 | 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.
Principles of Wikipedia
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.
Common misunderstandings of FRINGE
- "If an idea is FRINGE, then WP:FRINGE applies."
- Because FRINGE guidelines are just restatements of RS and NPOV, they apply to every view in every source in exactly the same way. There are no special rules that come into play once you label a view as FRINGE. Any idea may be WP:DUE or WP:UNDUE depending on the page and context. A 49% minority is technically FRINGE but should receive proportional coverage, which is to say nearly as much as the most mainstream view.
- "FRINGE views do not belong in the encyclopedia."
- If an idea is fringe, that just means it is not the most mainstream idea. It does not neccessarily mean it is wrong or unworthy of consideration. Even if it is wrong, "Ideas should not be excluded from the encyclopedia simply because they are widely held to be wrong." Ideas should be excluded when they have no support in reliable sources. A little support is not the same as no support.
- "FRINGE scientific views are pseudoscience."
- Some are, some aren't. There is a spectrum of acceptance. At the top there is the mainstream, but close to the mainstream there are alternative theoretical formulations. These differ from pseudoscience, in that alternative formulations:
- Are part of the scientific process rather than outside it.
- Do not propose ideas incompatible with fundamental physical laws or consensus reality.
- Seek and incorporate criticism rather than avoiding and rejecting it.
- "If a source endorses FRINGE ideas, then it is unreliable."
- Maybe, and maybe not. It is one of very many things to consider when evaluating reliability. [note 1] Sources should be judged on consistent criteria, not solely on the basis of how well they support a viewpoint.
- "My source says your source is fringe."
- There is no first mover advantage. The rejection is also part of the body of reliable sources, but it does not necessarily remove its opponent from the community of reliable sources. If an idea is supported by multiple sources that are otherwise reputable, then that is at least a significant minority idea. citing a source approvingly is also a signal of reputability. Editors may reach a WP:CONSENSUS that there is WP:INACCURACY in the body of sources, but otherwise should follow NPOV in describing the dispute.
- "Wikipedia has a responsibility to debunk fringe theories."
- Fringe views should be compared and contrasted with the mainstream, but nothing in Wikipedia policy gives a right or duty for articles to always make the strongest possible case against them. Policies prohibit "originally synthesized prose 'debunking' notable ideas which the scientific community may consider to be absurd or unworthy." Verifiability and BLP policies are not weakened when dealing with fringe topics. "We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it, and otherwise include and describe these ideas in their proper context concerning established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world."
Fringe views get to speak for themselves on their own pages
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.
Describing acceptance
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.
Notes
- ^ A view is fringe when it, "departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field." The mainstream is usually determined by scholarly opinion as assessed in reliable sources. It is less appropriate to rely exclusively on scholarly sources to settle political issues or questions of morality. More caution is warranted before applying Fringe policies to anything that is not an objective scientific or historical matter. Peer reviewed journal articles are generally considered the most authoritative sources; however, there are caveats to consider, which may make a source less authoritative than it initially appears. There are journals that exist only to promote a particular point of view, lacking editorial independence. Independence means that a source has no conflict of interest. Just being a primary source or biased in favor of a theory does not mean that the source is not independent. When sources disagree, there are several possible courses of action, depending on the relative quality of the sources. When the sources are of similar quality, editors should document all the views without trying to resolve the conflict. If reliable sources say there is a scholarly controversy, readers should be informed of that with references to specific authors and works. Claims of bias in scientific sources should be cited and attributed to other high-quality secondary sources. Publication bias can occur for a variety of reasons other than scientific rejection of an idea. Quantity can't be disregarded entirely, but when reliable sources document the existence of publication bias in a field, that deserves consideration. Conversely, the reputation of a source may be affected by the fringeness of its ideas. Reliability of a source encompasses the work, publisher, and author. If any of these three things is known to support a fringe theory, it may indicate it is less reliable for other claims as well. This is not automatic, and should be discussed on a case-by-case basis. Do not assume that a consensus to remove a source in one context justifies removing it everywhere in the encyclopedia.
See also
| 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.
Principles of Wikipedia
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.
Common misunderstandings of FRINGE
- "If an idea is FRINGE, then WP:FRINGE applies."
- Because FRINGE guidelines are just restatements of RS and NPOV, they apply to every view in every source in exactly the same way. There are no special rules that come into play once you label a view as FRINGE. Any idea may be WP:DUE or WP:UNDUE depending on the page and context. A 49% minority is technically FRINGE but should receive proportional coverage, which is to say nearly as much as the most mainstream view.
- "FRINGE views do not belong in the encyclopedia."
- If an idea is fringe, that just means it is not the most mainstream idea. It does not neccessarily mean it is wrong or unworthy of consideration. Even if it is wrong, "Ideas should not be excluded from the encyclopedia simply because they are widely held to be wrong." Ideas should be excluded when they have no support in reliable sources. A little support is not the same as no support.
- "FRINGE scientific views are pseudoscience."
- Some are, some aren't. There is a spectrum of acceptance. At the top there is the mainstream, but close to the mainstream there are alternative theoretical formulations. These differ from pseudoscience, in that alternative formulations:
- Are part of the scientific process rather than outside it.
- Do not propose ideas incompatible with fundamental physical laws or consensus reality.
- Seek and incorporate criticism rather than avoiding and rejecting it.
- "If a source endorses FRINGE ideas, then it is unreliable."
- Maybe, and maybe not. It is one of very many things to consider when evaluating reliability. [note 1] Sources should be judged on consistent criteria, not solely on the basis of how well they support a viewpoint.
- "My source says your source is fringe."
- There is no first mover advantage. The rejection is also part of the body of reliable sources, but it does not necessarily remove its opponent from the community of reliable sources. If an idea is supported by multiple sources that are otherwise reputable, then that is at least a significant minority idea. citing a source approvingly is also a signal of reputability. Editors may reach a WP:CONSENSUS that there is WP:INACCURACY in the body of sources, but otherwise should follow NPOV in describing the dispute.
- "Wikipedia has a responsibility to debunk fringe theories."
- Fringe views should be compared and contrasted with the mainstream, but nothing in Wikipedia policy gives a right or duty for articles to always make the strongest possible case against them. Policies prohibit "originally synthesized prose 'debunking' notable ideas which the scientific community may consider to be absurd or unworthy." Verifiability and BLP policies are not weakened when dealing with fringe topics. "We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it, and otherwise include and describe these ideas in their proper context concerning established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world."
Fringe views get to speak for themselves on their own pages
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.
Describing acceptance
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.
Notes
- ^ A view is fringe when it, "departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field." The mainstream is usually determined by scholarly opinion as assessed in reliable sources. It is less appropriate to rely exclusively on scholarly sources to settle political issues or questions of morality. More caution is warranted before applying Fringe policies to anything that is not an objective scientific or historical matter. Peer reviewed journal articles are generally considered the most authoritative sources; however, there are caveats to consider, which may make a source less authoritative than it initially appears. There are journals that exist only to promote a particular point of view, lacking editorial independence. Independence means that a source has no conflict of interest. Just being a primary source or biased in favor of a theory does not mean that the source is not independent. When sources disagree, there are several possible courses of action, depending on the relative quality of the sources. When the sources are of similar quality, editors should document all the views without trying to resolve the conflict. If reliable sources say there is a scholarly controversy, readers should be informed of that with references to specific authors and works. Claims of bias in scientific sources should be cited and attributed to other high-quality secondary sources. Publication bias can occur for a variety of reasons other than scientific rejection of an idea. Quantity can't be disregarded entirely, but when reliable sources document the existence of publication bias in a field, that deserves consideration. Conversely, the reputation of a source may be affected by the fringeness of its ideas. Reliability of a source encompasses the work, publisher, and author. If any of these three things is known to support a fringe theory, it may indicate it is less reliable for other claims as well. This is not automatic, and should be discussed on a case-by-case basis. Do not assume that a consensus to remove a source in one context justifies removing it everywhere in the encyclopedia.