![]() |
Essays Low‑impact ![]() | |||||||||
|
![]() | This page was nominated for deletion on 6 October 2009. The result of the discussion was keep. |
A very useful distinction is made here between endorsing the mainstream POV and adopting a mainstream treatment. Much like good philosophy textbooks, while avoiding to take sides on the issues, nevertheless clearly identify positions that are no longer supported by contemporary philosophers.
While I like the general thrust of text, I don't see what this "proposal", even if accepted as official policy, would change in practice. What do you hope that this will achieve that DUE, FRINGE, etc do not achieve? Vesal ( talk) 12:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm usually a fairly mainstream guy, with focus on science and technology articles, and if not for my long experience with wikipedia and a few controversial articles, I might think this "mainstream" suggestion sounds great. But I've seen User:ScienceApologist in action in a few places, and it's clear that he wants to put more weight behind what I'd call his "mainstream POV", to the detriment of all things fringe. Fundamentally, I'm not sure I agree that wikipedia is, or strives to be, a "mainstream" encyclopedia. Most editors seem to want it to be much more inclusive than any mainstream encyclopedia ever was. Here's the problem: there are lots of non-mainstream topics that probably ought to be covered here. Rather than get into current arguments, let's look at the hypothetical case of the topic Continental drift as if we were doing this around 1920 or so. At that time, the mainstream viewpoint was that the theory was rubbish. Geology experts either ignored it or attacked it. If ScienceApologist edited the article on it, he would have made sure it was dominated by discussion of those attacks, rather than discussion of the theory itself. So, while I agree that we should not endorse a POV, we should also not adopt the mainstream POV when describing non-mainstream topics. A topic can be described on its own terms, and criticisms can be reported, too, but the article on the topic should not be overwhelmed by the criticisms, as articles that ScienceApologist edits often are. I think his essay is a good description of his editing goals, but not of wikipedia's. Dicklyon ( talk) 07:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
We already have WP:NPOV WP:Fringe and a number of other policies and guidelines. If we would add a new policy or guideline every time an editor identifies a "hole" in the regulatory framework it would eventually be impossible to navigate in the jungle of rules. Whatever problem this proposal wants to address it can be done by amending the existing framework. IMO the communuity should reject this proposal. MaxPont ( talk) 17:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
I happened to come across this proposal and couldn't help noticing how it is similar to the now inactive WP:SPOV. This proposal seems like another attempt to revive this old concept. The mainstream proposal seems to be pushing one POV over any other POV and seems to contradict the core policy of WP:NPOV. This proposal also seems to try and contradict/override the ArbCom ruling on Pseudoscience as stated here: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience and summarized at the top of the Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. Brothejr ( talk) 16:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
SA has proposed a WP:MAINSTREAM guideline.
He says : "Wikipedia should strive for articles that would be appreciated as being of the highest quality by a consensus of experts. To accomplish this goal, reliable sources need to be used to verify content." I fully support that. I'm puzzled as to why, when such experts actually meet to review cold fusion, such as the 2004 DOE panel, he is the first one to censor or modify what they say, arguing that it would be POV-pushing.(e.g., just in November 2008: [1] [2] [3] [4]) Surely, such experts would be pleased if we were to quote their report verbatim.
The reason becomes clear in the next sentence in his proposed guideline. He says "Beyond this, it is also necessary that subjects be handled as they are realized in the mainstream." This is very dubious. First of all, "mainstream" is a WP:Weasel word that does not refer to reliable, verifiable source. Furthermore, there is no reason to believe that such "mainstream" handles the topic in a way "that would be appreciated as being of the highest quality by a consensus of expert".
What are the evidence for his view ? Here are some possible meaning for the word "mainstream":
Pcarbonn ( talk) 09:25, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Okay, we can define mainstream science without too many problems. But it obviously wouldn't be true to say "Wikipedia is a mainstream science encyclopedia". So this proposal seems to assume a wider definition of "mainstream". But what exactly does "mainstream" mean here for fields other than science and pseudoscience ?
Over at Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories, Blueboar suggested that mainstream is "ideas and concepts that are commonly held and accepted by most people" and "what is accepted by the majority of people who have a basic understanding of <the field in question>". But these definitions are very unsatisfactory. There is no context for "most people" - this could mean "most people in ths USA" ... "most English speaking people" ... "most educated people" (good luck with defining that one) ... "most people in the world" (but then almost nothing is sufficiently common to be mainstream). And how do we define a "basic understanding" for non-academic subjects such as religion, country-and-western music or video games ?
So - can anyone provide a satisfactory definition of "mainstream" outside of the fields of science and pseudoscience ? Gandalf61 ( talk) 15:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
There is plenty of "mainstreaming" already on WP. See, for example, Talk:Anti-nuclear movement#"Anti-nuclear renaissance". My experience is that anything that seems new or a little different is scrutinised intensely. I think it is fair to say that the status quo is already well represented on WP and there is no need for more policies to support it. Johnfos ( talk) 04:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
I am inclined to support the arguments around science and against fringe pseudo-science etc. In academic subjects based on experimental rigor, a policy that accepts mainstream criteria makes sense, if by mainstream we mean peer-reviewed publishing or other objective criteria.
However, this policy proposal declares things that will be construed to suppress non-mainstream information and articles on, for example, political thought, religious beliefs, and alternative artistic movements. Furthermore, in goes into frank contradiction with WP:CENSOR and WP:BIAS.
And this is very worrying, as precisely the lure of an encyclopedia that addressed in depth minority political thought (like animal rights), religious beliefs (like Paganism), or artistic movements (like Nerdcore) that has brought us so many great editors who have ended up being great producers well beyond their initial interests (I am sure you will find, in our top 50 editors, at least one into one of the examples I gave). In fact, the non-mainstream aspects of Wikipedia is what has fed its mainstream aspects.
So if we declare ourselves a "mainstream" encyclopedia, the law of unintended consequenses will fall down with great vengeance and furious anger. First, the DRAMA will exponentially raise: editors with dozens of thousands of edits will suddenly find their FAs like Exploding Whale deleted as per WP:MAINSTREAM. The shitstorm will be inmense. If that doesn't lead to this policy being overturned, then phase two will come into effect: a mass migration to a wikipedia fork, this time with massive migration of editors. It will happen, I know my geeks.
So, to end my rant, I suggest this be changed to a policy that applies only to scientific and engineering matters, narrowly construed to mean fields with experimental rigor and peer-reviewed journals. If not, dire consequences await us.
The rest of us will continue to argue amongst ourselves to develop consensus. Thanks!-- Cerejota ( talk) 13:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
This falls in the same "essay" category as a real-world essay called "eating a balanced diet is good for you." davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 14:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
When SA says "It's not really NPOV. In fact, it is quite complementary to NPOV" he's nearly right, but in fact it's contradictory to NPOV. To explain:
To look at it from the point of view of the reader, the contrast is as follows. The reader comes to any article ignorant and prejudiced. Under SA's proposals, we attempt to make him less ignorant, and also to rectify his prejudices. If they are weak, we may succeed. If they are strong, he is angered by the article and dismisses it. If the article is NPOV, we make him less ognorant, but just as prejudiced if that's what he wants. If his ideas are "right" we help him become even righter. If his ideas are wrong, we risk helping him with further ammunition for his wrong ideas. This is what frightens SA, but SA must come to terms with it. Wikipedia is built on the fundamental Enlightenment notion that people are entitled to have wrong ideas. SamuelTheGhost ( talk) 13:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm gonna go spade here and say: are you out of your minds?! This goes against everything Wikipedia was meant to be! We have the space to present all those loony conspiracy theories and other junk, as long as it's well-known enough. This as a policy would only. The main problem is that it's impossible to determine what is "mainstream". Wikipedia prides itself on being the vast multi- petabyte repository of information that it is. This as policy would make us no different than the Britannica 2.0 project! It doesn't matter weather we're ever taken seriously, that was never intended. This idea is completely crazy and should never be made anything other than the private musings of a sangarist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ipatrol ( talk • contribs) 21:41, 9 February 2009
No, no, no, this is not going to be so easily scrapped because some people don't like a certain person's agenda. These principles are solid and backed up by the ArbCom, even those fed up with SA's behavior. I dispute the emphasis that is placed on "space" in the original text, but the idea that articles should be realized as they are realized in mainstream scholarship is an important one. Vesal ( talk) 22:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I've got to ask what does the author mean by experts in this policy? (I am directing this section/questions at ScienceApologist) Do you mean experts as in what is written in textbooks and journals, or Wikipedians who say they are experts? I ask this because we can accept what experts say in reliable sources, but Wikipedia cannot accept what Wikipedians say as being from an expert because that would run afoul of the WP:OR and WP:SYNTH policies. This also brings up another question as how do we know that a certain Wikipedian is an expert? Brothejr ( talk) 01:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
NPOV is a parallel idea. It gives guidance for how articles should be written when there are multiple points-of-view. The problem is, we need a determination for what constitutes a "legitimate" point-of-view. WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NOR all touch on the subject but none come out and say that the way this is determined is to consider how the subject is handled in mainstream encyclopedias. ScienceApologist ( talk) 00:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
This is directed for the author of the proposed policy to answer. Now I saw what you had linked to as mainstream, but the question is what do you think mainstream is personally? Is it what the general public thinks of the subject or is it what the experts think of the subject? Also, how are we going to gauge what the public/experts feel on the subject? Should we use what reliable sources say on the subject? What happens if there are no reliable sources that gauge what the public/experts say on the subjects, then how are we able to says what the mainstream thinks without going against WP:OR and WP:SYNTH policies? Brothejr ( talk) 11:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
The ideal way to approach writing articles is to write them in the same way that other mainstream encyclopedias write articles. ScienceApologist ( talk) 00:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
At this point in time an expert is someone who advocates the mainstream opinion (ask anyone who has applied for grant money in the last twenty years). Relying on experts to define mainstream thought is circular reasoning. 134.217.96.252 ( talk) 19:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Part of this discussion should face the role of historical presentation. Many arguments in the sciences have evolved over time (the aether, phlogiston, etc.). Does this project take the view that a discarded theory should be left out, or the view that history has some merit and should be presented, or the view that a separate historical presentation is the place to do it? And if sometimes (a), sometimes (b), what decides? And if history is in the making, that is, there is dissension, it appears that the view of this policy is that the "dominant" perspective should dominate. If the "dominant" view is the one with the most coverage in the literature (the big favorite is google counts), or the one with the most famous exponents, it is probably the historically oldest view, not necessarily the actually most accepted view of today. (There are many examples of famous supporters of big mistakes: William Shockley on racial differences; Larmor on the aether.) How is that discriminated? It may be that the matter has to be settled on a case-by-case basis, and the outcome will be the accidental result of the most persuasive (or most persistent) editor on the job, not the result of a "policy statement". Brews ohare ( talk) 18:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
One final question for SA: if this proposed policy became accepted as policy, please describe to us how would you use it to improve Wikipedia, how would you see others use this policy, and how do you see it changing Wikipedia? Brothejr ( talk) 10:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
The notion of ruling out "pet ideas" seems central to the purpose of the proposed policy. As pointed out, how is a pet idea identified as such? It should be based upon criteria, not somebody's judgment, if the policy is to rise above the "rule of men". One might request citations, and perhaps particular types of citation: e.g. not simply quotes from scripture or Herodotus. It would seem there is a desire that the topic be of interest: maybe a "why this is important" paragraph is needed? Is the objective of ruling out pet ideas formulable in a useful manner? Brews ohare ( talk) 17:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Your response misreads the statement above. It does not refer to "who", and explicitly raises the pertinent issues. Brews ohare ( talk) 14:05, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
A response unfortunately doesn't imply an audience. A considered response has a better chance. Brews ohare ( talk) 23:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science has some stuff that may be relevant to those interested in this proposal. ClovisPt ( talk) 01:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
This policy does not appear to have reached consensus. I move it be marked as such. Ronnotel ( talk) 20:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes it has failed. It also contradicts the vision for Wikipedia by Jimbo Wales:
““Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's our commitment.”
[5] appeal by Jimbo Wales
If it is "mainstream" it cant contain "all human knowledge". MaxPont ( talk) 09:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Okay, so this proposal failed while I was banned from Wikipedia editing. I'll let it go, but I'm going to remove the idea that this proposal actually failed considering that the groups that failed it had their own histories with me. I'd like to see some outside input. Thanks. ScienceApologist ( talk) 03:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
There is no objective measurement of consensus here, but there are historical personality clashes playing out. Also, WP:Policy does not address this kind of situation. I am starting a Request for Comment. ScienceApologist ( talk) 14:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I first proposed WP:MAINSTREAM a few months back to begin a discussion about whether or not Wikipedia's role was to be a mainstream reference or one which was avant-garde. I see that over the months the pendulum is swinging more decidedly in the direction of this policy what with flagged revisions and a more serious attempt to use scholarly sources as the prime movers on articles. I believe that personality politics are playing part in the group of editors (or, really, right now, ONE editor) who is insisting that this proposal be marked as "failed" while I was unable to edit Wikipedia and over the objections of other editors who thought that we should continue to discuss this proposal. I would like wider community input and, at the very least, the proposal status of this page to be reinstated. It would be nice if it didn't just come from the usual people with whom I've had previous conflicts. ScienceApologist ( talk) 14:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Okay, okay. This is a request for comment. In particular, I'm hoping to get some outside opinions on the matter. Right now the only people commenting here are those who have their irons in the fire already. Can we please simply wait for some outside opinions? The RfC is not even two hours old! ScienceApologist ( talk) 16:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
To cut a long story short, this essay has become a content guideline under the name WP:FRINGE. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 10:16, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Please note that it is specifically against policy to attempt to hide the fact that a policy or guideline proposal failed to gain consensus. From WP:PROPOSAL: If a proposal fails, the failed tag should not be removed. It is typically more productive to rewrite a failed proposal from scratch to address problems than to re-nominate a proposal. It is important for future discussion that the conclusions of previous discussions be retained in some fashion. For instance, this is the reason why failed proposal pages are generally not subject to XfD. Posterity requires access to the previous discussions so endless discussions can be avoided. Ronnotel ( talk) 14:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
This proposal never failed, it was hijacked by those opposed to SA. The labelling is a form of harassment, and policy should be descriptive - many other policies have been demoted to essays without tags or other failed notifications on them, hence WP:PROPOSAL needs updating. Verbal chat 08:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I think that User:Ronnotel at least should stop commenting on this page as his involvement here is simply aggravating and repetitive. He seems to repeat his own thoughts as though they are sacrosanct summaries of reality when there is considerable disagreement. Brotherjr's insistence that "not everyone who voted against this is against SA." would be more believable if he hadn't asked the community of administrators to indefinitely ban me. And Gandalf? Well, the guy is just impossible to get along with. So I think I've essentially pointed out that this continues to be nothing more than a gang-up by haters. ScienceApologist ( talk) 13:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Just leave it tagged as an essay and move on? Sounds reasonable to me. Verbal chat 20:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
(undent)The discussion talks about proposals in general and the need to preserve transparency regarding the forming of consensus. Are you saying that you are against transparency? Ronnotel ( talk) 18:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm against continued harassment, hounding, improper or petulant editing any page. How's that for a non sequitur? Verbal chat 18:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
There is a clear consensus on this talk page to apply WP policy. One editor refusing can't block a consensus. I changed the article. Time to move on. MaxPont ( talk) 07:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
What point would be served by tagging the page as a "failed policy". It is not policy, it is an essay, and I am not sure how tagging an essay as a failed policy adds value. But tagging as a "failed" something could imply something wrong with the essay, even if the essay is fine as such. Many essays have editors try to promote them to become policies or guidelines, most fail, and I don't see any push to necessarily tag them as "failed policies". WP:HAMMER comes to mind off the top of my head. Rlendog ( talk) 17:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
This is a clear case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT from Verbal and others. As mentioned above, the WP Policy states that: If a proposal fails, the failed tag should not be removed. It is typically more productive to rewrite a failed proposal from scratch to address problems than to re-nominate a proposal. MaxPont ( talk) 06:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Please form a consensus about the EXACT wording for proposed boilerplate additions. I found the wording MaxPont and Gandalf61 were insisting upon to be problematic and so did Verbal. In the future, it'd be great if people made their proposals on the talkpage FIRST. ScienceApologist ( talk) 21:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
I have removed the WP:MAINSTREAM shortcut from the essay tag, because that shortcut now redirects to SA's userfied version of this essay/proposal at User:ScienceApologist/Mainstream. Gandalf61 ( talk) 16:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
While I'm fine with Gandalf61's work, I find MaxPont and Brotherjr's desires for the redirect to be unnecessary and without cause. ScienceApologist ( talk) 23:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Being a mainstream encyclopedia involves not just keeping out bad sources, but including good sources from all relevant areas. For most topics, the scientific consensus is important but not the only perspective. History, ideology, sociology, popular belief and culture, are all noteworthy aspects of subjects. Mainstream cannot mean SPOV, since NPOV is our policy, and while SPOV makes sure to keep out unworthy RS, it also keeps out worthy RS that address non-scientific aspects of a subject, and even those that address scientific aspects of a subject unscientifically but are still deserving of summary as a POV. Otherwise, all of our articles would just be like binary math: true/false. Welcome to the world the mainstream is describing: it has a million facets and so many shades. Wikipedia must have a full crayon box if it is going to portray the world as all reliable sources see a subject. Ocaasi c 06:21, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Where is this mandated? Is the opening sentence of this essay accurate or is it a declaration? Wikipedia has very powerful and wise polices like WP:NPOV which work very well. However, the very meaning of mainstream is disputed, and points of view are relative. I agree completely with using good sources, and representing the sources accurately. However, the term "mainstream" has potential to be used as a false arbiter to argue against significant viewpoints that are not presented in the mainstream news with as much weight, for instance, and therefore has the potential to tie Wikipedia to a viewpoint that is sociologically not necessarily most accurately representative of a general range of viewpoints held by most experts. The mainstream media does not always reflect with accuracy the general consensus of opinions in a field, nor valid viewpoints that may be significant and well-sourced if there is no complete consensus in a topic. SageRad ( talk) 14:16, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.
Noone actually believes this is what goes on here, right? 2601:140:8400:36C0:D4E:6A9E:31EA:C0D2 ( talk) 22:48, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
One of the key bullet points in the boxed summation at the top of the article appears to be incorrect. The bulleted point states:
Articles should not endorse any fringe or orthodox perspective.
"Orthodox" means that which is generally or traditionally accepted, the opposite of "fringe". So this can't possibly be correct. Allreet ( talk) 19:09, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
'Is this situation fair? Perhaps not. But it is the situation we must tolerate if we are going to take the goal of making Wikipedia into a mainstream encyclopedia seriously.'
This is a poor justification. 'We must make Wikipedia express mainstream viewpoints, because our goal is to make Wikipedia into a mainstream encyclopedia' is basically a tautology. It presupposes that making Wikipedia into a 'mainstream encyclopedia' is a goal at all, whereas this still has to be motivated. It also presupposes that Wikipedia isn't already a 'mainstream encyclopedia', whereas in fact it was probably the most popular and widely used encyclopedia already about 15 years ago, let alone now. One may object that this doesn't make it mainstream, but this only highlights the fact that the article needs to define what it means by 'a mainstream encyclopedia' (and 'mainstream' in general, too - that's a vague concept which may, in fact, mean 'most popular' or 'most widespread' and the meaning of 'scientific consensus' attributed to it here may be too idiosyncratic). Finally, it presupposes that Wikipedia isn't good enough as it is compared to 'real encyclopedias', whose elite ranks it still has to join. Again, this smacks of an inferiority complex, where Wikipedia sees itself as a poor provincial cousin of Encyclopedia Britannica, whom it is expected to imitate, when it is arguably more prominent than Encyclopedia Britannica at present and not necessarily worse than it overall (I've seen this argued, I think there is some data in the article Reliability of Wikipedia). 87.126.21.225 ( talk) 10:09, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
Looking at the talk above, I see the author just meant something like 'follow Encyclopedia Britannica in all things and on every given subject'. Which is wrong, because Encyclopedia Britannica may, on some subjects, fail to reflect the scientific consensus adequately, come short of what WP:NPOV and WP:NOR require, and thereby be worse than Wikipedia. This is an entirely possible situation - Britannica is written by humans, too. In cases where WP:NPOV & WP:NOR and Britannica contradict each other, we must go with WP:NPOV & WP:NOR, not with Britannica. And as for the cases where they do not contradict each other, we don't need Britannica, since we already have WP:NPOV and WP:NOR themselves.-- 87.126.21.225 ( talk) 10:28, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
![]() |
Essays Low‑impact ![]() | |||||||||
|
![]() | This page was nominated for deletion on 6 October 2009. The result of the discussion was keep. |
A very useful distinction is made here between endorsing the mainstream POV and adopting a mainstream treatment. Much like good philosophy textbooks, while avoiding to take sides on the issues, nevertheless clearly identify positions that are no longer supported by contemporary philosophers.
While I like the general thrust of text, I don't see what this "proposal", even if accepted as official policy, would change in practice. What do you hope that this will achieve that DUE, FRINGE, etc do not achieve? Vesal ( talk) 12:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm usually a fairly mainstream guy, with focus on science and technology articles, and if not for my long experience with wikipedia and a few controversial articles, I might think this "mainstream" suggestion sounds great. But I've seen User:ScienceApologist in action in a few places, and it's clear that he wants to put more weight behind what I'd call his "mainstream POV", to the detriment of all things fringe. Fundamentally, I'm not sure I agree that wikipedia is, or strives to be, a "mainstream" encyclopedia. Most editors seem to want it to be much more inclusive than any mainstream encyclopedia ever was. Here's the problem: there are lots of non-mainstream topics that probably ought to be covered here. Rather than get into current arguments, let's look at the hypothetical case of the topic Continental drift as if we were doing this around 1920 or so. At that time, the mainstream viewpoint was that the theory was rubbish. Geology experts either ignored it or attacked it. If ScienceApologist edited the article on it, he would have made sure it was dominated by discussion of those attacks, rather than discussion of the theory itself. So, while I agree that we should not endorse a POV, we should also not adopt the mainstream POV when describing non-mainstream topics. A topic can be described on its own terms, and criticisms can be reported, too, but the article on the topic should not be overwhelmed by the criticisms, as articles that ScienceApologist edits often are. I think his essay is a good description of his editing goals, but not of wikipedia's. Dicklyon ( talk) 07:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
We already have WP:NPOV WP:Fringe and a number of other policies and guidelines. If we would add a new policy or guideline every time an editor identifies a "hole" in the regulatory framework it would eventually be impossible to navigate in the jungle of rules. Whatever problem this proposal wants to address it can be done by amending the existing framework. IMO the communuity should reject this proposal. MaxPont ( talk) 17:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
I happened to come across this proposal and couldn't help noticing how it is similar to the now inactive WP:SPOV. This proposal seems like another attempt to revive this old concept. The mainstream proposal seems to be pushing one POV over any other POV and seems to contradict the core policy of WP:NPOV. This proposal also seems to try and contradict/override the ArbCom ruling on Pseudoscience as stated here: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience and summarized at the top of the Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. Brothejr ( talk) 16:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
SA has proposed a WP:MAINSTREAM guideline.
He says : "Wikipedia should strive for articles that would be appreciated as being of the highest quality by a consensus of experts. To accomplish this goal, reliable sources need to be used to verify content." I fully support that. I'm puzzled as to why, when such experts actually meet to review cold fusion, such as the 2004 DOE panel, he is the first one to censor or modify what they say, arguing that it would be POV-pushing.(e.g., just in November 2008: [1] [2] [3] [4]) Surely, such experts would be pleased if we were to quote their report verbatim.
The reason becomes clear in the next sentence in his proposed guideline. He says "Beyond this, it is also necessary that subjects be handled as they are realized in the mainstream." This is very dubious. First of all, "mainstream" is a WP:Weasel word that does not refer to reliable, verifiable source. Furthermore, there is no reason to believe that such "mainstream" handles the topic in a way "that would be appreciated as being of the highest quality by a consensus of expert".
What are the evidence for his view ? Here are some possible meaning for the word "mainstream":
Pcarbonn ( talk) 09:25, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Okay, we can define mainstream science without too many problems. But it obviously wouldn't be true to say "Wikipedia is a mainstream science encyclopedia". So this proposal seems to assume a wider definition of "mainstream". But what exactly does "mainstream" mean here for fields other than science and pseudoscience ?
Over at Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories, Blueboar suggested that mainstream is "ideas and concepts that are commonly held and accepted by most people" and "what is accepted by the majority of people who have a basic understanding of <the field in question>". But these definitions are very unsatisfactory. There is no context for "most people" - this could mean "most people in ths USA" ... "most English speaking people" ... "most educated people" (good luck with defining that one) ... "most people in the world" (but then almost nothing is sufficiently common to be mainstream). And how do we define a "basic understanding" for non-academic subjects such as religion, country-and-western music or video games ?
So - can anyone provide a satisfactory definition of "mainstream" outside of the fields of science and pseudoscience ? Gandalf61 ( talk) 15:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
There is plenty of "mainstreaming" already on WP. See, for example, Talk:Anti-nuclear movement#"Anti-nuclear renaissance". My experience is that anything that seems new or a little different is scrutinised intensely. I think it is fair to say that the status quo is already well represented on WP and there is no need for more policies to support it. Johnfos ( talk) 04:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
I am inclined to support the arguments around science and against fringe pseudo-science etc. In academic subjects based on experimental rigor, a policy that accepts mainstream criteria makes sense, if by mainstream we mean peer-reviewed publishing or other objective criteria.
However, this policy proposal declares things that will be construed to suppress non-mainstream information and articles on, for example, political thought, religious beliefs, and alternative artistic movements. Furthermore, in goes into frank contradiction with WP:CENSOR and WP:BIAS.
And this is very worrying, as precisely the lure of an encyclopedia that addressed in depth minority political thought (like animal rights), religious beliefs (like Paganism), or artistic movements (like Nerdcore) that has brought us so many great editors who have ended up being great producers well beyond their initial interests (I am sure you will find, in our top 50 editors, at least one into one of the examples I gave). In fact, the non-mainstream aspects of Wikipedia is what has fed its mainstream aspects.
So if we declare ourselves a "mainstream" encyclopedia, the law of unintended consequenses will fall down with great vengeance and furious anger. First, the DRAMA will exponentially raise: editors with dozens of thousands of edits will suddenly find their FAs like Exploding Whale deleted as per WP:MAINSTREAM. The shitstorm will be inmense. If that doesn't lead to this policy being overturned, then phase two will come into effect: a mass migration to a wikipedia fork, this time with massive migration of editors. It will happen, I know my geeks.
So, to end my rant, I suggest this be changed to a policy that applies only to scientific and engineering matters, narrowly construed to mean fields with experimental rigor and peer-reviewed journals. If not, dire consequences await us.
The rest of us will continue to argue amongst ourselves to develop consensus. Thanks!-- Cerejota ( talk) 13:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
This falls in the same "essay" category as a real-world essay called "eating a balanced diet is good for you." davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 14:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
When SA says "It's not really NPOV. In fact, it is quite complementary to NPOV" he's nearly right, but in fact it's contradictory to NPOV. To explain:
To look at it from the point of view of the reader, the contrast is as follows. The reader comes to any article ignorant and prejudiced. Under SA's proposals, we attempt to make him less ignorant, and also to rectify his prejudices. If they are weak, we may succeed. If they are strong, he is angered by the article and dismisses it. If the article is NPOV, we make him less ognorant, but just as prejudiced if that's what he wants. If his ideas are "right" we help him become even righter. If his ideas are wrong, we risk helping him with further ammunition for his wrong ideas. This is what frightens SA, but SA must come to terms with it. Wikipedia is built on the fundamental Enlightenment notion that people are entitled to have wrong ideas. SamuelTheGhost ( talk) 13:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm gonna go spade here and say: are you out of your minds?! This goes against everything Wikipedia was meant to be! We have the space to present all those loony conspiracy theories and other junk, as long as it's well-known enough. This as a policy would only. The main problem is that it's impossible to determine what is "mainstream". Wikipedia prides itself on being the vast multi- petabyte repository of information that it is. This as policy would make us no different than the Britannica 2.0 project! It doesn't matter weather we're ever taken seriously, that was never intended. This idea is completely crazy and should never be made anything other than the private musings of a sangarist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ipatrol ( talk • contribs) 21:41, 9 February 2009
No, no, no, this is not going to be so easily scrapped because some people don't like a certain person's agenda. These principles are solid and backed up by the ArbCom, even those fed up with SA's behavior. I dispute the emphasis that is placed on "space" in the original text, but the idea that articles should be realized as they are realized in mainstream scholarship is an important one. Vesal ( talk) 22:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I've got to ask what does the author mean by experts in this policy? (I am directing this section/questions at ScienceApologist) Do you mean experts as in what is written in textbooks and journals, or Wikipedians who say they are experts? I ask this because we can accept what experts say in reliable sources, but Wikipedia cannot accept what Wikipedians say as being from an expert because that would run afoul of the WP:OR and WP:SYNTH policies. This also brings up another question as how do we know that a certain Wikipedian is an expert? Brothejr ( talk) 01:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
NPOV is a parallel idea. It gives guidance for how articles should be written when there are multiple points-of-view. The problem is, we need a determination for what constitutes a "legitimate" point-of-view. WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NOR all touch on the subject but none come out and say that the way this is determined is to consider how the subject is handled in mainstream encyclopedias. ScienceApologist ( talk) 00:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
This is directed for the author of the proposed policy to answer. Now I saw what you had linked to as mainstream, but the question is what do you think mainstream is personally? Is it what the general public thinks of the subject or is it what the experts think of the subject? Also, how are we going to gauge what the public/experts feel on the subject? Should we use what reliable sources say on the subject? What happens if there are no reliable sources that gauge what the public/experts say on the subjects, then how are we able to says what the mainstream thinks without going against WP:OR and WP:SYNTH policies? Brothejr ( talk) 11:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
The ideal way to approach writing articles is to write them in the same way that other mainstream encyclopedias write articles. ScienceApologist ( talk) 00:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
At this point in time an expert is someone who advocates the mainstream opinion (ask anyone who has applied for grant money in the last twenty years). Relying on experts to define mainstream thought is circular reasoning. 134.217.96.252 ( talk) 19:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Part of this discussion should face the role of historical presentation. Many arguments in the sciences have evolved over time (the aether, phlogiston, etc.). Does this project take the view that a discarded theory should be left out, or the view that history has some merit and should be presented, or the view that a separate historical presentation is the place to do it? And if sometimes (a), sometimes (b), what decides? And if history is in the making, that is, there is dissension, it appears that the view of this policy is that the "dominant" perspective should dominate. If the "dominant" view is the one with the most coverage in the literature (the big favorite is google counts), or the one with the most famous exponents, it is probably the historically oldest view, not necessarily the actually most accepted view of today. (There are many examples of famous supporters of big mistakes: William Shockley on racial differences; Larmor on the aether.) How is that discriminated? It may be that the matter has to be settled on a case-by-case basis, and the outcome will be the accidental result of the most persuasive (or most persistent) editor on the job, not the result of a "policy statement". Brews ohare ( talk) 18:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
One final question for SA: if this proposed policy became accepted as policy, please describe to us how would you use it to improve Wikipedia, how would you see others use this policy, and how do you see it changing Wikipedia? Brothejr ( talk) 10:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
The notion of ruling out "pet ideas" seems central to the purpose of the proposed policy. As pointed out, how is a pet idea identified as such? It should be based upon criteria, not somebody's judgment, if the policy is to rise above the "rule of men". One might request citations, and perhaps particular types of citation: e.g. not simply quotes from scripture or Herodotus. It would seem there is a desire that the topic be of interest: maybe a "why this is important" paragraph is needed? Is the objective of ruling out pet ideas formulable in a useful manner? Brews ohare ( talk) 17:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Your response misreads the statement above. It does not refer to "who", and explicitly raises the pertinent issues. Brews ohare ( talk) 14:05, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
A response unfortunately doesn't imply an audience. A considered response has a better chance. Brews ohare ( talk) 23:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science has some stuff that may be relevant to those interested in this proposal. ClovisPt ( talk) 01:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
This policy does not appear to have reached consensus. I move it be marked as such. Ronnotel ( talk) 20:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes it has failed. It also contradicts the vision for Wikipedia by Jimbo Wales:
““Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's our commitment.”
[5] appeal by Jimbo Wales
If it is "mainstream" it cant contain "all human knowledge". MaxPont ( talk) 09:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Okay, so this proposal failed while I was banned from Wikipedia editing. I'll let it go, but I'm going to remove the idea that this proposal actually failed considering that the groups that failed it had their own histories with me. I'd like to see some outside input. Thanks. ScienceApologist ( talk) 03:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
There is no objective measurement of consensus here, but there are historical personality clashes playing out. Also, WP:Policy does not address this kind of situation. I am starting a Request for Comment. ScienceApologist ( talk) 14:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I first proposed WP:MAINSTREAM a few months back to begin a discussion about whether or not Wikipedia's role was to be a mainstream reference or one which was avant-garde. I see that over the months the pendulum is swinging more decidedly in the direction of this policy what with flagged revisions and a more serious attempt to use scholarly sources as the prime movers on articles. I believe that personality politics are playing part in the group of editors (or, really, right now, ONE editor) who is insisting that this proposal be marked as "failed" while I was unable to edit Wikipedia and over the objections of other editors who thought that we should continue to discuss this proposal. I would like wider community input and, at the very least, the proposal status of this page to be reinstated. It would be nice if it didn't just come from the usual people with whom I've had previous conflicts. ScienceApologist ( talk) 14:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Okay, okay. This is a request for comment. In particular, I'm hoping to get some outside opinions on the matter. Right now the only people commenting here are those who have their irons in the fire already. Can we please simply wait for some outside opinions? The RfC is not even two hours old! ScienceApologist ( talk) 16:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
To cut a long story short, this essay has become a content guideline under the name WP:FRINGE. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 10:16, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Please note that it is specifically against policy to attempt to hide the fact that a policy or guideline proposal failed to gain consensus. From WP:PROPOSAL: If a proposal fails, the failed tag should not be removed. It is typically more productive to rewrite a failed proposal from scratch to address problems than to re-nominate a proposal. It is important for future discussion that the conclusions of previous discussions be retained in some fashion. For instance, this is the reason why failed proposal pages are generally not subject to XfD. Posterity requires access to the previous discussions so endless discussions can be avoided. Ronnotel ( talk) 14:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
This proposal never failed, it was hijacked by those opposed to SA. The labelling is a form of harassment, and policy should be descriptive - many other policies have been demoted to essays without tags or other failed notifications on them, hence WP:PROPOSAL needs updating. Verbal chat 08:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I think that User:Ronnotel at least should stop commenting on this page as his involvement here is simply aggravating and repetitive. He seems to repeat his own thoughts as though they are sacrosanct summaries of reality when there is considerable disagreement. Brotherjr's insistence that "not everyone who voted against this is against SA." would be more believable if he hadn't asked the community of administrators to indefinitely ban me. And Gandalf? Well, the guy is just impossible to get along with. So I think I've essentially pointed out that this continues to be nothing more than a gang-up by haters. ScienceApologist ( talk) 13:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Just leave it tagged as an essay and move on? Sounds reasonable to me. Verbal chat 20:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
(undent)The discussion talks about proposals in general and the need to preserve transparency regarding the forming of consensus. Are you saying that you are against transparency? Ronnotel ( talk) 18:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm against continued harassment, hounding, improper or petulant editing any page. How's that for a non sequitur? Verbal chat 18:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
There is a clear consensus on this talk page to apply WP policy. One editor refusing can't block a consensus. I changed the article. Time to move on. MaxPont ( talk) 07:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
What point would be served by tagging the page as a "failed policy". It is not policy, it is an essay, and I am not sure how tagging an essay as a failed policy adds value. But tagging as a "failed" something could imply something wrong with the essay, even if the essay is fine as such. Many essays have editors try to promote them to become policies or guidelines, most fail, and I don't see any push to necessarily tag them as "failed policies". WP:HAMMER comes to mind off the top of my head. Rlendog ( talk) 17:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
This is a clear case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT from Verbal and others. As mentioned above, the WP Policy states that: If a proposal fails, the failed tag should not be removed. It is typically more productive to rewrite a failed proposal from scratch to address problems than to re-nominate a proposal. MaxPont ( talk) 06:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Please form a consensus about the EXACT wording for proposed boilerplate additions. I found the wording MaxPont and Gandalf61 were insisting upon to be problematic and so did Verbal. In the future, it'd be great if people made their proposals on the talkpage FIRST. ScienceApologist ( talk) 21:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
I have removed the WP:MAINSTREAM shortcut from the essay tag, because that shortcut now redirects to SA's userfied version of this essay/proposal at User:ScienceApologist/Mainstream. Gandalf61 ( talk) 16:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
While I'm fine with Gandalf61's work, I find MaxPont and Brotherjr's desires for the redirect to be unnecessary and without cause. ScienceApologist ( talk) 23:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Being a mainstream encyclopedia involves not just keeping out bad sources, but including good sources from all relevant areas. For most topics, the scientific consensus is important but not the only perspective. History, ideology, sociology, popular belief and culture, are all noteworthy aspects of subjects. Mainstream cannot mean SPOV, since NPOV is our policy, and while SPOV makes sure to keep out unworthy RS, it also keeps out worthy RS that address non-scientific aspects of a subject, and even those that address scientific aspects of a subject unscientifically but are still deserving of summary as a POV. Otherwise, all of our articles would just be like binary math: true/false. Welcome to the world the mainstream is describing: it has a million facets and so many shades. Wikipedia must have a full crayon box if it is going to portray the world as all reliable sources see a subject. Ocaasi c 06:21, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Where is this mandated? Is the opening sentence of this essay accurate or is it a declaration? Wikipedia has very powerful and wise polices like WP:NPOV which work very well. However, the very meaning of mainstream is disputed, and points of view are relative. I agree completely with using good sources, and representing the sources accurately. However, the term "mainstream" has potential to be used as a false arbiter to argue against significant viewpoints that are not presented in the mainstream news with as much weight, for instance, and therefore has the potential to tie Wikipedia to a viewpoint that is sociologically not necessarily most accurately representative of a general range of viewpoints held by most experts. The mainstream media does not always reflect with accuracy the general consensus of opinions in a field, nor valid viewpoints that may be significant and well-sourced if there is no complete consensus in a topic. SageRad ( talk) 14:16, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.
Noone actually believes this is what goes on here, right? 2601:140:8400:36C0:D4E:6A9E:31EA:C0D2 ( talk) 22:48, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
One of the key bullet points in the boxed summation at the top of the article appears to be incorrect. The bulleted point states:
Articles should not endorse any fringe or orthodox perspective.
"Orthodox" means that which is generally or traditionally accepted, the opposite of "fringe". So this can't possibly be correct. Allreet ( talk) 19:09, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
'Is this situation fair? Perhaps not. But it is the situation we must tolerate if we are going to take the goal of making Wikipedia into a mainstream encyclopedia seriously.'
This is a poor justification. 'We must make Wikipedia express mainstream viewpoints, because our goal is to make Wikipedia into a mainstream encyclopedia' is basically a tautology. It presupposes that making Wikipedia into a 'mainstream encyclopedia' is a goal at all, whereas this still has to be motivated. It also presupposes that Wikipedia isn't already a 'mainstream encyclopedia', whereas in fact it was probably the most popular and widely used encyclopedia already about 15 years ago, let alone now. One may object that this doesn't make it mainstream, but this only highlights the fact that the article needs to define what it means by 'a mainstream encyclopedia' (and 'mainstream' in general, too - that's a vague concept which may, in fact, mean 'most popular' or 'most widespread' and the meaning of 'scientific consensus' attributed to it here may be too idiosyncratic). Finally, it presupposes that Wikipedia isn't good enough as it is compared to 'real encyclopedias', whose elite ranks it still has to join. Again, this smacks of an inferiority complex, where Wikipedia sees itself as a poor provincial cousin of Encyclopedia Britannica, whom it is expected to imitate, when it is arguably more prominent than Encyclopedia Britannica at present and not necessarily worse than it overall (I've seen this argued, I think there is some data in the article Reliability of Wikipedia). 87.126.21.225 ( talk) 10:09, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
Looking at the talk above, I see the author just meant something like 'follow Encyclopedia Britannica in all things and on every given subject'. Which is wrong, because Encyclopedia Britannica may, on some subjects, fail to reflect the scientific consensus adequately, come short of what WP:NPOV and WP:NOR require, and thereby be worse than Wikipedia. This is an entirely possible situation - Britannica is written by humans, too. In cases where WP:NPOV & WP:NOR and Britannica contradict each other, we must go with WP:NPOV & WP:NOR, not with Britannica. And as for the cases where they do not contradict each other, we don't need Britannica, since we already have WP:NPOV and WP:NOR themselves.-- 87.126.21.225 ( talk) 10:28, 28 September 2023 (UTC)