User:Cpiral/fringe theory

Comments welcome here, in this section.

Qualifying a fringe theory article
An article is qualified by its author and its later editors, but also may be deleted if qualified improperly. A fringe theory article has for its subject an idea that differs so significantly from today's mainstream view that it may not even qualify as a subject in Wikipedia. Fringe subjects include theory, hypothesis, conjecture, and speculation. As mainstream changes, "the fringe" subjects are continuously scrutinized during the ongoing work of qualification, described in this section.

To determine a fringe theory's position in world affairs, and thus its need to be in Wikipedia, the idea in a fringe subject is first categorized and then compared to its closest field of study. For example an idea in fringe science depends on how it compares to a similar idea in mainstream science. Here the comparison is a quantity that is determined by the number of references of a notable source. Where a field of study is not established, noteworthiness is used. For example a conspiracy theory could qualify as an article if one adherent is comparatively noteworthy, but the area of the adherent's notability might also be a consideration. An esoteric claim about medicine might qualify if a recently published survey comparing doctors opinions can be cited. A novel re-interpretation of history might be suddenly be supported by a significant number of historians, and if, say a major newspaper's report of this can be cited, it will qualify for an article. A fringe subject does not qualify if it does not compare.

Fringe theory, because it is compared to the mainstream, must also consider the times. So the encyclopedia to it represents comprehensive world thinking today. A main article need not consider the times. In order to be notable enough to appear, a fringe theory should exist "in significant proportion" to the this phase of the world stage. A fringe theory becomes a "notable" article topic when it is found to be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner. These numerous references must be made from a position that is independent, but not necessarily neutral towards the fringe theory. (The comments are either supportive or dismissive, it does not matter.) These numerous references must be made in all seriousness, in order to count towards the measurement of significance required. They must not be made in jest or in a laughable manner. Finally, these references must be cited as coming from at least one of: a major publication, a notable group, or a noteworthy individual as the source. We might call this "one" a minimum qualifying citation.

Quoting the project page "references":
 * Where several sites host a copy of the material, the site selected as the convenience link should be the one whose general content appears most in line with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Verifiability.

Please understand how wishful thinking is especially salient concerning the 'qualifying citation'. Firstly, a logical fallacy is then easy to make. For example it is a non sequitur to cite a related subject — such as the creator of the theory, and not the theory itself. (There may be space for such a citation in the proposed article, but only if the qualifying cite is first determined.) Secondly, wishful thinking can lead to dissembling, where, for example, the reference (or references) from the "reputable news source" were in a lighthearted fashion during such an expected time as on April Fool's Day, as "News of the Weird" or during "slow news days". Employing a serious citation from junk food news or silly season is a bluff, and in a collaborative and on-line project, it is easily called and speedily deleted. Thirdly, because an encyclopedia does not contain original research, but only cites an established development, a subject in Wikipedia cannot contain more subject detail than the source has. For example, if the only references to a particular subject are in news sources, then a level of detail which is greater than that which appears in these news sources is inappropriate. Research is is essential to writing an encyclopedia, and in a fringe theory article, it must be carefully classified as "source-based research" as opposed to "original research".

Fringe theory subjects are for the particularly advanced in comprehension of the three, core content policies: "No original research"; have a neutral point of view, and use verifyable sources. Such an article is challenging to write, to maintain, and to evolve over time; much more so than a main article.

=Notes=
 * Q. "Compare what?" A.Compare quantities of beliefs or opinions to infer a yes-or-no significance. I strive to make more systematic the current article's method of valuation of the strength of beliefs or opinions. My route is to extract the common concept, "comparison" (c.f. difference), shared by
 * the "noteworthy adherent" (just how noteworthy and just how relevant)
 * the "notable source", and
 * the "references" (how many were made, and how serious)
 * criteria. "How noteworthy" and "How many" and the other "hows" are comparisons.  The best example I can think of is a survey of doctors opinions about an alternative medical practice.  Primarily the "yeas" compare to the "nays"; but the notability of the participants can be compared.  The current article seems to me to stress only the "yeas" aspect.

aand the "notability of noteworthiness and notability of To fit into one section. to arrive at a subjective "significance".  Quantities of either It is complex because fringe articles define the boundary of subject matter and shape the ideology.  Compare is thrice-bolded in the paragraph, and the main idea.  "An article does not qualify unless it compares" is a  "sound bite". Excessive thoroughness is for lawyers, and I dilutes attention to learning.
 * aand the "notability of noteworthiness and notability of To fit into one section. to arrive at a subjective "significance".  Quantities of either It is complex because fringe articles define the boundary of subject matter and shape the ideology.