Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not RationalWiki

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: Keep * Pppery * it has begun... 15:56, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not RationalWiki

 * – (View MfD) &#8203;

I don't know if this Wikipedia essay adds any value to the project. We aren't Conservapedia, we aren't wikiHow, and we aren't Uncyclopedia, and we don't need essays on this. I would be fine with this if it were in user space, though; but Wikipedia space generally is for essays about Wikipedia that are likely to be very helpful to other members of the community, not for niche one-offs like this. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 00:59, 17 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment - The Wikipedia namespace is literally full of one-off essays (yes I know WP:WHATABOUT); in this case what even is a Wikipedia essay if not a (subjective, as per the disclaimer) discussion of policy and editing philosophy? There's already far too much precedence here. Editors using Wikipedia to attempt to refute pseudoscience is a relatively common problem that crops up often. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 01:27, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - The essay isn't inconsistent with policies and guidelines. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:06, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is not just useless and worthless to the project, but could also be interpreted as an attempt at defending pseudoscience and fringe theories. —  Sundostund  mppria  (talk / contribs) 16:42, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * What in the essay is actually against policy? It's mainly quotations from consensus-based policy. Wikipedia is not concerned with original research or opinion [and] speculation, even with good intentions -- this is according to policy. If you think this functions as a defense of pseudoscience or fringe theories -- despite being a corollary of the relevant policies -- then that is only evidence why it is neither useless nor worthless, because even people who have been editing Wikipedia for over a decade seem to be confused as to whether or not Wikipedia (should function as if it) is RationalWiki. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 07:02, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * What is the relevance of the essay? Wikipedia is also not a bowl of tomato soup. —Alalch E. 11:20, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * We could easily have essays on "Wikipedia is Not Conservapedia", "Wikipedia is Not Uncyclopedia", etc. but we don't because it is plain obvious.
 * Also think about this: Is posting reputable scientific consensus on Wikipedia in violation of WP:NPOV? No, it is not. There is no need to cite that the sky is blue. However, misrepresenting scientifically accepted facts as minority views goes against WP:NPOV and WP:V. Likewise, representing pseudoscience as facts also goes against those two policies. Neutral point of view does not mean no point of view; it means giving each view their appropriate weight.
 * I really think you should consider moving that essay back into user space. As well intentioned as it is for the encyclopedia, separating fact from fiction is what Wikipedia editors do regularly. This essay does not look prime for the encyclopedia's project space, which is why I sent it to MFD to have it moved back to user space or deleted. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 13:05, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. representing pseudoscience as facts also goes against those two policies. And it is also not something advocated by the essay even remotely. Everything you wrote about that is completely irrelevant to the essay. Wikipedia is not, however, RationalWiki and it's purpose is not to debunk pseudoscience, but to build an encyclopedia; whereas the former publishing original research. Debunking pseudoscience is for scientists and philosophers of science to do and for Wikipedia editors to cite. Which is, again, why this essay is apparently entirely redundant or plain obvious, because if you think it violates or goes against policy you may think we're on RationalWiki. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 17:32, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I think what you are describing is WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTJOURNAL. Posting debunkings of pseudoscience with WP:SYNTH goes against either or both of these. And failing that WP:NOTWEBHOST covers most everything including POV forks and joke articles.
 * On the one hand, we aren't here to debunk pseudoscience or falsehoods, but knowingly and willingly adding false information to articles is Vandalism. On the other hand, we shouldn't include verifiable information that we know is partly incorrect or misleading based on other verifiable sources. And the topic is already covered in WP:MEDRS and WP:FRINGE. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 03:19, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * This is an essay that shares an opinion and philosophy on editing. The fact it coheres with policy doesn't make it redundant. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 02:30, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you want to consider, maybe, working it into a more general essay? I am willing to help as well if you want. Maybe entitled "Wikipedia is not a fact checker" or something along those lines? I think since there is rough consensus to keep and many of the problems mentioned in "delete" can be fixed with a retitle and a rewrite, I think I might just withdraw my MFD. If you want to move to user space that is also fine to work on it. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 20:20, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Doing so would negate the point of the essay; turning it into a bare restatement of policy would make it even more plain obvious. I wrote this essay to deal with a specific issue that is relatively common on Wikipedia, the idea that one has a moral or ethical duty to debunk pseudoscience or fringe theories, even at the cost of reputable sources and impartial writing. Well-rounded overviews of contentious subjects are often neglected in favor of hyperfocused debunking, particularly where the overlap between the skeptical community and Wikipedia editorship is most prominent. This might not be a problem for rumpology but can become a nuisance for something like alchemy or astrology where there is historical importance which greatly trumps modern acceptance (and thus refutation). We are here to build an encyclopedia, not refute pseudoscience. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 07:27, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - I'm not a big fan of deleting essays just because we find them redundant or limited in scope. Cheerio, ⛵ WaltClipper - (talk)  12:46, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Things can be redundant but still be relevant, for example: essay X is redundant to the relevant essay Y, but if Y was to disappear for some reason, it would still be useful to have X, because X, like Y, attaches to some meaningful issue; it's normally redundant to Y but it's fine for what it is; someone might read X, someone else might read Y, and both readers would receive a similar basic idea. This essay is redundant (in each of its fragments), but it is also irrelevant.Mychemicalromanceisrealemo has argued above that the essay is relevant because even people who have been editing Wikipedia for over a decade seem to be confused as to whether or not Wikipedia (should function as if it) is RationalWiki. but that's not true. It just isn't. I've never seen a single instance of that. I've seen people with a "debunking" attitude doing original research and synthesis and POV pushing, but that doesn't mean that they thought that Wikipedia functions like RationalWiki, and that they had any links to RationalWiki, and that RationalWiki has anything whatsoever to do with it. —Alalch E. 15:02, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * This is a far too literal of an interpretation. RationalWiki is a wiki that explicitly seeks to debunk pseudoscience, push a particular POV, and publish original research. That's what is meant by not RationalWiki -- Wikipedia is not for any of that -- and it is explained "in a nutshell" at the top of the page. I said that editors of 10 years specifically because the person I replied to claimed it could be interpreted as a defense of pseudoscience, when all it says is that original research and POV pushing don't belong on Wikipedia even when they're correct or right. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 17:24, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't necessarily agree with Sundostund's remark that the essay could be "interpreted as an attempt at defending pseudoscience and fringe theories", but this is no evidence that he thinks that Wikipedia (should function as if it) is RationalWiki. —Alalch E. 18:05, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep in line with other NOT-essays (e.g. WP:NOTVIDEOGAME), and per MCRIRE. This is a fairly common essay-genre regarding a fairly common problem. Vaticidalprophet 13:17, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.