User talk:Profcs

Hi. The study you seem so insistent on citing was determined later to be a fraud; there were no springtails ever confirmed in the samples examined, which originated from patients suffering from delusory parasitosis. The "evidence" consisted of digital photographs which the authors admitted to "enhancing" to make it look like fragments of insects were present, and one of the co-authors, Lou Sorkin, a spider researcher, publicly disavowed the study's findings, and confirmed that he never saw any actual scrapings or samples, only the "enhanced" photographs (he was sent these images and was asked if they might be springtails - when he said "they might be" they put his name on as a co-author). Since nearly all of this took place on public discussion groups, there is no real paper trail. Janssens mentions this paper, and properly notes that it offers no evidence of infestation. It therefore bears no discussion in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is based on expert sources, when they are available, and the point remains that no expert source has ever actually documented springtails parasitizing humans, to this date, which is what the article says, accordingly. Dyanega (talk) 23:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've asked for a comment on the matter from more experienced editors, more familiar with policy, and here's what one said:
 * Just because one paper has sneaked in under the radar of peer review does not mean that we as editors must be credulous about it. Our own reliable source policy says a LOT about how to look at primary sources (and indeed this is what you are describing: a case of WP:PSTS) and also when to apply incredulity (WP:REDFLAG). POV-pushers are not allowed to game the system simply by trumpeting singular publications. They must make the case that their proposed wording/text/ideas are widely known and discussed before we can include them (see WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE for more). If no one in the scientific community has bothered to comment on an idea (even if said idea has appeared in ostensibly peer-reviewed journals) then the idea is not notable nor is it prominent enough for inclusion in Wikipedia except, perhaps, if it is in an article that is devoted to the fringe topic itself and then it must be determined that the fringe topic has received note from either popular press notice or through some sort of controversy, for example. The only way it should be included in a "mainstream" page is if it is determined that the idea represents a more-or-less "legitimate" minority idea within an academic community, and this should be done by showing that someone who doesn't support the theory has noticed it enough to comment on it. Even if we have a legitimate minority theory on our hands, we must take care not to over-indulge the proposal more than the treatment it has received in the sum total of sources. You bring up an important point here: a fact/idea/quote/opinion/issue may be reliably sourced, but we are under NO OBLIGATION to include everything that is reliably sourced at Wikipedia. Sometimes a reliable source may turn out to be inappropriate for a particular article. Sometimes the source may appear superficially reliable but may have other reasons for us to discount it. Responsible editors should resist the fringe proposals as much as the fringe proposals are resisted in the preponderance of other sources. Singular sourcing is poor sourcing and should be strongly discouraged. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I hope this helps explain why I deleted the reference to the Altschuler publication. Dyanega (talk) 20:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)