User:Christopher Thomas/Editing pseudoscience

''This is based on comments I'd posted on the WikiProject Physics talk page, in response to other project members' questions. I'm duplicating it here, in the hopes that other editors find it useful. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 18:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)''

How to evaluate mainstream and fringe science
Anything that's considered mainstream will have publications from multiple independent groups in well-respected journals, and will mostly _not_ cite their own group's work. Things that are non-mainstream but respected will only have one or two groups working on them, with correspondingly more within-group citation, but will at least be published in respected journals. Things that are fringe won't be published in respected journals, and usually also are the work of one group of researchers or one or two individuals.

Online tools (such as citation databases and Google Scholar) can give some idea of both where papers on a topic are published, and what patterns exist in these papers' references. The fact that they turn up publications in the first place, though, does not establish mainstreamness or notability (where they're published, and who cites them, matters).

Fringe science does often belong on Wikipedia
Without journal publications, something is not accepted as science, but fringe works like time cube are sometimes still noteworthy enough to have Wikipedia articles. If something is established as being fringe, per the criteria above, it's time to look outside of academic publications to see whether it's noteworthy fringe work. Subjects like plasma cosmology and Heim theory have received popular-press write-ups speculating about them being a new dark-horse theories of cosmology and physics, respectively. That doesn't make them scientific, but it does mean the articles should be kept.

The caveat is that if a subject is established as being fringe, it shouldn't be presented as non-fringe anywhere else, or given undue weight in articles discussing mainstream science concepts.

How attempts to edit fringe science articles usually play out
Most articles about fringe topics on Wikipedia typically attract at least one or two people who do not consider them fringe, and who are very industrious about a) modifying the article to present it as widely accepted/revolutionary/what-have-you, and b) adding links and mentions of it to other articles in a way that implies that it's widely accepted. This sort of thing is what gave rise to the ArbCom case on pseudoscience, to the WP:PSCI and WP:UNDUE clauses in WP:NPOV, and to the WP:FRINGE guideline.

Trying to bring content about fringe topics in line with WP:NPOV is draining enough that I've largely retired from doing it. The most important part of the task is to make sure that you're at all points calm, civil, and performing actions that are backed by Wikipedia policy (and frequently asking for others to verify that your actions are correct; mistakes happen). If this becomes difficult, disengage and let someone else take over. Any lapses tend to be immediately pounced upon, and the situation immediately becomes much worse (accusations of bias flying around and so forth). Edit-warring has to be avoided; this is why I frequently post on WT:PHYS for second opinions when a change I make is reverted, rather than undoing the reversion myself. If it becomes clear that one - and only one - person is acting against consensus and won't stop, _then_ it's time to go to WP:AN/I (with diffs of attempts at discussion, policy-violating actions, and attempts at dispute resolution in-hand).

And then the whole thing starts again a few weeks or months later, with either the same person or a different one. There's a reason I semi-retired. But, it's still possible to make progress.