User:HatlessAtlas/fringe rework



Fringe theories, simply put, are claims that are not taken seriously my mainstream academic thought and publication. Fringe theories may be expressly classed as such, or may be classed as 'implausible' or pseudo-science, -history, -mathematics, etc. Fringe theories and related articles have been the subject of several arbitration cases. See Fringe theories/Arbitration cases.

Fringe theories also happen to be one of the most active areas of dispute on wikipedia. This guideline could be thought of as the "Geneva Convention" of for disputes about fringe theories. This guideline seeks to explore and provide concrete guidance on how to find the right middle ground when discussing fringe theories.

When editing the wikipedia we must remain neutral, we must not present original research and most importantly of all, we must say only what can be verified. Proper handling of fringe theories requires adhering to these rules, and all of the other rules of discourse. Finally, wikipedia is popular, but at the same time, it means that it attracts people who want to push some particular viewpoint.

Wikipedia is, by construction and conception, a somewhat cold place for fringe theories. This is not a place for them to gain publicity or attention, nor will mainstream criticism be downplayed. In Wikipedia, fringe theories are judged only on their impact as can be justified in independent, secondary sources and the prestige and validity of their primary sources. No attempt to manufacture any kind of credibility beyond what the best sources show is tolerated. By the same token, credibility established by reliable secondary sources will not be improperly suppressed.

Hallmarks
There are several attributes that fringe theories often have. This list is by no means exhaustive, and a fringe theory need not have all of these attributes to be a fringe theory.


 * Fringe theories lack the level and number of serious publications in independent, peer-reviewed sources in comparison to ideas which are not fringe theories.
 * Fringe theories are generally not taken seriously by mainstream sources within the academic field, or, in cases where they belong to a fringe field of study, by the related mainstream academic field.
 * Fringe theories rarely receive fair treatment or consideration from the experts who study the related fields. This is distinguishes them from minority opinions within academic subjects.
 * Fringe theories lack broad-based support and often become closely associated with the groups that promote/support them.
 * Groups supporting fringe theories may achieve the notability necessary for articles in Wikipedia for reasons other than the academic merit of the fringe theory. For example, unrelated notoriety, sensational media coverage, scandals, political or social activities, or the controversy they stir up.

What fringe theories aren't
In the case of scientific theories, there are several types of minority opinions that should not be labeled "fringe". This is not an exhaustive list, and there are no firm requirements. These categories are instead intended to provide guidance as to some alternative types of minority opinions. By replacing the word "scientific" with another classification, such as "historical" or "medical", these viewpoints can be extended beyond the scope of simple science.

Minority opinions and theories within a subject field
Some extreme-minority theories are developed entirely within the realm of scientific publication. Special relativity and quantum mechanics are a perfect examples; in fact, most scientific breakthroughs started as a single publication, and had only a small amount of traction before adoption by the wider scientific or engineering community. Turbo codes and the Kalman filter began life as obscure publications in journals outside of their respective fields, and were not taken seriously for years after publication. Now they are a critical driver of many high-tech systems that could not work without them. Extreme-minority theories that are published in respected, peer-reviewed journals and which conduct their work within the mainstream of science and subject to mainstream consideration are fundamentally different from "fringe" theories. While fringe theories may have notability but lack scientific traction, minority scientific theories have scientific traction but may or may not have established sufficient notability for inclusion in Wikipedia. This ties in closely with WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NOT PAPERS, WP:NOTE and WP:V.

When applying this test, be aware that in recent years, fringe groups have set up fringe journals, specifically to support their theories, and other journals attempt to publish "controversial" work, in order to stir up debate. Such work is usually held to far lower standards than in mainstream scientific or academic journals.

Likewise, some widespread, long-standing fringe theories may have a few legitimate publications, while being widely dismissed or considered highly implausible. A few scattered publications related to a widely-held fringe theory that mainly works outside of mainstream academia is insufficient to make it a minority theory within a subject field.

It also happens that legitimate minority opinions and theories that at one time had traction are dismissed and become increasingly marginalized to the point of becoming fringe theories. Such instances can be identified by the disappearance of consideration for the idea from the mainstream literature indicating a dismissal by the relevant academic community. In many cases, the resulting fringe theory will be less notable than the minority theory from which it was spawned. Disambiguation can be very difficult.

Non-academic worldviews
There are plenty of world views, belief systems, and sets of beliefs that are not academic. Fringe theories are only those that are presented as academic or at least claim to have basis in academic legitimacy. Claims that are made without relationship to verifiable scholarship should be treated as cultural movements. It is unnecessary to handle in a academic manner non-academic world views or beliefs. This applies, for example, to the many creation myths that populate various religions, or as to the nature of many superstitions. Since they are neither intended nor presented as scientific accounts of the origins of the world, they are treated as literary, religious, or mythological subjects. There is no need for a scientific criticisms section in such articles, for example, or to demand peer-reviewed research into the scientific nature of such articles.

However, applications of worldviews, such as alternative medicine, creationism, and the like, where the primary purpose of the application is to replace a scientific concept or medical treatments, should be discussed in terms of the most reliable and verifiable evidence and scholarship available. With medicine specifically, care should be taken not to present disputed claims as true.

When legitimate ideas are hijacked
At any given time, one can search the internet and buy from fraudsters vacuum energy or magnetic healing devices. Less than scrupulous individuals will use poorly-analyzed or misquoted legitimate research and ostensibly scientific-sounding wording to cloak their ideas and crackpot inventions in the garb of science. When they attract believers, the ideas may take on a life of their own. The fact that groups of misled individuals may have "theories" that share the same name as scientific research does not destroy the legitimacy of the scientific research (see, for example, quantum quackery). Great care must be taken in Wikipedia to separate verifiable fact from verifiable fraud and keep the reader aware of what is being described. If both are notable, it may be appropriate to mention the ideas in separate articles taking care not to unduly weight the mention of fraudulent fringe theories in articles on legitimate topics. Disambiguation can help in these matters.

Why we need this guideline
Wikipedia seeks to inform without promoting. Properly dealing with fringe theories requires us to engage in a delicate balancing act between three different situations. We want to include theories that are notable enough to be in wikipedia, but at the same time, we want to avoid both promoting theories inappropriately, and at the same time Wikipedia is not the place to disparage or debunk ideas in novel ways.

Avoiding inappropriate promotion
Proponents of fringe theories have in the past used Wikipedia as a forum for promoting their ideas. Existing policies discourage this type of behavior: if the only statements about a fringe theory come from the inventors or promoters of that theory, then various "What Wikipedia is not" rules come into play. Wikipedia is neither a publisher of original thought nor a soapbox for self-promotion and advertising. The notability of a fringe theory must be judged by statements from verifiable and reliable sources, not the proclamations of its adherents. Attempts by such inventors and adherents to artificially inflate the perceived renown of their fringe theories, such as sock puppetry in AfD discussions, is strongly discouraged. Efforts of fringe-theory inventors to shill on behalf of their theories, such as the offering of self-published material as references, are unacceptable: Wikipedia is not an advertising venue. (See also Links normally to be avoided, Conflict of interest, Autobiography guidelines.)

The discussion of a fringe theory, positively or negatively, by groups or individuals is not a criterion for notability, even if the latter group or individual is itself notable enough for a Wikipedia article. If a fringe theory meets notability requirements, secondary reliable sources would have commented on it, disparaged it, or discussed it. Otherwise it is not notable enough for Wikipedia.

Conjectures that have not received critical review from the scientific community or that have been rejected should be excluded from articles about scientific subjects. However, if the idea is notable in some other way such as coverage in the media, the idea may still be included in articles devoted to the idea itself or in non-scientific contexts. The same holds true for conjectures and theories in other academic disciplines.

Just as importantly, Wikipedia is also not a crystal ball: While currently accepted scientific paradigms may later be rejected, and hypotheses previously held to be controversial or incorrect sometimes become accepted by the scientific community (such as plate tectonics), it is not the place of Wikipedia to venture such projections. If the status of a given idea changes, then Wikipedia changes to reflect that change. Wikipedia primarily focuses on the state of knowledge today, documenting the past when appropriate (identifying it as such), and avoiding speculation about the future.

Avoiding disparagement and debunking
In the interest of not misleading readers, we also have an interest in making sure that all material included should be backed up by verifiable and reliable sources to document criticism. Wikipedia should report prominent and notable debunking and disparaging done by relevant experts. Criticisms of fringe theories should be reported on relative to the visibility, notability, and reliability of the sources that do the criticizing. Offering originally synthesized prose is original research and does not belong in Wikipedia.

Giving readers fair warning
We have an interest in giving readers a clear and up-front description of the status of any theory, mainstream or otherwise, in the interest of keeping readers informed as to the status of what they are reading. Information in wikipedia is not isolated, but it is inseparable from its relationship to all other information in wikipedia. Because of this, regardless of the truth of a theory, we violate our own mission when we present a theory and mislead a reader as to its level of acceptance in the wider world.

Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community. If proper attribution cannot be found among reliable sources of an idea's standing, it should be assumed that the idea has not received consideration or acceptance; ideas should not be portrayed as accepted unless such claims can be documented in reliable sources. However, a lack of consideration or acceptance does not necessarily imply rejection either; ideas should be portrayed as rejected or categorized as pseudoscience when such characterizations are documented in reliable sources.

Ideas that have been rejected, are widely considered to be absurd or pseudoscientific, only of historical interest, or primarily the realm of science fiction, should be documented as such, using reliable sources.

Ideas that are of borderline or minimal notability may be mentioned in Wikipedia, but should not be given undue weight. Wikipedia is not a forum for presenting new ideas, for countering any systemic bias in institutions such as academia, or for otherwise promoting ideas which have failed to merit attention elsewhere. Wikipedia is not a place to right great wrongs. Fringe theories may be excluded from articles when a prepondernace of reliable sources for the article have ignored the fringe theory. However, ideas should not be excluded from the encyclopedia simply because they are widely held to be wrong.

Notability concerns for fringe theories
Fringe theories have a unique set of issues when it comes to notability, because there are actually two separate notability concerns. The first, which can be traced back to the general notability guideline covers whether a subject is notable to have an article appear in wikipedia. Even negative, derisive, or mocking coverage can be used to establish notability of a group or silly set of ideas. On the other hand, a separate consideration made for the subject prominence of a fringe theory. This is considered when discussing whether an idea deserves mention in other articles or whether the theory will be relegated to description only in its own article. In general, if the fringe theory is discussed in literature that is not promoting the fringe theory, the idea is likely relevant enough to the subject for inclusion. For example, astrology is often discussed in introductory astronomy texts as a common pseudoscience. This means that brief, appropriately weighted mention of astrology in a review article on astronomy may be warranted. However, reliable sources on the solar nebula do not mention astrology, and therefore astrology should not be mentioned.

Neutral POV and fringe theories
We have three tasks involved in preserving neutrality with respect to fringe theories:


 * 1) Faithfully presenting data on the theory so that a reader achieves an encyclopedic level of understanding regarding the fringe theory.
 * 2) Presenting the relationship between the fringe theory and mainstream thought. After reading an article on a fringe theory, readers should be able to describe the theory, and describe how the theory disagrees with mainstream thought, and why the theory has not been accepted by mainstream thought.
 * 3) Making the presentation as palatable and useful to as many readers as possible. Even for a theory that is thoroughly mocked by reliable sources used in an article, we must make sure to make clear that it is the sources, and not the editors of wikipedia, mocking the theory. However, plain summaries of substantiated facts should not be mitigated to accommodate the incredulity of believers. Just because creationists think that evolution doesn't happen does not mean we should remove all mention of evolution from articles on the emergence of new species.

It is important that we have some requirements that will require careful balancing on a case by case basis. We have an obligation to present a theory as defined by its representation in reliable sources. We have the obligation to present theories using the best sources available, and the most up to date information. We must balance the desire to present a theory in a sympathetic light in the interest of helping readers "understand" the theory and the desire to present a theory in a disdainful light in the interest of helping readers "understand" why the theory has not gained mainstream acceptance. Again, we come back to reliable sources.

Parity of sources
Inclusion and exclusion of content related to fringe theories and criticism of fringe theories is a special consideration of WP:UNDUE. This may be done by means of a rough parity of sources. If an article is written about a well-known topic, it should not include fringe theories that may seem relevant but are only sourced by obscure texts that lack peer review. Even occasional mention in peer-reviewed sources is not necessarily sufficient, but numerous mentions indicating a level of acceptance across multiple sources is required. Multiple independent secondary sources describing such acceptance explicitly represent the gold standard of whether a theory warrants mention in topic-related articles or not.

In an article on a fringe topic, if a notable fringe theory is primarily described by amateurs and self-published texts, verifiable and reliable criticism of the fringe theory need not be published in a peer reviewed journal. For example, the Apollo moon landing hoax accusations article may include material from websites, movies, television specials, and books that are not peer reviewed. Critiques of that material can likewise be gleaned from websites and books that are not peer reviewed, since the accusations themselves are not peer reviewed.

Parity of sources may mean that certain fringe theories are only reliably and verifiably reported on, or criticized, in alternative venues from those that are typically considered reliable sources for Wikipedia. For example, the lack of peer-reviewed criticism of creation science is not justification for marginalizing or removing scientific criticism of creation science since peer-reviewed journals routinely reject submissions relating to the subject.

Best sourcing practices
While fringe theory proponents are excellent sources for describing what they believe, the best sources to use when determining the notability and prominence of fringe theories are independent sources. For example, when trying to decide whether a fringe theory is prominent enough for inclusion in a particular article on a mainstream subject, mention of the fringe theory in an independent source firmly establishes its relevance and can provide a guide for appropriate contextual framing of the fringe theory within the mainstream article.

One important bellwether for determining the notability and level of acceptance of fringe ideas related to science, history or other academic pursuits is the presence or absence of peer reviewed research on the subject. While a lack of peer-reviewed sources does not automatically mean that the subject should be excluded from Wikipedia, the sources must allow the subject to be covered in sufficient detail without engaging in original research.

Peer review is an important feature of reliable sources that discuss scientific, historical or other academic ideas, but it is not the same as acceptance. It is important that original hypotheses that have gone through peer review do not get presented in Wikipedia as representing scientific consensus or fact. Articles about fringe theories sourced solely from a single primary source (even when it is peer reviewed) may be excluded from Wikipedia on notability grounds. Likewise, exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality reliable sources, and, with clear editorial consensus, unreliable sources for exceptional claims may be rejected due to a lack of quality (see WP:REDFLAG). In general this goes hand in hand with discussion in secondary sources, as described below. In general, in order to merit inclusion in related articles, a theory should have both peer reviewed research of high quality, and mention in secondary sources to establish impact.

Primary vs secondary sources
There is a reason this guideline harps on secondary sources as opposed to primary sources for determining both notability and impact of a theory. This is because neither the majority of editors nor the majority of readers are subject matter experts with the expertise necessary to evaluate primary sources as to their reliability. A research journal with a serious sounding name, an established peer-review policy, and papers full of dense technical language, is going to be somewhere between difficult to impossible to determine the reliability of the source for the overwhelming majority of wikipedia editors. This problem is compounded when weighing multiple journals of serious names, peer review policies, and dense language. While debating the merits of such journals would shed interesting light on the biases of various wikipedia editors, it is unhelpful in providing guidance on how to properly handle fringe theories. This is why secondary sources are important. It is much easier to evaluate the reliability of a nationally sold textbook for an introductory class compared to a self-published website. Ediotrial policy, reputation, connections through money or ownership, and other factors can easily be used to show how independent such sources are, and independent reviews or awards can give a measure of the quality of their reporting. Just as importantly, the most reliable sources normally solicit contributions from premier subject matter experts who have the qualifications to evaluate the various primary sources. Finally, such sources have, as a matter of both income and prestige, an incentive to be the first to report on real scholarly or intellectual breakthroughs and research that upsets the status quo, and in fact, the best sources do include reports of that type. This is why, for all the importance of the prestige or reliability of a primary source, we rely carefully on secondary sources for the general impact of a theory.

Consensus
When claiming that mainstream thought has a single or consistent viewpoint on a fringe theory, careful attention should be paid to the policy on claims of consensus. Reliable, independent, secondary sources are important when citing claims of consensus or asserting an objective status to a theory. By the same token, claims of consensus that are well sourced should not be removed lightly.

Occasionally, dedicated editors with strong opinions in support of a fringe theory will edit Wikipedia. We may even see a majority of editors at a fringe theory article sharing a favorable impression of a fringe theory. Claims of consensus in such situations should be looked at very carefully to make sure that they are not being used to flout these or the other guidelines and policies of Wikipedia in order to advance the fringe theory claims.

Particular attribution
Proper sourcing is vital when writing about criticism of fringe theories. However, since many fringe theories are relatively obscure topics it may be the case that there are only a small number of sources that directly dispute them, though, in fact, almost no one supports them. Alone, the fact that only a few sources actively dispute a fringe theory does not imply that the general consensus is neutral or favorable toward the topic. In such situations, care should be taken not to mislead the reader by implying or stating that only a small number of people dispute a fringe claim.

For example, a statement that someone is "the only scientist who says this idea is untenable" is impossible to verify, and is an obvious case of inappropriate particular attribution. However, other phrasings can still inadvertently imply that only one person is critical of the fringe theory, for instance, stating that a particular person "says this idea is untenable" when there are actually others (including experts) in addition who hold the same view. In a fringe topic, it is possible, even likely, that more people share misgivings about a fringe topic but weren't concerned enough to write a paper on the subject, and such phrasing can therefore be misleading as to how many people actually share those views.

When using sources written by authors who are a reliable experts in the field in which they are writing, consider using the facts mentioned by them rather than making direct attributions of their opinions. Facts do not require in-text attribution since they are not solely the opinions of people.