consensus to accept or reject an idea if there is a secondary source that says this explicitly. Supporting this kind of claim just by stacking a large number of citations that agree with it is synthesis. The most appropriate source for this kind of claim is a review article. More weight should be given to assessments by practitioners in the field. If a news source is used to describe an academic consensus, prefer attributing this as an opinion.
There can be disgreements on whether examples of questionable science are pseudoscience or not. A theory should not be unambiguously described as pseudoscience if there are legitimate academic sources that dispute that characterization.
Regardless of how the consensus is described, Wikipedia should only describe a disupute, not participate in it. Applying value-laden labels including "racist" or "sexist" should only be done as the attributed opinion of a source. Wikipedia should let the facts speak for themselves and leave readers to make their own value judgements.