User:IntoThinAir/The truth hurts

The truth hurts. So what? Why bother creating a Wikipedia page about this well-known and -accepted phrase? Because it applies here just as much as everywhere else (i.e. in the real world).

Often we hear newcomers to Wikipedia complain about how the page about this or that pseudoscientific topic is too biased against it, or, conversely, that the page about some mainstream scientific topic is too biased towards it. This, they claim, violates WP:NPOV. Now we must keep in mind that they do sincerely believe what they want the article to be changed to is true. However, this belief is not, in this case, in agreement with the scientific evidence. People's opinions on scientific topics are influenced by many non-evidence-based factors. When you tell them what is true, they often will be unwilling to hear it, because it hurts and continue trying to change the article to bring it in line with their views.

What they don't understand about WP:NPOV is the part about how it's actually the exact opposite of what its name suggests. Wikipedia pages (on scientific topics, anyway) shouldn't "tell both sides of the story" if one side is supported by nearly all the scientists with expertise in that area and the other by almost none of them. The quintessential example is the concept of a flat earth. No one believes that anymore, so when we point out that, with a very small number of exceptions, all scientists agree that the Earth is not flat, they should, in theory, understand that this is the only view that should be discussed. They wouldn't argue that both sides need to be presented as though scientists weren't sure which was right.

Examples
"There are also sponsored research fraud claiming no relation between ASD and vaccines, e.g. Poul Thorsen and co-workers. Please at least mention this as well for proper balance if the author thinks "guilty by association" logical fallacies are state-of-the-art for wiki articles."
 * From Talk:Autism/Archive_12: