User:Tothwolf/rescued essays/Majority POV-pushing

The Just Society will be one in which the rights of minorities will be safe from the whims of intolerant majorities (Pierre Trudeau)

Majority POV-pushing (MPOV-pushing) takes place when an editor tenaciously argues for, and enforces with edits and administrative actions, majority POV, by which is meant majority among editors interested in a topic. This is different from simple expression of majority opinion; the difference manifests in articles that are extensively watched. In articles that are not so extensively watched, Fringe POV-pushing (FPOV-pushing) may be more of a problem, as editors with fringe points of view may focus on these articles, which may not be of broad interest, and may create the appearance of a local consensus.

MPOV-pushing may be more dangerous to the project than FPOV-pushing, because it can easily result in tenacious disruption, and this problem is multiplied in areas where there is a gap between what specialists know (reflected in the strongest sources, such as, in science, peer-reviewed publications), and popular understanding, even popular understanding among "scientists," who sometimes know as little about recent work in a specialized field as do the general public. MPOV may represent older understandings that have shifted in the recent literature.

So if an editor who is familiar with recent work in a field appears and begins to edit an article according to what's in the most reliable sources, this editor may be perceived as an FPOV-pusher, and may end up blocked or banned for, in fact, attempting to follow RS guidelines.

The solution is to follow WP:RS with increased care: use peer-reviewed source to weight reporting of the science, and other reliable media to weight reporting the controversy, history, and common opinion. Where the kind of gap mentioned exists, this should be shown in several ways: first, the recent peer-reviewed literature would show a balance toward acceptance of the supposed fringe view, but popular media coverage and other sources of lower quality, or older high-quality sources, may show the reverse.

Priority between sources of similar quality should be given to those more recent; with the peer-reviewed literature, it can be generally assumed that recent reviewers are aware of prior work, whereas, obviously, the reverse is not true.

Synthesis should be avoided. A common error made is to assume contradiction between peer-reviewed and academic sources where there is, in fact, no contradiction in the sources, but only in the conclusions we might draw from them. For example, early sources might report failure to replicate a reported experimental effect. Later sources may report replication. Generally, there is no conflict in this; ideally, the later sources will explain why the earlier efforts failed to replicate, but even in the absence of that, it is a possibility that unknown conditions differed; in some cases, an effect is chaotic or dependent upon still-unidentified conditions, and may be replicated or not, in a particular experiment, even if the experiments were apparently exactly the same. Ultimately, review of all experiments, and statistical analysis, may reveal or reject the reality of the effect, even without identified differences.

Early secondary sources may cover and compare, as an example, a single positive report and then a series of negative ones, and conclude that the effect was likely experimental artifact in the positive experiment, even without specific identification of the artifact, or only speculation as to what it might have been. However, later secondary sources, having a larger body of work to examine, may reverse this.

In the presence of MPOV-pushing, there may be a tendency to reject or discount sources which contradict the MPOV, so sources that would ordinarily be considered reliable, even highly reliable, may be rejected by a majority of editors, and the article, then, from the sources cited, will appear to support the MPOV and the minority POV may be heavily excluded.

Requests for arbitration/Fringe science suggested that minority or fringe opinion should no more be excluded from articles, than given prominence over "mainstream" views. However, the issue of how to determine what is mainstream and what is not, especially if this is shifting or has shifted, can be tricky. The theoretical standard is preponderance in reliable sources, and with a science article, this would presumably be peer-reviewed publications, and especially secondary reviews or reports in such literature.

On the other hand, if a field has been heavily rejected at one point, but never actually dies and peer-reviewed publication continues in less-noticed publications, it can come to pass that negative articles stop appearing. Did this occur because the majority of knowledgeable scientists stopped bothering with what they believe had been conclusively rejected, or did it occur because the field moved on, answered the original objections, and everyone who was newly investigating it was coming to conclusions different from the earlier ones? We should examine the situation carefully, and seek consensus.

If views considered fringe are rejected, and editors who evince them are banned or discounted, our apparent consensus may be warped from what a truly neutral examination would conclude. The most reliable sign of neutral point of view is the broadest consensus, and we should seek it; how we handle minority or fringe opinion is crucial, for if we reject it out-of-hand, and disregard objections from "fringe editors" simply because of the POV they supposedly are pushing, we set up conditions for continued disruption, as the article will be a magnet for anyone with a different understanding, and we must then keep pushing our presumption of NPOV up the hill again, over and over.

Editors with true fringe POV know that their view is fringe and, indeed, they may commonly complain about the "ignorance of the mainstream." It is usually possible to find text that they will accept and acknowledge, it is only utter and complete rejection that will tend to outrage them. Editors understand, or can be brought to understand, that the article should be balanced according to the weight of what is in peer-reviewed publications. What they are not so likely to accept is rejection of them, personally, as "fringe POV-pushers," which happens all too often. See early comments by Jimbo Wales on fringe theories and how to present them.

The inclusiveness spectrum
The approach of each Wikipedian may lie somewhere along a spectrum from extreme pro-majority to extreme inclusiveness.

The extreme pro-majority approach
The extreme pro-majority approach takes the most common view in the reliable sources and asserts that that is the mainstream view and should be the only view represented in articles. Users argue that a serious encyclopedia should present only the mainstream science POV, meaning the POV of the majority of scientists, and not mention other POVs.

In terms of Wikipedian discussions, the extreme pro-majority POV is that if there has been a discussion and a majority of users have favoured one version, then that's the consensus, everyone should respect it, and any more time spent in discussion is merely disruptive time-wasting.

Users closer to the extreme pro-majority end of the spectrum tend to accuse others of ignoring consensus and of fringe POV-pushing.

The extreme inclusive approach
The extreme inclusive approach is that all POVs should be described in detail in articles. Users argue that if information about a POV is available in a published source, then that information should be made available to the reader.

In terms of Wikipedian discussions, the extreme inclusive POV is that anyone should be able to discuss anything at any time, and that discussion should continue until true consensus is reached, i.e. everyone agreeing.

Users closer to the extreme inclusive end of the spectrum tend to accuse others of reverting without discussion and of mistaking the majority POV for NPOV.

A moderate Wikipedian approach
Wikipedians need to find a balance between these approaches.

We represent all significant POVs in articles, but minority POVs are given less weight, and tiny-minority POVs might not appear at all except in articles about themselves.

Although anyone can start a discussion, users are discouraged from starting discussions about issues that have already been discussed, unless there's new information or a new situation; and once a discussion is closed, people are not supposed to comment in it, to save time for others who might feel a need to reply to defend their POV.

The moderate approach is codified in policies such as WP:NPOV and WP:CONSENSUS, which helps guide those who might be closer to one end or the other of the spectrum to modify their approach to be more consistent with the general trend.