| Revision as of 17:20, 20 January 2006 editFastfission (talk | contribs)17,173 editsNo edit summary | Revision as of 17:49, 20 January 2006 edit undoFastfission (talk | contribs)17,173 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
| ==Proposed guidelines== | ==Proposed guidelines== | ||
| *"Mainstream" here refers to ideas which are accepted or at least somewhat discussed as being plausible within major publications (large-circulation newspapers or magazines) or respected and peer-reviewed scientific publications. This should be understood in a commonsense sociological way and not as an attempt to create a rigorous philosophical demarcation between "mainstream" and "non-mainstream", which is likely impossible. | *"Mainstream" here refers to ideas which are accepted or at least somewhat discussed as being plausible within major publications (large-circulation newspapers or magazines) or respected and peer-reviewed scientific publications. This should be understood in a commonsense sociological way and not as an attempt to create a rigorous philosophical demarcation between "mainstream" and "non-mainstream", which is likely impossible. Most non-mainstream theories are easily identifiable by the fact that their authors proclaim their non-mainstream status in one form or another (for example, by arguing that they are ignored because of some great conspiracy, or because the other practitioners aren't ready to accept their truths, or something along these lines). | ||
| *Any non-mainstream theories should be referenced in at least one major mainstream publication or by another mainstream group. Even a debunking or |
*Any non-mainstream theories should be referenced in at least one major mainstream publication or by another mainstream group or individual. Even a debunking or disparaging reference is adequate, as it establishes the notability of the theory outside of the small group of adherents. | ||
| *The discussion of a non-mainstream theory by other non-mainstream groups is not a criteria for notability. | *The discussion of a non-mainstream theory, positively or negatively, by other non-mainstream groups or individuals is not a criteria for notability, even if the latter group or individual is themself notable enough for a Misplaced Pages article. If a non-mainstream theory is so unnotable that mainstream sources have not bothered to comment on it, disparage it, or discuss it, it is not notable enough for Misplaced Pages. | ||
| ==Justification== | |||
| The above proposed guidelines are justified as part of the idea that an appearance on Misplaced Pages should not make something more notable than it actually is. Since Misplaced Pages self-identifies primarily with mainstream opinion, and is seen by other mainstream source as a contender for mainstream status (however problematic they may see this), it is important that Misplaced Pages itself not become the notability-validating mainstream source for these non-mainstream theories. If another mainstream source discusses the theory first, however, it allows Misplaced Pages to not be the primary determinant of what is notable or not. Furthermore, anything with a complete lack of mainstream discussions can probably not be written about in a NPOV manner without some sort of mainstream baseline and without violation ]. | |||
Revision as of 17:49, 20 January 2006
 | The following is a proposed Misplaced Pages policy, guideline, or process. The proposal may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption. |
This page is a proposed guideline for establishing which non-mainstream "theories" should have articles in Misplaced Pages. This refers to "theory" in a very broad sense, including (self-described) scientific thories, conspiracy theories, or things which in a stricter sense may be hypotheses, conjectures, or speculations. These guidelines refer specifically to the creation of entire articles about said topics, not to the inclusion of alternative points of view in individual articles. These guidelines do not speak to the content of the articles, which are still completely subject to WP:NPOV and other policies.
Proposed guidelines
- "Mainstream" here refers to ideas which are accepted or at least somewhat discussed as being plausible within major publications (large-circulation newspapers or magazines) or respected and peer-reviewed scientific publications. This should be understood in a commonsense sociological way and not as an attempt to create a rigorous philosophical demarcation between "mainstream" and "non-mainstream", which is likely impossible. Most non-mainstream theories are easily identifiable by the fact that their authors proclaim their non-mainstream status in one form or another (for example, by arguing that they are ignored because of some great conspiracy, or because the other practitioners aren't ready to accept their truths, or something along these lines).
- Any non-mainstream theories should be referenced in at least one major mainstream publication or by another mainstream group or individual. Even a debunking or disparaging reference is adequate, as it establishes the notability of the theory outside of the small group of adherents.
- The discussion of a non-mainstream theory, positively or negatively, by other non-mainstream groups or individuals is not a criteria for notability, even if the latter group or individual is themself notable enough for a Misplaced Pages article. If a non-mainstream theory is so unnotable that mainstream sources have not bothered to comment on it, disparage it, or discuss it, it is not notable enough for Misplaced Pages.
Justification
The above proposed guidelines are justified as part of the idea that an appearance on Misplaced Pages should not make something more notable than it actually is. Since Misplaced Pages self-identifies primarily with mainstream opinion, and is seen by other mainstream source as a contender for mainstream status (however problematic they may see this), it is important that Misplaced Pages itself not become the notability-validating mainstream source for these non-mainstream theories. If another mainstream source discusses the theory first, however, it allows Misplaced Pages to not be the primary determinant of what is notable or not. Furthermore, anything with a complete lack of mainstream discussions can probably not be written about in a NPOV manner without some sort of mainstream baseline and without violation WP:NOR.
Category: