 | 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. |
 | This page in a nutshell: Scepticism of WP:FRINGE is WP:MAINSTREAM |
Proponents of " fringe theories" often complain that Wikipedia is biased against their ideas. They often complain that editors are overly sceptical of claims made by fringe theorists.
Unfortunately for them, scepticism is academically mainstream. In academic disciplines, scepticism is used to determine the value of an idea. It is an inherent and fundamental part of the philosophy of academia (including philosophy of science, philosophy of history, philosophy of social science, etc.), and therefore part of the sociology of academia ( sociology of science, sociology of history, sociology of social science, etc.). If scepticism was unnecessary, then it wouldn't be practised by academics, as it would be a hindrance not a help to the academic process.
To summarise then:
- If an idea is contradicted, academics reject that idea.
At a fundamental level, this isn't deep philosophy, it's basic common sense. If your idea stands up to the scrutiny of tough questions from experts, then it's likely to have some merit and be accepted by those experts.
WP:FRINGE deals with "theories" in line with the level of their mainstream academic acceptance. It is important that editors accurately assess the "theories" discussed. Within this framework it is acknowledged that many ideas are considered baseless by academics. Because Wikipedia is mainstream, we must treat them as such.
It is important that editors understand the basic philosophical and sociological principles behind sources, in order to determine which sources are reliable and how they should be presented.
A few further points for completeness sake:
- Evidence is also considered sceptically, and may be rejected as anomalous if it is inconsistent with other evidence.
- In some cases, it may not be possible to tell which answer is right, in which case more research may be required (if that's possible), but some things will never be known.
- Parsimony is also important. In general, explanations that are straightforward are preferred over those that are unnecessarily complex.
- For more in-depth discussion, consider reading any standard introductory text on the philosophy or sociology of academia.
| 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. |
| This page in a nutshell: Scepticism of WP:FRINGE is WP:MAINSTREAM |
Proponents of " fringe theories" often complain that Wikipedia is biased against their ideas. They often complain that editors are overly sceptical of claims made by fringe theorists.
Unfortunately for them, scepticism is academically mainstream. In academic disciplines, scepticism is used to determine the value of an idea. It is an inherent and fundamental part of the philosophy of academia (including philosophy of science, philosophy of history, philosophy of social science, etc.), and therefore part of the sociology of academia ( sociology of science, sociology of history, sociology of social science, etc.). If scepticism was unnecessary, then it wouldn't be practised by academics, as it would be a hindrance not a help to the academic process.
To summarise then:
- If an idea is contradicted, academics reject that idea.
At a fundamental level, this isn't deep philosophy, it's basic common sense. If your idea stands up to the scrutiny of tough questions from experts, then it's likely to have some merit and be accepted by those experts.
WP:FRINGE deals with "theories" in line with the level of their mainstream academic acceptance. It is important that editors accurately assess the "theories" discussed. Within this framework it is acknowledged that many ideas are considered baseless by academics. Because Wikipedia is mainstream, we must treat them as such.
It is important that editors understand the basic philosophical and sociological principles behind sources, in order to determine which sources are reliable and how they should be presented.
A few further points for completeness sake:
- Evidence is also considered sceptically, and may be rejected as anomalous if it is inconsistent with other evidence.
- In some cases, it may not be possible to tell which answer is right, in which case more research may be required (if that's possible), but some things will never be known.
- Parsimony is also important. In general, explanations that are straightforward are preferred over those that are unnecessarily complex.
- For more in-depth discussion, consider reading any standard introductory text on the philosophy or sociology of academia.