This is an
essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of
Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been
thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
Fringe theories are often discussed in Wikipedia articles, subject to the WP:FRINGE policy. Even the most radical conspiracy theories are often represented in their own articles, if they are sufficiently notable. But the problem is that they are usually written like any other valid viewpoint, and even cite some book or source as a reference. So, how do we identify a conspiracy theory as such?
A credible author that says "that is a fringe theory" is a good way to do that, but not always. Fringe theories tend to be, well, fringe, so perhaps nobody debunked it: not because it is accepted, but because nobody took the work to take the fringe theory into account and explain why it is wrong. Scientists are busy people and work on full-time important projects, they can't waste their time debunking the claims of every lunatic that shows up. So, let's see how to identify a fringe theory simply by analysis.
Fringe theories may show up at any field of knowledge, and their claims would be specific to it. Still, most of them have a similar premise: they say that the mainstream description of something is completely wrong, because of some active conspiracy to keep us believing in something wrong. The fringe theory, on the other hand, comes to show us the hidden truth. Conspiracy theories provide easy explanations for things kept under secrecy, and for unknown things. They may also try to explain something that does have an explanation, but which is very complex for the layman. A conspiracy theory may even provide a self-serving explanation to use victimization when the state of things is not to someone's liking.
Despite their apparent simplicity, conspiracy theories usually have huge gaps that allow us to identify them.
Conversely, many actual conspiracies are known to have taken place; in some cases, evidence of the conspiracy, and consensus as to its existence, took years to surface. So if the above huge gaps and logical flaws are seriously acknowledged and debated, it might be that there was an actual conspiracy. Which, of course, is a completely different thing from a conspiracy theory.
This is an
essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of
Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been
thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
Fringe theories are often discussed in Wikipedia articles, subject to the WP:FRINGE policy. Even the most radical conspiracy theories are often represented in their own articles, if they are sufficiently notable. But the problem is that they are usually written like any other valid viewpoint, and even cite some book or source as a reference. So, how do we identify a conspiracy theory as such?
A credible author that says "that is a fringe theory" is a good way to do that, but not always. Fringe theories tend to be, well, fringe, so perhaps nobody debunked it: not because it is accepted, but because nobody took the work to take the fringe theory into account and explain why it is wrong. Scientists are busy people and work on full-time important projects, they can't waste their time debunking the claims of every lunatic that shows up. So, let's see how to identify a fringe theory simply by analysis.
Fringe theories may show up at any field of knowledge, and their claims would be specific to it. Still, most of them have a similar premise: they say that the mainstream description of something is completely wrong, because of some active conspiracy to keep us believing in something wrong. The fringe theory, on the other hand, comes to show us the hidden truth. Conspiracy theories provide easy explanations for things kept under secrecy, and for unknown things. They may also try to explain something that does have an explanation, but which is very complex for the layman. A conspiracy theory may even provide a self-serving explanation to use victimization when the state of things is not to someone's liking.
Despite their apparent simplicity, conspiracy theories usually have huge gaps that allow us to identify them.
Conversely, many actual conspiracies are known to have taken place; in some cases, evidence of the conspiracy, and consensus as to its existence, took years to surface. So if the above huge gaps and logical flaws are seriously acknowledged and debated, it might be that there was an actual conspiracy. Which, of course, is a completely different thing from a conspiracy theory.