Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:09, 3 January 2009

Useful distinction, but how does it help?

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)

It changes the focus from a negative one where fringe viewpoints probably shouldn't quite get the majority of the coverage in an article, to one where the mainsteam viewpoint is properly recognized as being the most important to cover. -- Nevard 01:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Not a good policy

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)

First, I think the question of inclusiveness is orthogonal to the concerns of this proposal. No mainstream encyclopedia has ever had articles on every Pokemon figure, but that doesn't mean Misplaced Pages should not strive to cover each and every Pokemon figure just the way Britannica would, if they had the resources to write expert articles on each and every Pokemon figure. So, Misplaced Pages should indeed cover all kinds of fringe ideas, but the question is how to approach them.

Now, I haven't seen ScienceApologist in action that much, so you may be right that he takes tings to far, but I fully sympathize with his point that being an encyclopedia is to document current expert knowledge. If that knowledge turns out to be wrong, then it is perfectly fine for Misplaced Pages to be wrong as well. Occasionally, non-mainstream ideas turn out to be right, but "we must not fall into the trap of thinking that, therefore, the next time somebody comes up with a wildly paradoxical and implausible idea, that one too will turn out to be right. Most implausible ideas are implausible for a good reason." (Richard Dawkins) It is, therefore, more prudent for Misplaced Pages to wait until something gains mainstream acceptance, rather than present every speculative theory as a potential scientific revolution. Vesal (talk) 12:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your point, but I don't think the "mainstream" policy is the way to get there. If you want specifics, look at Eric Lerner and its talk page, for an example. Lerner has a very non-mainstream idea about electromagnetism being the dominant force in the formation of cosmic structure such as galaxies. How should this idea be presented? I have no idea whether it's correct, and most cosmologists think it's not (though the idea comes from a prominent mainstream plasma scientist). But it looks to me like ScienceApologist's agenda is make sure that the opinion of the mainstream cosmologists is presented in such a way as to say that Lerner is a crank. I'd say let's let Lerner's article talk about Lerner's ideas, have a brief discussion of the fact that mainstream cosmologists reject his ideas, and let it go without belaboring that. Focusing the article on the criticisms, rather than on the content and background of the idea itself, just leads to continued edit warring with supporters of the idea. ScienceApologist wants to gain an upper hand in these edit wars via this new policy proposal. I don't think it's a good idea. Other examples are alternative medicine articles, such as Homeopathy, where it would seem to me to make sense to present the theories in their own context, rather than to use the "mainstream" western medicine context as the main POV to make the article about debunking them. If you look at ScienceApologist's user page, you can see that that's pretty much his declared agenda. Dicklyon (talk) 20:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

We need to curb the swelling WP bureaucracy

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)

Resurgence/Parallels

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: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience and summarized at the top of the Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. Brothejr (talk) 16:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you say it what way you feel it is incompatible with NPOV and with the ArbCom? Verbal chat 16:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The proposal currently states that it should not be used to support any push away from NPOV. At least by intention, it is only meant to emphasize the fact that an encyclopedia full of only {{in-universe}} terminology and perspectives would not be all that useful to the majority of humanity. - Eldereft (cont.) 19:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Verbal:To answer your questions simply, without digging deeply into each place I'll use the summaries. Written in the lead of the NPOV Policy: All Misplaced Pages articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors. A basic reading of this proposal means that it is saying that while there are different POV's, only the "mainstream" POV is important/should be pushed, not a straight neutral wording that pushes neither fridge or mainstream. As far as the ArbCom ruling I am going to cite the summaries as stated on the Fringe Theories/Noticeboard. The main summary that this proposal seems to contradict is: Neutral point of view as applied to science: Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience. This proposal, as written, could conceivably be use to override that portion of the ArbCom ruling and also the main core of NPOV in favor of one side of the debate. Misplaced Pages, at it's core, should be taking neither side and simply reporting what the subject is in a way for the common reader to understand and to stray way from any contentious debate surrounding the subject other then to report that there is a contentious debate surrounding the subject. Brothejr (talk) 23:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Like Misplaced Pages:Scientific standards, this is yet another attempt by ScienceApologist to recreate SPOV under a different name and elevate it above NPOV. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Who ever said that Misplaced Pages need to represent the mainstream ??

Copied from this discussion in the Arbitration Committee case on cold fusion

SA has proposed a WP:MAINSTREAM guideline.

He says : "Misplaced Pages 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: ) 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":

• Mainstream = "what most scientists think". "Most scientists" cannot be a WP:reliable source on all topics, because they cannot be expected to be knowledgeable in all subjects. Furthemore, they cannot be a reliable source on cold fusion because they don't publish about it. Statements that start with "most scientists" are WP:Weaseled statements that are not truly verifiable. So, there is no basis for requiring wikipedia to represent the view of most scientists.
• Mainstream = "view expressed in news article". Again, these are not the most reliable sources. See Misplaced Pages:Reliable#News_organizations

Pcarbonn (talk) 09:25, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

What is the "mainstream" here ?

Okay, we can define mainstream science without too many problems. But it obviously wouldn't be true to say "Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

I think Blueboar's answer given on the FT page is clear and would be satisfactory to most. Verbal chat 15:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

So which particular one of Blueboar's range of answers do you have in mind ? Because his next attempt was to define "mainstream" as "determined by the opinions of lay people". Now, that's still not yet satisfactory because we don't know how many lay people we need to clear the "mainstream" bar - is it one million ? ten million ? 1% of the world's population maybe (oops - we just made Judaism a fringe religion !).

Well, Blueboar then ducked that question by saying that the most important criteria for inclusion in Misplaced Pages isn't whether a topic is considered "fringe" or "mainstream" after all - that is irrelevant - it is whether the topic is notable. I agree with you that his last answer is a very satisfactory answer - but it does drive a coach and horses straight through the middle of the assertion that "Misplaced Pages is a mainstream encyclopedia"., doesn't it ? So that should be "Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia of notable topics, some of which may not be mainstream, but we'll have to get back to you on what we mean by mainstream". Gandalf61 (talk) 17:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Plenty of mainstreaming already

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)

Political/Religious/Artistic speech WP:BIAS and WP:CENSOR issues

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Sorry, why would Exploding whale be deleted under this policy? The page presents the mainstream view on exploding whales. Hut 8.5 15:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Trying to limit it to "fields with experimental rigor and peer-reviewed journals" won't work either. Look at all the drama around The Big Bang Never Happened and The Man Who Would Be Queen, in fields with peer-reviewed journals but arguably not experimental rigor; are they science, pseudoscience, bad science, or what? Mainstream, or not? Opinions vary. Turning over all the control to the guys who control the journals is one solution, but probably not a good one. It's what ScienceApologist is asking for. Dicklyon (talk) 19:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)