Fringe policy
editIn my attempts to advocate for WP:NPOV, I've encountered several comments from different users along the lines of, "We [Wikipedia] don't consider WP:FRINGE sources or views."
Such users should read the policies and guidelines more carefully. Fringe, as defined in Wikipedia guidelines, is not synonymous with pseudoscience. Openness to non-majority (a.k.a. fringe) views is what drives the scientific process. This is explicitly stated in the guideline:
- Not all pseudoscience and fringe theories are alike. [emph. added] In addition, there is an approximate demarcation between pseudoscience and questionable science, and they merit careful treatment. ...
Questionable science: Hypotheses which have a substantial following but which critics describe as pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect; however it should not be described as unambiguously pseudoscientific while a reasonable amount of academic debate still exists on this point.
Alternative theoretical formulations from within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process. They should not be classified as pseudoscience but should still be put into context with respect to the mainstream perspective. ...
To determine whether something is pseudoscientific or merely an alternative theoretical formulation, consider this: ... Pseudoscience generally proposes changes in the basic laws of nature to allow some phenomenon which the supporters want to believe occurs, but lack the strong scientific evidence or rigour that would justify such major changes. (Spectrum of fringe theories)
The principle is echoed in the guideline:
- Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered ... (Reliable sources)
These guidelines illuminate the policy:
- Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. (Neutral point of view § Due and undue weight)
I'm sure other relevant policies and guidelines can be found, but these ought to be adequate.
It should also go without saying that conduct policies apply even when dealing with those whose views you consider pseudoscience.
Tolerance
editEnough said on policy. Now I turn to opinion.
Resolution of WP:NPOV disputes relies on distinguishing between minority views and pseudoscience. I hope most people can see the intrinsic danger in letting the majority decide which is which (c.f. WP:BIAS essay). However, much like Winston Churchill's view on democracy, there are not a lot of other options. Unlike functional democracies, in Wikipedia there are no checks and balances on the absolute rule of the majority, and it's a one-party system.
In my view, it is therefore imperative upon the majority to police itself. If there is any reasonable doubt, it is better to err on the side of tolerance. Better to give undue attention to a questionable view than to suppress a legitimate one.
It should also go without saying (which is why I'm repeating it) that conduct policies apply in all cases.
See also
editThese practices and essays lack the authority of policy or guideline, but I find them insightful.