Wikipedia:Expert retention/Crackpot users


 * "Show the door to trolls, vandals, and wiki-anarchists, who, if permitted, would waste your time and create a poisonous atmosphere here." —&thinsp;Larry Sanger, on WP:EQ

Users who persist in making unfounded or poorly-sourced edits in the face of opposition, who continually attempt to include original research, or who continually attempt to use Wikipedia to promote theories that are widely discredited may be blocked or banned from the project.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and a serious reference work, and a professional endeavor. Readers ought be able to consult it with the expectation that they are to get information that, if not always the most well-researched or best-documented, at least does not fly in the face of established knowledge. Articles may be written by experts in the field, or by amateurs; as long as readers can be confident that the information presents the state of the field accurately, the sources does not matter.

Some contributors, however, seek to exploit our openness in order to promote controversial or extreme positions, often attempting to present them as fact or as theories that have recognized merit among experts in the relevant field. Other editors stubbornly modify articles to represent their own, incomplete or inaccurate interpretation of their sources. Just as Wikipedia chooses to exclude spam and propaganda, we also choose to exclude advocacy of crackpot or crank theories. Persistent attempts to include such material, after being informed that it is inappropriate, constitutes disruption of the encyclopedia; many editors find themselves having to spend a considerable amount of time reverting the edits of users who persist in advocating theories for which there is no discernable support among experts in the field.

Note that context may be important. A theory that may be held as valid in one context may be considered invalid in another.

This principle does not apply to the following:
 * Established theories that occupy a minority position, but that are well-documented and well-sourced; per WP:NPOV these should be presented on Wikipedia.
 * Protoscience and other emerging theories, whose avocates follow proper scientific and/or scholastic methodologies and protocols, such as publishing in peer-reviewed journals.
 * Theories and ideas that are outside the scope of any recognized academic discipline, and/or that are not in conflict with established scholarship or scientific findings.
 * Users who occasionally make questionable claims, but do not persist in making disputed claims.
 * Users who make unsourced claims that are not disputed.
 * Articles documenting widely disputed theories (and/or their advocates) that are otherwise notable, such as Flat Earth Society. However, claims that the Earth is flat would be inappropriate in articles such as Earth or geography, even if presented as a minority opinion.

Note that material excluded from this [draft] policy still must meet other Wikipedia criteria for inclusion, such as WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV; the above exclusions only serve to protect users who edit in good faith from falling under the auspicies of this [draft] policy. This [draft] policy shall only be construed to affect persistent "crank" users, and shall only take effect after sufficient notice has been given.