Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia

Useful distinction, but how does it help?
A very useful distinction is made here between endorsing the mainstream POV and adopting a mainstream treatment. Much like good philosophy textbooks, while avoiding to take sides on the issues, nevertheless clearly identify positions that are no longer supported by contemporary philosophers.

While I like the general thrust of text, I don't see what this "proposal", even if accepted as official policy, would change in practice. What do you hope that this will achieve that DUE, FRINGE, etc do not achieve? Vesal (talk) 12:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It changes the focus from a negative one where fringe viewpoints probably shouldn't quite get the majority of the coverage in an article, to one where the mainsteam viewpoint is properly recognized as being the most important to cover. -- Nevard 01:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Not a good policy
I'm usually a fairly mainstream guy, with focus on science and technology articles, and if not for my long experience with wikipedia and a few controversial articles, I might think this "mainstream" suggestion sounds great. But I've seen User:ScienceApologist in action in a few places, and it's clear that he wants to put more weight behind what I'd call his "mainstream POV", to the detriment of all things fringe. Fundamentally, I'm not sure I agree that wikipedia is, or strives to be, a "mainstream" encyclopedia. Most editors seem to want it to be much more inclusive than any mainstream encyclopedia ever was. Here's the problem: there are lots of non-mainstream topics that probably ought to be covered here. Rather than get into current arguments, let's look at the hypothetical case of the topic Continental drift as if we were doing this around 1920 or so. At that time, the mainstream viewpoint was that the theory was rubbish. Geology experts either ignored it or attacked it. If ScienceApologist edited the article on it, he would have made sure it was dominated by discussion of those attacks, rather than discussion of the theory itself. So, while I agree that we should not endorse a POV, we should also not adopt the mainstream POV when describing non-mainstream topics. A topic can be described on its own terms, and criticisms can be reported, too, but the article on the topic should not be overwhelmed by the criticisms, as articles that ScienceApologist edits often are. I think his essay is a good description of his editing goals, but not of wikipedia's. Dicklyon (talk) 07:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * First, I think the question of inclusiveness is orthogonal to the concerns of this proposal. No mainstream encyclopedia has ever had articles on every Pokemon figure, but that doesn't mean Wikipedia should not strive to cover each and every Pokemon figure just the way Britannica would, if they had the resources to write expert articles on each and every Pokemon figure. So, Wikipedia should indeed cover all kinds of fringe ideas, but the question is how to approach them.


 * Now, I haven't seen ScienceApologist in action that much, so you may be right that he takes tings to far, but I fully sympathize with his point that being an encyclopedia is to document current expert knowledge. If that knowledge turns out to be wrong, then it is perfectly fine for Wikipedia to be wrong as well. Occasionally, non-mainstream ideas turn out to be right, but "we must not fall into the trap of thinking that, therefore, the next time somebody comes up with a wildly paradoxical and implausible idea, that one too will turn out to be right. Most implausible ideas are implausible for a good reason." (Richard Dawkins) It is, therefore, more prudent for Wikipedia to wait until something gains mainstream acceptance, rather than present every speculative theory as a potential scientific revolution. Vesal (talk) 12:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with your point, but I don't think the "mainstream" policy is the way to get there. If you want specifics, look at Eric Lerner and its talk page, for an example.  Lerner has a very non-mainstream idea about electromagnetism being the dominant force in the formation of cosmic structure such as galaxies.  How should this idea be presented?  I have no idea whether it's correct, and most cosmologists think it's not (though the idea comes from a prominent mainstream plasma scientist).  But it looks to me like ScienceApologist's agenda is make sure that the opinion of the mainstream cosmologists is presented in such a way as to say that Lerner is a crank.  I'd say let's let Lerner's article talk about Lerner's ideas, have a brief discussion of the fact that mainstream cosmologists reject his ideas, and let it go without belaboring that.  Focusing the article on the criticisms, rather than on the content and background of the idea itself, just leads to continued edit warring with supporters of the idea.  ScienceApologist wants to gain an upper hand in these edit wars via this new policy proposal.  I don't think it's a good idea.  Other examples are alternative medicine articles, such as Homeopathy, where it would seem to me to make sense to present the theories in their own context, rather than to use the "mainstream" western medicine context as the main POV to make the article about debunking them.  If you look at ScienceApologist's user page, you can see that that's pretty much his declared agenda. Dicklyon (talk) 20:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

We need to curb the swelling WP bureaucracy
We already have WP:NPOV WP:Fringe and a number of other policies and guidelines. If we would add a new policy or guideline every time an editor identifies a "hole" in the regulatory framework it would eventually be impossible to navigate in the jungle of rules. Whatever problem this proposal wants to address it can be done by amending the existing framework. IMO the communuity should reject this proposal.MaxPont (talk) 17:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Resurgence/Parallels
I happened to come across this proposal and couldn't help noticing how it is similar to the now inactive WP:SPOV. This proposal seems like another attempt to revive this old concept. The mainstream proposal seems to be pushing one POV over any other POV and seems to contradict the core policy of WP:NPOV. This proposal also seems to try and contradict/override the ArbCom ruling on Pseudoscience as stated here: Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience and summarized at the top of the Fringe theories/Noticeboard. Brothejr (talk) 16:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you say it what way you feel it is incompatible with NPOV and with the ArbCom? Verbal   chat  16:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The proposal currently states that it should not be used to support any push away from NPOV. At least by intention, it is only meant to emphasize the fact that an encyclopedia full of only in-universe terminology and perspectives would not be all that useful to the majority of humanity. - Eldereft (cont.) 19:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Verbal:To answer your questions simply, without digging deeply into each place I'll use the summaries. Written in the lead of the NPOV Policy: All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors.  A basic reading of this proposal means that it is saying that while there are different POV's, only the "mainstream" POV is important/should be pushed, not a straight neutral wording that pushes neither fridge or mainstream.  As far as the ArbCom ruling I am going to cite the summaries as stated on the Fringe Theories/Noticeboard.  The main summary that this proposal seems to contradict is: Neutral point of view as applied to science: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience.  This proposal, as written, could conceivably be use to override that portion of the ArbCom ruling and also the main core of NPOV in favor of one side of the debate.  Wikipedia, at it's core, should be taking neither side and simply reporting what the subject is in a way for the common reader to understand and to stray way from any contentious debate surrounding the subject other then to report that there is a contentious debate surrounding the subject.  Brothejr (talk) 23:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Like Scientific standards, this is yet another attempt by ScienceApologist to recreate SPOV under a different name and elevate it above NPOV. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * When it comes to NPOV, Wikipedia goes for equitability rather than equality and calls that neutrality. It gives minority POVs space in porportion to their acceptance in the world.  IMHO this is not neutrality in the literal sense of the word, but it is wiki-neutrality.  The fact is, the dominant point of view is the one Wikipedia presents.  This is probably a very good thing for an encyclopedia of this type.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  19:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * At the risk of beating a nearly-dead horse, I again remind the reader that WP:UNDUE does not alway require "proportionality". In particular, an article on a WP:FRINGE topic should greatly overrepresent the fringe viewpoint, relative to its attention in the mainstream, as that's the only sensible way to have an article on the topic.  The NPOV rule is not meant to exclude also presenting minority topics in their own articles.  To wit:  In articles specifically on the minority viewpoint, the views can receive more attention and space; however, on such pages, though the minority view may (and usually should) be described, possibly at length, the article should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Dicklyon (talk) 22:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Who ever said that Wikipedia need to represent the mainstream ??

 * Copied from this discussion in the Arbitration Committee case on cold fusion

SA has proposed a WP:MAINSTREAM guideline.

He says : "Wikipedia should strive for articles that would be appreciated as being of the highest quality by a consensus of experts. To accomplish this goal, reliable sources need to be used to verify content." I fully support that. I'm puzzled as to why, when such experts actually meet to review cold fusion, such as the 2004 DOE panel, he is the first one to censor or modify what they say, arguing that it would be POV-pushing.(e.g., just in November 2008: ) Surely, such experts would be pleased if we were to quote their report verbatim.

The reason becomes clear in the next sentence in his proposed guideline. He says "Beyond this, it is also necessary that subjects be handled as they are realized in the mainstream." This is very dubious. First of all, "mainstream" is a WP:Weasel word that does not refer to reliable, verifiable source. Furthermore, there is no reason to believe that such "mainstream" handles the topic in a way "that would be appreciated as being of the highest quality by a consensus of expert".

What are the evidence for his view ? Here are some possible meaning for the word "mainstream": Pcarbonn (talk) 09:25, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Mainstream = "what most scientists think". "Most scientists" cannot be a WP:reliable source on all topics, because they cannot be expected to be knowledgeable in all subjects. Furthemore, they cannot be a reliable source on cold fusion because they don't publish about it. Statements that start with "most scientists" are WP:Weaseled statements that are not truly verifiable.  So, there is no basis for requiring wikipedia to represent the view of most scientists.
 * Mainstream = "view expressed in news article". Again, these are not the most reliable sources.  See Reliable

What is the "mainstream" here ?
Okay, we can define mainstream science without too many problems. But it obviously wouldn't be true to say "Wikipedia is a mainstream science encyclopedia". So this proposal seems to assume a wider definition of "mainstream". But what exactly does "mainstream" mean here for fields other than science and pseudoscience ?

Over at Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories, Blueboar suggested that mainstream is "ideas and concepts that are commonly held and accepted by most people" and "what is accepted by the majority of people who have a basic understanding of ". But these definitions are very unsatisfactory. There is no context for "most people" - this could mean "most people in ths USA" ... "most English speaking people" ... "most educated people" (good luck with defining that one) ... "most people in the world" (but then almost nothing is sufficiently common to be mainstream). And how do we define a "basic understanding" for non-academic subjects such as religion, country-and-western music or video games ?

So - can anyone provide a satisfactory definition of "mainstream" outside of the fields of science and pseudoscience ? Gandalf61 (talk) 15:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think Blueboar's answer given on the FT page is clear and would be satisfactory to most. Verbal   chat  15:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * So which particular one of Blueboar's range of answers do you have in mind ? Because his next attempt was to define "mainstream" as "determined by the opinions of lay people". Now, that's still not yet satisfactory because we don't know how many lay people we need to clear the "mainstream" bar - is it one million ? ten million ? 1% of the world's population maybe (oops - we just made Judaism a fringe religion !).
 * Well, Blueboar then ducked that question by saying that the most important criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia isn't whether a topic is considered "fringe" or "mainstream" after all - that is irrelevant - it is whether the topic is notable. I agree with you that his last answer is a very satisfactory answer - but it does drive a coach and horses straight through the middle of the assertion that "Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia"., doesn't it ? So that should be "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of notable topics, some of which may not be mainstream, but we'll have to get back to you on what we mean by mainstream". Gandalf61 (talk) 17:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Plenty of mainstreaming already
There is plenty of "mainstreaming" already on WP. See, for example, Talk:Anti-nuclear movement. My experience is that anything that seems new or a little different is scrutinised intensely. I think it is fair to say that the status quo is already well represented on WP and there is no need for more policies to support it. Johnfos (talk) 04:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Political/Religious/Artistic speech WP:BIAS and WP:CENSOR issues
I am inclined to support the arguments around science and against fringe pseudo-science etc. In academic subjects based on experimental rigor, a policy that accepts mainstream criteria makes sense, if by mainstream we mean peer-reviewed publishing or other objective criteria.

However, this policy proposal declares things that will be construed to suppress non-mainstream information and articles on, for example, political thought, religious beliefs, and alternative artistic movements. Furthermore, in goes into frank contradiction with WP:CENSOR and WP:BIAS.

And this is very worrying, as precisely the lure of an encyclopedia that addressed in depth minority political thought (like animal rights), religious beliefs (like Paganism), or artistic movements (like Nerdcore) that has brought us so many great editors who have ended up being great producers well beyond their initial interests (I am sure you will find, in our top 50 editors, at least one into one of the examples I gave). In fact, the non-mainstream aspects of Wikipedia is what has fed its mainstream aspects.

So if we declare ourselves a "mainstream" encyclopedia, the law of unintended consequenses will fall down with great vengeance and furious anger. First, the DRAMA will exponentially raise: editors with dozens of thousands of edits will suddenly find their FAs like Exploding Whale deleted as per WP:MAINSTREAM. The shitstorm will be inmense. If that doesn't lead to this policy being overturned, then phase two will come into effect: a mass migration to a wikipedia fork, this time with massive migration of editors. It will happen, I know my geeks.

So, to end my rant, I suggest this be changed to a policy that applies only to scientific and engineering matters, narrowly construed to mean fields with experimental rigor and peer-reviewed journals. If not, dire consequences await us.

The rest of us will continue to argue amongst ourselves to develop consensus. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 13:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, why would Exploding whale be deleted under this policy? The page presents the mainstream view on exploding whales. Hut 8.5 15:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You and I agree on that. But witness any day in AfDs and you will see egregious examples - unfortunately successful too - of misused policy. For example, we shouldn't delete NPOV articles if they are notable and otherwise well sourced, we should either edit them to bring them up to NPOV, or merge in the case of COATRACKS and POVFORKS. Yet we delete crap on NPOV basis regularly. Believe me, once you set a rule free, it will be misused. Thats why I think NPOV and RS cover this already, and turning this into policy will have very unintended consequences. MAINSTREAM is very ambigous and dynamic definition, what was mainstream once is no longer mainstream, and what is mainstream in the USA might not be in India and vice versa. This is just a cure that is worse than the disease.--Cerejota (talk) 08:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Trying to limit it to "fields with experimental rigor and peer-reviewed journals" won't work either. Look at all the drama around The Big Bang Never Happened and The Man Who Would Be Queen, in fields with peer-reviewed journals but arguably not experimental rigor; are they science, pseudoscience, bad science, or what?  Mainstream, or not?  Opinions vary.  Turning over all the control to the guys who control the journals is one solution, but probably not a good one.  It's what ScienceApologist is asking for.  Dicklyon (talk) 19:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Make this an essay
This falls in the same "essay" category as a real-world essay called "eating a balanced diet is good for you." davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  14:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, this looks like an extremely simplified version of NPOV (mainly WP:UNDUE) and other policies, that, as a policy itself, would likely be open to misinterpretation due to the simplified nature. Mr.Z-man 14:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not really NPOV. In fact, it is quite complementary to NPOV: it states that Wikipedia needs not only to be an encyclopedia, it needs to be a serious one. There is currently no guideline or policy which makes this point. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * mainstream != serious
 * it is interesting that neither encyclopedia nor Encyclopædia_Britannica mention the word 'mainstream'
 * 212.200.243.116 (talk) 18:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think mainstream = serious. And I'll also note that neither of those two articles mention the word 'serious' either. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I guess you use your words rather flexibly. 212.200.243.116 (talk) 18:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Most perpetual motion enthusiasts don't recognize my open-mindedness. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Quite frankly, this is anti-scientific - rigor requires we explore all knowledge. I understand the problem you are trying to solve, but I am not convinced that scientific rigor and an encyclopedia everyone can edit are mutually inclusive from the perspective of policy. In editing they can exist - this is essentially breaking up the WP:BRD process to slant the POV of wikipedia away from neutrality (which includes WP:UNDUE) and into the field of scientific rigor, something wikipedia has never claimed it was, nor is it one of its goals.--Cerejota (talk) 08:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

When SA says "It's not really NPOV. In fact, it is quite complementary to NPOV" he's nearly right, but in fact it's contradictory to NPOV. To explain: To look at it from the point of view of the reader, the contrast is as follows. The reader comes to any article ignorant and prejudiced. Under SA's proposals, we attempt to make him less ignorant, and also to rectify his prejudices. If they are weak, we may succeed. If they are strong, he is angered by the article and dismisses it. If the article is NPOV, we make him less ognorant, but just as prejudiced if that's what he wants. If his ideas are "right" we help him become even righter. If his ideas are wrong, we risk helping him with further ammunition for his wrong ideas. This is what frightens SA, but SA must come to terms with it. Wikipedia is built on the fundamental Enlightenment notion that people are entitled to have wrong ideas. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 13:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * NPOV means that we present all notable points of view, describing them in neutral terms, so that proponents of those views can recognise them as accurate. We make clear who holds those views, and who disagrees. We are factual and polite about all the people involved.
 * This proposal seems to want to present the "correct" point of view, making clear that it is "correct". "Wrong" points of view, if irresistibly notable, are presented in terms which make it quite clear that they are wrong. (To go by SA's practice, we also denigrate and undermine the reputations of people who hold the wrong views.)


 * I agree that this proposed policy/guideline should be downgraded to an essay. The text has not been touched for over two months and there is clearly very little support for the principles that it expresses. Gandalf61 (talk) 17:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I also agree that this should be downgraded to an essay. It contains mainly the viewpoints of both the author and a scattered few that agree with his viewpoints.  NPOV is a fine policy that does not need to be superseded or augmented.  Brothejr (talk) 22:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed with the above. I know I'll be citing it quite a bit since it falls into my particular wikiphilosophy. Themfromspace (talk) 22:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't agree, obviously. NPOV is clearly not enough. Too many good editors either explode, like ScienceApologist, or implode, like MastCell, for anyone to draw the conclusion that things are fine as they are. Vesal (talk) 23:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

This is just plain crazy
I'm gonna go spade here and say: are you out of your minds?! This goes against everything Wikipedia was meant to be! We have the space to present all those loony conspiracy theories and other junk, as long as it's well-known enough. This as a policy would only. The main problem is that it's impossible to determine what is "mainstream". Wikipedia prides itself on being the vast multi-petabyte repository of information that it is. This as policy would make us no different than the Britannica 2.0 project! It doesn't matter weather we're ever taken seriously, that was never intended. This idea is completely crazy and should never be made anything other than the private musings of a sangarist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ipatrol (talk • contribs) 21:41, 9 February 2009


 * I agree with this statement, and would like to see the policy statement be this one. Brews ohare (talk) 18:32, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Strong support, crucial life-saving policy
No, no, no, this is not going to be so easily scrapped because some people don't like a certain person's agenda. These principles are solid and backed up by the ArbCom, even those fed up with SA's behavior. I dispute the emphasis that is placed on "space" in the original text, but the idea that articles should be realized as they are realized in mainstream scholarship is an important one. Vesal (talk) 22:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Um, I highly doubt this is a crucial or a life saving policy. Plus, sadly they really aren't backed up by arbcom unless you feel like doing a little synthesis and see things the way you want to see them.  Brothejr (talk) 00:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Experts
I've got to ask what does the author mean by experts in this policy? (I am directing this section/questions at ScienceApologist) Do you mean experts as in what is written in textbooks and journals, or Wikipedians who say they are experts? I ask this because we can accept what experts say in reliable sources, but Wikipedia cannot accept what Wikipedians say as being from an expert because that would run afoul of the WP:OR and WP:SYNTH policies. This also brings up another question as how do we know that a certain Wikipedian is an expert? Brothejr (talk) 01:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Experts are people who are experts in a subject. In general, the most reliable sources are written by experts. We make no attempt to delineate who is and is not an expert at Wikipedia. That's why WP:EXPERT was rejected. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, that fair. (Though, I'd like to suggest that maybe the author might update the proposal to reflect his views on experts so there is no ambiguity as to what he means by experts.) Also on the subject of WP:RS and WP:V what would you classify as a reliable source? Would such sources have a delineated peer review system that allows other experts/editors to review what the experts say for accuracy?  Should reliable sources only come from print journals and other such media?  Can we use blogs or other blog like web sites that do not have a peer review system and at times do not have any sources of their own to back up their statements, but is written by an expert?  Brothejr (talk) 10:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The question of what is/isn't a reliable source is best left elsewhere. This is an umbrella statement that Wikipedia is a serious, mainstream encyclopedia. To that end, it will tend to marginalize approaches that are avante garde/non-mainstream.ScienceApologist (talk) 17:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * One more clarifying question then: so would you classify this proposal as an attempt to augment/change/improve Wikipedia with respect to WP:NPOV and if so, why was this proposal/wording not added the the WP:NPOV policy? It would seem more beneficial to Wikipedia to be incorporated into the overall policy then as a stand alone policy?  Brothejr (talk) 00:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not so much "neutral" as "expert" POV that's being supported here. I wouldn't worry about it becoming policy, as too many people have already said we stuck stick closer to neutral. Dicklyon (talk) 00:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but I meant that question for ScienceApologist. Brothejr (talk) 00:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

NPOV is a parallel idea. It gives guidance for how articles should be written when there are multiple points-of-view. The problem is, we need a determination for what constitutes a "legitimate" point-of-view. WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NOR all touch on the subject but none come out and say that the way this is determined is to consider how the subject is handled in mainstream encyclopedias. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * (For SA) Then how do we decide on what a "legitimate" POV is? Why do those policies not come out and say what is "legitimate?"  Why not try to adjust/fix those policies to reflect that instead of writing this policy?  Brothejr (talk) 01:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The policies don't say it because Wikipedia has never forked and we instead have to rely on the judgment of editors across a wide-range of topics. Still, the legitimacy of a particular source's POV can be gleaned from the relevant policies/guidelines. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Mainstream.
This is directed for the author of the proposed policy to answer. Now I saw what you had linked to as mainstream, but the question is what do you think mainstream is personally? Is it what the general public thinks of the subject or is it what the experts think of the subject? Also, how are we going to gauge what the public/experts feel on the subject? Should we use what reliable sources say on the subject? What happens if there are no reliable sources that gauge what the public/experts say on the subjects, then how are we able to says what the mainstream thinks without going against WP:OR and WP:SYNTH policies? Brothejr (talk) 11:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The "mainstream" refers to authoritative, all-encompassing encyclopedias and reference works of major libraries. Mainstream modifies "encyclopedia" and nothing more. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I have edited the essay accordingly; somehad had misapplied "mainstream" to modify "understanding" and "sources". I'm still not happy with the result, as it says essentially that the "dominant" (previously "mainstream") understanding can be used to effectively censor fringe and minority viewpoints.  Is that what you intended?  Dicklyon (talk) 17:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "Dominant" is ambiguous. "Most valid" is also ambiguous, but at least as the correct meaning. The idea is that most time will be spent on explaining a subject as it would be explained by the best sources (which is how mainstream encyclopedias do it). ScienceApologist (talk) 18:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, but "most valid" and "best", though not quite the same as "dominant", are also quite ambiguous; maybe more so. My impression was that your intent was to the treat certain sources, such as the journals controlled by a field, as the "most valid" sources and as defining a "dominant" viewpoint for that field.  Is that correct?  Dicklyon (talk) 18:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It is not our role to assess the "validity" of an explanation or viewpoint - we can only assess its significance, as measured by the volume of reliable sources. I have replaced "most valid understanding" with "majority understanding", although "dominant" or "most significant" would serve equally well. Gandalf61 (talk) 18:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * We actually shouldn't be assessing "significance" either which is something which defies verifiability as much as validity does. The "volume" of reliable sources is not something that can be properly measured at Wikipedia. What we do instead is look for the BEST sources. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Then what would you qualify as best sources? Would they be because they cover the field in question, written by experts in that field, have a certain viewpoint that could be considered "mainstream, or maybe something else?  For example: we have two sources that are both judged to be reliable by just about everyone including you.  One source written by experts says that there is nothing to the so called theory and that it is just complete boff.  Yet, the other reliable source, also by different experts in the field, says there may be something to the theory or something to that effect? Also, lets say that the split between those two types of sources is split 50/50 and everyone arguing the theory is a recognizable expert.  How would you handle the sources and write the article?  How would this policy handle the situation?  Brothejr (talk) 23:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The ideal way to approach writing articles is to write them in the same way that other mainstream encyclopedias write articles. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Then what if a mainstream encyclopedia covers the topic in a neutral way, not debunking the theory, but instead giving the history of the theory? Should Wikipedia reflect that?  Wouldn't that go against what some experts think of the theory?  Brothejr (talk) 01:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I cannot think of such an instance. Debunking is not the name of the game. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

At this point in time an expert is someone who advocates the mainstream opinion (ask anyone who has applied for grant money in the last twenty years). Relying on experts to define mainstream thought is circular reasoning.134.217.96.252 (talk) 19:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree it's circular reasoning, but that's the best we've got. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * So are you in agreement with those who say that the Bible is true because the Bible says it is true? If circular reasoning is the best we have, let's close shop and go home. 76.166.99.42 (talk) 23:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Whether I agree with people who say the Bible is true or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is that there is status quo and then there is the avante garde. This applies across the board. While Wikipedia reports on the avante garde, the status of its articles as a reference work is that of the status quo. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

History
Part of this discussion should face the role of historical presentation. Many arguments in the sciences have evolved over time (the aether, phlogiston, etc.). Does this project take the view that a discarded theory should be left out, or the view that history has some merit and should be presented, or the view that a separate historical presentation is the place to do it? And if sometimes (a), sometimes (b), what decides? And if history is in the making, that is, there is dissension, it appears that the view of this policy is that the "dominant" perspective should dominate. If the "dominant" view is the one with the most coverage in the literature (the big favorite is google counts), or the one with the most famous exponents, it is probably the historically oldest view, not necessarily the actually most accepted view of today. (There are many examples of famous supporters of big mistakes: William Shockley on racial differences; Larmor on the aether.) How is that discriminated? It may be that the matter has to be settled on a case-by-case basis, and the outcome will be the accidental result of the most persuasive (or most persistent) editor on the job, not the result of a "policy statement". Brews ohare (talk) 18:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I think historical or emerging ideas are the easy cases. Treating old ideas that have been discarded is pretty easy, with a combination of sources from the time and historical analyses of what happened to the idea.  New ideas that are "emerging" in the conventional journals are not a problem, either; a mainstream encyclopedia would have no trouble reporting on recent developments and citing those good sources.


 * The sticky bit is when ideas are "fringe", in the sense of developing outside of the usual sources that represent a field, and finding few or no adherents inside, often due to challenging the dearly-held assumptions and approaches of the field. How are they to be reported?  I'm against the "mainstream" proposal because it represents one side in a long-standing debate about this.  A mainstream reference work isn't going to have articles representing every fringe idea (or every anime character or Pokemon card for that matter), because there's no way they could justify the space and effort.  In wikipedia, however, we do represent fringe ideas; one that has been contentious, for example, is the "plasma cosmology" of Alfven and Lerner, as discussed in Eric Lerner in the section on his book "The Big Bang Never Happened".  It's been compared to what it might have been like if we had been doing wikipedia back when Alfred Wegener proposed his fringe idea of continental drift.  Would we have made the continental drift article neutral, presenting his ideas and evidence clearly, and citing the objections to them?  Or would we have marginalized the idea based on the overwhelming opposition against it in conventional high-quality sources, such that the article would do little more than present all the reasons why he's regarded as a crank?  We face that a lot in wikipedia these days.  We even go way beyond what mainstream sources do, toward the "scientific" point of view, in articles on alternative medicine, in some cases; where a mainstream encyclopedia would typically represent things like homeopathy and chiropractic on their own terms, and note that they're not accepted by standard western medicine, wikipedia editors who support this "mainstream" idea are in some cases the same ones who want those articles to be dominated by all the reasons that western medicine and medical science insiders reject those concepts.


 * I don't mean to oversimplify the problem, and hope others won't, too, but that's what I think it's about. Dicklyon (talk) 18:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * We cannot settle matters on a case-by-case basis because consensus is not supposed to trump other Wikipedia goals. If there are two dozen believers in a fringe idea wanting to promote the idea on Wikipedia and only one editor opposing them, the two dozen should not win. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree, we should never be promoting fringe ideas. But we should discuss them fairly. Dicklyon (talk) 22:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oftentimes, people who believe in the fringe ideas do not think that undue weight is fair, even though that's how we tend to discuss their ideas. Fairness is not a guiding principle for content inclusion/exclusion. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's a quick question as to undue weight: if we have a bunch of reliable sources that back up what the fringe is but no sources to back up the other experts who are skeptic of the fringe (I.E. while they may say that the theory is fringe, none has published anything to debunk the fringe), then how would we fairly represent the skeptic experts without violating various policies? Would this policy allow the skeptic experts a voice without the use of reliable sources?  Brothejr (talk)
 * If the idea is so obscure as to only warrant off-handed mention in independent sources then it likely does not deserve its own article. That's outlined in WP:FRINGE. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

One final question for SA: if this proposed policy became accepted as policy, please describe to us how would you use it to improve Wikipedia, how would you see others use this policy, and how do you see it changing Wikipedia? Brothejr (talk) 10:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This policy would be used to explain to people who have agendas that include creating an encyclopedia that goes beyond the style, qualities, and general outlook of a mainstream encyclopedia why their advocacy is resisted. It will make many disputes with such editors easier to resolve. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * So, ummm, how exactly would it be used to resolve such disputes ? Gandalf61 (talk) 22:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Pointing to unambiguous policies and guidelines aids in the resolution of disputes. Before WP:FRINGE existed, it was difficult to convince creationists that Wikipedia shouldn't give creationist ideas and points-of-view the treatment they received at Answers in Genesis, for example. We are in a similar situation now with an array of other topics. We have groups of people who use the acknowledgment that Wikipedia is supposed to be extensive as an excuse for writing an encyclopedia that goes beyond the standards of high quality reference works. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * As you say, we already have the WP:FRINGE guideline, and also WP:NPOV policy including WP:UNDUE etc. etc. So what exactly would you do with this proposed policy that cannot be achieved with existing policies and guidelines ? Gandalf61 (talk) 07:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The FRINGE guieline, NPOV, and UNDUE only go far enough in describing the exact manner of coverage. There is a need for a wider perspective policy that explains to people why their particular pet idea gets treated in the same way it's treated in other high quality reference works. This is quite apart from the guidance on how such articles should be written. It's, in fact, a useful rule of thumb that allows for succinct and clear communication of our goals. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I think this idea of "their particular pet ideas" is what bugs me. ScienceApologist likes to go after ideas that he considers to be "fringe" or "pseudoscience", and not let them have voice in wikipedia.  But why?  Who gets to decide which ideas are "their particular pet ideas"?  Do we need a "fringe" category for this, with its own rules?  He seems to be saying so.  Dicklyon (talk) 16:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * A mainstream encyclopedia treats subjects in particular ways that may be offensive to some and unoffensive to others. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Aren't these concerns regarding the standards of high quality reference works addressed by WP:RS and WP:V? Rlendog (talk) 16:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This is not about referencing. This is about style, coverage, and scope. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:RS is not just about referencing. It also addresses coverage and scope.  For example, " if an article topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Rlendog (talk) 00:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * A useful rule, to be sure, but there's more to this proposal than excluding topics without reliable sources. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * (unindent) SA, you repeatedly assert the need for this proposed policy but I can't see any explanation of that need. Can you give one specific example where this proposed policy would resolve a dispute that is not already adequately covered by some combination of existing policies ? Gandalf61 (talk) 11:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Redshift would have been resolved in less than two years it took. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Pet ideas
The notion of ruling out "pet ideas" seems central to the purpose of the proposed policy. As pointed out, how is a pet idea identified as such? It should be based upon criteria, not somebody's judgment, if the policy is to rise above the "rule of men". One might request citations, and perhaps particular types of citation: e.g. not simply quotes from scripture or Herodotus. It would seem there is a desire that the topic be of interest: maybe a "why this is important" paragraph is needed? Is the objective of ruling out pet ideas formulable in a useful manner? Brews ohare (talk) 17:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The goal of this proposal is not to identify who has what pet idea. The goal is to explain how subjects get treated in this encyclopedia regardless of how you feel about them. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Your response misreads the statement above. It does not refer to "who", and explicitly raises the pertinent issues. Brews ohare (talk) 14:05, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The notion of a "pet idea" implies that it must be someone's. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

A response unfortunately doesn't imply an audience. A considered response has a better chance. Brews ohare (talk) 23:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry? ScienceApologist (talk) 18:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science
Requests for arbitration/Fringe science has some stuff that may be relevant to those interested in this proposal. ClovisPt (talk) 01:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Has this policy failed consensus?
This policy does not appear to have reached consensus. I move it be marked as such. Ronnotel (talk) 20:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree, it is still interesting and worthy of further consideration, development, and debate. Verbal   chat  20:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Here is the policy on determining whether a policy proposal has failed. I see little evidence on this page that a consensus has developed or that it is likely that one will. Please note the admonition about trying to hide a failed proposal.
 * A failed proposal is one for which consensus for acceptance has not developed after a reasonable time period. Consensus need not be fully opposed; if consensus is neutral or unclear on the issue and unlikely to improve, the proposal has likewise failed. It is considered bad form to hide this fact, e.g. by removing the tag. Making small changes will not change this fact, nor will repetitive arguments. Generally, it is wiser to rewrite a failed proposal from scratch and start in a different direction.
 * Ronnotel (talk) 20:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Ronnotel. There is no consensus and no ongoing development. This is a failed proposal. Gandalf61 (talk) 21:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I am sympathetic to the idea that the idea deserves "further consideration, development, and debate" (cf. Verbal, above), but it clearly meets the requirements for being marked failed. Perhaps the proponents would care to develop an alternate version in userspace, taking note of the objections, and re-present it in a few months time. Skomorokh  21:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Skomorokh in that it has failed to get a consensus in reasonable amount of time. Brothejr (talk) 22:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes it has failed. It also contradicts the vision for Wikipedia by Jimbo Wales:

appeal by Jimbo Wales

If it is "mainstream" it cant contain "all human knowledge". MaxPont (talk) 09:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd like to get input from more people that aren't quite so anti SA - and this proposal doesn't contradict "Jimbo's" vision at all. In fact, he has often come out aginst cranks and fringe theories - that's the whole reason some of our policies exist. Verbal   chat  09:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Well if that's the case, then two different Arbcoms, compiled from the most trusted editors on Wikipedia, disagree with Jimbo too, and not once but multiple times. See, for example,.


 * I'd also note that Wikipedia under current content policies CANNOT give "the sum of all human knowledge", or even come close. It's an encyclopedia.  Which is why WikiSource, WikiQuote, WikiOR (forget what it's called) and a number of other foundation based wikis have been created.  Phil153 (talk) 18:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * i fail to see the connection between those fringe topic specific arbitration rulings (and the substance of the rulings) and this 'encyclopedia as a whole' related proposal. 212.200.243.13 (talk) 10:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Same here. I see no way to interpreted the linked pages as supporting the statement two different Arbcoms, compiled from the most trusted editors on Wikipedia, disagree with Jimbo too or how Verbal intended that to relate to the interpretation of If it is "mainstream" it cant contain "all human knowledge".  In any case, the policy failed because it was an unpopular attempt to move "neutral" POV toward "scientific" POV as a policy, which many saw as non-neutral, especially coming as it did from a guy known for creating a lot of strife between scientific and other points of view. Dicklyon (talk) 20:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Failed proposal?
Okay, so this proposal failed while I was banned from Wikipedia editing. I'll let it go, but I'm going to remove the idea that this proposal actually failed considering that the groups that failed it had their own histories with me. I'd like to see some outside input. Thanks. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The proposal failed to achieve consensus on it's own merits. Please do not revert against consensus, see WP:Policy for instructions against un-marking a failed proposal. Ronnotel (talk) 14:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no objective measurement of consensus here, but there are historical personality clashes playing out. Also, WP:Policy does not address this kind of situation. I am starting a Request for Comment. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Was their actually consensus to mark this proposal as failed?
I first proposed WP:MAINSTREAM a few months back to begin a discussion about whether or not Wikipedia's role was to be a mainstream reference or one which was avant-garde. I see that over the months the pendulum is swinging more decidedly in the direction of this policy what with flagged revisions and a more serious attempt to use scholarly sources as the prime movers on articles. I believe that personality politics are playing part in the group of editors (or, really, right now, ONE editor) who is insisting that this proposal be marked as "failed" while I was unable to edit Wikipedia and over the objections of other editors who thought that we should continue to discuss this proposal. I would like wider community input and, at the very least, the proposal status of this page to be reinstated. It would be nice if it didn't just come from the usual people with whom I've had previous conflicts. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * By any measure, this proposal failed to gain broad acceptance despite being considered for months. Consensus does not support a massive re-purposing of the project to support this one user's personal hobby horse. Status quo does not support allowing a proposal to remain as "Proposed" ad infinitum. WP:Policy is clear on this matter. Once a proposed policy fails to attain consensus, as this one has, then must be marked as such and the parties should move on, perhaps with a different proposal. Ronnotel (talk) 14:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Obviously, it's not "by any measure" unless you are claiming somehow that everything I say is a lie. I see broad acceptance and also misgivings on this page. I do not see this page as a "massive re-purposing" and further see your rhetoric here as simply combative rather than helpful. In the interests of avoiding WP:BATTLEGROUND could you please wait for some outside opinions? Thanks. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Our WP:Policy page says: The Request for comments process is typically used to determine consensus for a new policy, via the tag..  If this has been done and failed, then the tag is appropriate; if not, it should be done and the tag is premature, given that the initiator has been off wiki for months. Phil153 (talk) 14:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This is the first RfC ever done for this page, I believe. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * True, the initiator was off for a couple months, yet this policy proposal was around for at least a month before the initiator was blocked. During that time, SA never attempted to put the RFC/Policy tag on it.  We should take into account the the policy was created at least a month before SA was blocked for a couple months.  Brothejr (talk) 14:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * To explain, I was hoping to get some positive criticism and some help in developing the page before getting wider-community input. This is a fairly common practice in developing policies/guidelines (I've been involved in three different developments before). While I did receive some collaborative help, there was also a lot of railroading on the talkpage from certain partisans. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The next obvious question would be, if this was still under development, then why was this not left in the sandbox until it was ready to be commented on? One would assume that if it was brought out of a sandbox, then it was ready for an RFC? Most proposed policies that are brought into the main space would have an RFC created to begin the conversation/consensus?  Brothejr (talk) 15:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec)Let's be clear on the timing. The policy was first proposed in November, 2008. SA was blocked exactly four months later. That's a lot longer than most proposals are given to achieve consensus. And further, the decision to mark a proposal as failed is mandated by a lack of consensus to approve the proposal. Any review of consensus must start with the whether the proposal ever met the relatively higher bar of acceptance. Ronnotel (talk) 15:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, as an example of an accepted guideline in the same area, WP:FRINGE was first written in January 2006 and people were still asking about consensus in April 2007. It seems to me there was never a chance for an RfC on the issue which is usually done before marking something failed according to WP:Policy. I don't understand the hurry to mark this as failed. Phil153 (talk) 15:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:FRINGE had considerably more involvement from the community. This proposal met with resistance from the onset and then went largely ignored. I don't think there was a rush at all. It seems extremely unlikely that the community will ever adopt this proposal in it's present form. I believe a far better path for all concerned would be to rewrite from scratch and present as a new guideline. Ronnotel (talk) 15:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Make that at least TWO editors. For the record, I still agree with Ronnotel - this is a failed proposal that has not gained consensus and stand no chance of doing so. See "Has this policy failed consensus?" above for previous discussion. Why do we need to go over the same ground again ? Seems to me SA is developing some WP:IDHT tendencies here. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * To answer the RfC question: No, I don't recall any consensus to mark this as failed. It was railroaded, if memory serves, without satisfactory community discussion. It is true that this policy proposal met with strong resistance from editors personally involved with SA, but outside that small group there wasn't much discussion. Verbal chat  15:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have to say at least three editors believe this is a failed proposal that has not gained consensus. A proposal needs to gain consensus to be adopted.  If it does not do so, even if there is no consensus is either way, it is a failed proposal. And this proposal clearly has not gained consensus despite being open for a considerable time. Rlendog (talk) 15:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, okay. This is a request for comment. In particular, I'm hoping to get some outside opinions on the matter. Right now the only people commenting here are those who have their irons in the fire already. Can we please simply wait for some outside opinions? The RfC is not even two hours old! ScienceApologist (talk) 16:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * SA - you requested comments and you have got them. You tried to dismiss Ronnotel as a lone objector and that idea has been shot down. I too would welcome wider input, which I believe will further demonstrate that your extreme views place you in a minority. But as you insist on endlessly repeating your position, and you take silence as assent, then it is not surprising that other editors feel the need to restate their opposition to your ideas. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This section is entitled "RfC: Was their actually consensus to mark this proposal as failed?". Consensus is not a vote, but if it were, I score as 7–3 for failure. Art LaPella (talk) 18:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * From the RfC: I'm not seeing consensus on this page for much of anything - is there discussion somewhere else? It looks like a wider community review never really happened and the same unfortunate players circled around each other here.  I would suggest that some advertisement of the proposal in places like the village pump and via RfC would be appropriate if for nothing else than to gauge how the community who has not been in a dispute with ScienceApologist might feel about the subject.  Just like administrators shouldn't use tools in areas of involvement, editors involved in disputes with the proposal sponsor (writer?) really shouldn't be making decisions about consensus. Shell   babelfish 11:24, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't understand the logic behind that idea. Admin's shouldn't use their admin tools to gain an unfair advantage in content discussions. No-one has an unfair advantage here - all editors are contributing on an equal footing. SA personalises even the mildest disagreement with his ideas. So if you exclude every editor that SA feels he has had a "dispute" with then you are left with editors who unquestioningly support SA and editors who don't give a fig. Which completely biases the discussion, no ? I don't think anyone makes a decision about consensus - it either emerges or it doesn't. And in this case, consensus to adopt this policy proposal most obviously has not emerged, therefore it is a failed proposal. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * More discussion needed. Fundamentally something like this is needed. Instead of relying on the current process of topic-banning each fringe-advocate one by one, I would encourage a discussion to develop the policies needed to amicably create quality articles. If this proposal is not good, then please improve it. The system currently relies on driving away people that skew articles, but only after years of fighting and lengthy arbitrations. In addition to low-level sourcing policy — NPOV needs to take into account the attitude of top academic associations of the relevant field and whether articles are published in top journals, also taking seriously the absence of publication in relevant journals. For example, in the case of cold fusion, a serious difficulty is that there are positive results in reliable sources alright, but nothing in the top journals: Physical Review C and Physical Review Letters. European journals are more receptive, but adding all positive results without taking into account the flat out rejection of the top US journals would violate NPOV; almost all editors understand this, but this is enforced by more or less bullying away editors that keep putting in positive sources. The problem is that current sourcing policy allows a presentation of the topic as an emerging science rather than a fringe science, directly contradicting the attitude of the American Physical Society. The current solution to this problem is that after years of fighting each individual pov-pusher is topic-banned by arbcom, one by one; maybe there is a more sensible solution? Vesal (talk) 13:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: I'm a little late here, but couldn't this be marked with essay? That seems like a more appropriate solution for proposals which have some merit to them, but did not attract enough support to become policies. Robofish (talk) 14:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * This seems reasonable. For the record, I re-iterate my above judgement that this has failed to gain consensus in its current form. I suggest making it an essay, generating discussion on points for improvement, and re-proposing once there's more agreement. Skomorokh  14:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I too would be happy to see this page marked as an essay. Essay-fication was suggested back in January - see Make this an essay above - but not, I think, acted on at that time. Try it. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yup, perfect candidate for essay-ification for now. If SA want to try and make it policy, start more discussion (it's outside this RfC's scope) and then try again. --Cyber cobra (talk) 20:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Is SA really the only person on this project who would like Wikipedia articles to be in tune with mainstream scholarship? Vesal (talk) 10:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:WEIGHT (policy) already covers that, IMO. Skomorokh  10:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree this should be downgraded as an essay or returned back to a historical policy that is not in effect. My main worries over this is that it seems to be a rehashing of WP:SPOV and could very easily be used to justify POV pushing. (I.E. some editors, "experts," or skeptics that do not like the prominence of some fringe theory and would use this as a way to push their own POV against the sources or consensus.) Brothejr (talk) 10:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't believe that this is needed as a policy. All it seems to do is re-iterate existing policy (WP:NPOV, WP:V, etc.) while introducing vagueness and an ill-defined concept of "mainstream". OrangeDog (talk • edits) 00:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, it failed. It is already covered by other policies. The ever expanding Wikipedia bureaucracy needs to be curbed. MaxPont (talk) 09:07, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment That Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia should go without saying, although, unfortunately, it apparently doesn't. Cardamon (talk) 18:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

To cut a long story short, this essay has become a content guideline under the name WP:FRINGE. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:16, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Against policy to hide fact that a proposal failed consensus
Please note that it is specifically against policy to attempt to hide the fact that a policy or guideline proposal failed to gain consensus. From WP:PROPOSAL: ''If a proposal fails, the failed tag should not be removed. It is typically more productive to rewrite a failed proposal from scratch to address problems than to re-nominate a proposal.'' It is important for future discussion that the conclusions of previous discussions be retained in some fashion. For instance, this is the reason why failed proposal pages are generally not subject to XfD. Posterity requires access to the previous discussions so endless discussions can be avoided. Ronnotel (talk) 14:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Over it. Instead of accepting the poisoning the well by the cadre of individuals who seem to love to pester me, I'm just going to request speedy deletion as the only substantial contributor to the page. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I've protected the page for a day given the edit-warring. Surely we can come up with a means of describing the page that respects consensus as to its status as well as the intentions of its advocates. Please, all parties, discuss the matter here and not in revert summaries. Skomorokh,  barbarian  08:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

This proposal never failed, it was hijacked by those opposed to SA. The labelling is a form of harassment, and policy should be descriptive - many other policies have been demoted to essays without tags or other failed notifications on them, hence WP:PROPOSAL needs updating. Verbal chat  08:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Verbal - you seem to be saying that if it all the editors who opposed this proposal hadn't "hijacked" the discussion by expressing their views, then it wouldn't have failed to achieve consensus. A logically true statement, but somewhat vacuous, no ? Gandalf61 (talk) 09:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Verbal three words: Give it up! Stop taking this personally.  Not everyone who voted against this is against SA.  This policy failed because it did not gain consensus and it did not gain consensus because enough people had serious qualms about this policy and potential misuses of it.  Get over it and move on.  Brothejr (talk) 10:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * @Verbal, please see WP:PROPOSAL. The bar is set quite high for reaching consensus on a proposed policy or guideline: New proposals require discussion and a high level of consensus from the entire community for promotion to guideline or policy. In no conceivable way did this proposal meet that hurdle. And because proposals cannot exist as proposals indefinitely, it must be marked as failed. Ronnotel (talk) 12:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that User:Ronnotel at least should stop commenting on this page as his involvement here is simply aggravating and repetitive. He seems to repeat his own thoughts as though they are sacrosanct summaries of reality when there is considerable disagreement. Brotherjr's insistence that "not everyone who voted against this is against SA." would be more believable if he hadn't asked the community of administrators to indefinitely ban me. And Gandalf? Well, the guy is just impossible to get along with. So I think I've essentially pointed out that this continues to be nothing more than a gang-up by haters. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I reject the notion that my comments are somehow invalid because, for whatever reason, SA feels chagrined by my contributions. I am against this proposal. And I have every right to argue against it forcefully, which I have done and will continue to do. It goes against the very nature of the Wikipedia project and I could care less who proposed it. However, if policies are being violated in an attempt to disguise or distort the consensus that formed against this proposal then I'm going to argue against those efforts as well. Ronnotel (talk) 13:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Getting down from your supposed high-horse would go a long way towards diffusing the situation, but I won't hold my breath. People can ask me in private for the relevant information regarding why you may not be engaged here in good faith. That's the last thing I'm going to say about this. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Ronnotels arguments are valid and relevant. The tag should state that this is a failed policy proposal. MaxPont (talk) 15:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Maxpont and Ronnotel. Also, this idea of "ganged up by a group of haters" thing is beginning to get old.  Brothejr (talk) 15:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Just leave it tagged as an essay and move on? Sounds reasonable to me. Verbal chat  20:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry to see this discussion and dispute devolve into personal feuding. Perhaps the opinions of outside editors can be solicited in a neutral fashion? RfC? Post to content noticeboard? ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Not to point out the obvious, but if you are asking for neutral parties to comment, then that would also exclude you and Verbal. Personally this started out a policy that failed to reach consensus.  Per policy, even though this has been downgraded to an essay, it still should be a notice that this was a policy proposal that failed to reach consensus.  That's the way we do it with other failed policy proposals, why should this failed policy proposal be any different?  Brothejr (talk) 21:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Let's try to make everybody happy. How about copying the article text and create a separate essay and put the correct label ("failed policy proposal") back on this text? MaxPont (talk) 14:30, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand what you suggesting. Can you please be a little more clear? Ronnotel (talk) 15:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Two entries with the same body text: One essay marked "essay" and this article marked "failed policy proposal". MaxPont (talk) 15:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * OK - that's what I thought. It's a little unusual but I suppose it could work. Ronnotel (talk) 15:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that would work and satisfy policy. Brothejr (talk) 16:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think there would be licensing issues. Why not leave it as an essay? Verbal chat  16:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that point has been answered a number of times already. Consensus for all proposals should be preserved for posterity. Please see the closing rational for Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Delegable_proxy for a succinct summary of why this is so. Ronnotel (talk) 17:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * A very different situation, and not a precedent. Policy does not require tags, and neither does practice. Stop creating a silly drama. Verbal chat  17:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

(undent)The discussion talks about proposals in general and the need to preserve transparency regarding the forming of consensus. Are you saying that you are against transparency? Ronnotel (talk) 18:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm against continued harassment, hounding, improper or petulant editing any page. How's that for a non sequitur? Verbal</b> chat  18:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The only thing I'm against is this proposal. If you want to reduce the drama level perhaps you might refrain from continued introduction of personality into the debate. Ronnotel (talk) 18:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's no longer a proposal, so calm down. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  08:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Verbal, in what way does applying the correct policy in this case constitute “continued harassment, hounding,” etc.? If you want to deviate from a clear policy I would suggest that you come up with more relevant arguments. MaxPont (talk) 08:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Have a look at the policy. And then at non sequitur. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  08:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I got to ask the question that is just hanging out there: what is your problem with including at least a line indicating that this essay was a policy proposal that failed to reach consensus? Usually there is no problem with including the failed policy tag.  Yet, you are making a big deal about not wanting that on this now essay?  (And also attempting to steer the issue away from that with attacks/excuses of wikihounding and and any logical argument you can get to fit.)  Brothejr (talk) 10:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a clear consensus on this talk page to apply WP policy. One editor refusing can't block a consensus. I changed the article. Time to move on. MaxPont (talk) 07:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * More than one editor agrees with Verbal. I chalk this up to MaxPont's favorite antagonistic battleground technique. Revert, block, ignore the single-purpose accounts! ScienceApologist (talk) 21:17, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Let's try to ignore the personal attacks, drama, and innuendo. Please try to formulate rational arguments based in WP policies and guidelines. The argument that this is “harassment, hounding, improper or petulant editing” is not enough. Why should a clear WP policy not be applied in this case?


 * There is no policy that requires tagging, and no reason for it in a still active essay. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  09:00, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

What point would be served by tagging the page as a "failed policy". It is not policy, it is an essay, and I am not sure how tagging an essay as a failed policy adds value. But tagging as a "failed" something could imply something wrong with the essay, even if the essay is fine as such. Many essays have editors try to promote them to become policies or guidelines, most fail, and I don't see any push to necessarily tag them as "failed policies". WP:HAMMER comes to mind off the top of my head. Rlendog (talk) 17:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem with your argument is that this did not start out life as an essay. You are only seeing it in it's current form, however it was a policy proposal that failed to reach consensus.  Brothejr (talk) 18:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * So it has changed form and there is no policy reason for the tag, and there are good reasons not to tag. Great. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  18:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * So what "good reasons" do you and SA have to hide and obscure the history of this page ? I can think of a few poor reasons, but no good ones. Gandalf61 (talk) 20:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * What evidence do you have that anyone wants to "hide and obscure the history of this page"? ScienceApologist (talk) 22:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey, I can answer your question: this whole argument that you two (SA and Verbal) are having over any portion of a failed policy proposal tag is evidence. If you did not want to hide the evidence or had no problem, then you two would have never had a problem with having some form of failed policy proposal statement in the top like the other failed policy proposals.  Brothejr (talk) 23:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Since neither Verbal nor I agree that this is a "failed policy proposal" in the sense that other policy proposals have "failed", I do not agree that we are advocating for the "hiding and obscuring the history of this page". I see the insistence of including a "portion" of a "failed policy proposal tag" as a reinterpretation and rewriting of the history of this page. You obviously see it differently, but simply stating your opinion as though it were fact is not helpful. I'm willing to work toward an amicable agreement on some wording that everyone is happy with (see below), but if you think that your interpretation of history is somehow the only correct one while those who disagree with you are simply incorrect then we cannot really have a discussion. So far, I've only been convinced that you agree with the rest of the people who have taken a particular dislike towards me as a person. That's a fact I've noticed. It may not be relevant, but I'm willing to see what you have to offer. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * To answer SA's question above about "evidence", the evidence is all in the page's edit history:
 * SA reverted several attempts to mark this page with the tag.
 * Once the page was essayfied, SA and Verbal rejected the message box text "An earlier version of this page was proposed as a policy or guideline but did not gain consensus".
 * SA and Verbal repeatedly removed the text "which failed to gain consensus" from the essay tag.
 * SA made a copy of this page in his user space and redirected the WP:MAINSTREAM shortcut to this copy. SA then made first a speedy deletion request (declined) and subsequently nominated the page at MfD (ongoing), in an attempt to have this page and its history deleted.
 * SA and Verbal then started removing the text "This essay originated as a policy proposal" (which has no mention of outcome) from the essay tag - text which they had previously not objected to.
 * This is the evidence that SA and Verbal wish to hide and obscure the history of this page. If you have good reasons for wanting to hide the page's history, then please explain them - but don't insult our intelligence by pretending that you aren't doing this. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a clear case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT from Verbal and others. As mentioned above, the WP Policy states that: '''If a proposal fails, the failed tag should not be removed. It is typically more productive to rewrite a failed proposal from scratch to address problems than to re-nominate a proposal.''' MaxPont (talk) 06:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That isn't what policy says, in bold or not. And remember, policy reflects practice - it doesn't dictate. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  20:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * As the World Turns. Verbal's gotcha there; that isn't what policy says. But he really should have mentioned it's because he recently changed that policy himself! With luck we can have another edit war over that word. Pass the popcorn! Art LaPella (talk) 20:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Verbal, modifying a policy to better reflect your position in a current debate does little to advance the project. Another snippet from that same page reads (at least for now): Editing a policy to support your own argument in an active discussion may be seen as gaming the system, especially if you do not disclose your involvement in the argument when making the edits. Please refrain from doing this again. Ronnotel (talk) 20:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It was raised properly on the talk page and received support there. It is a correction based on current practice, as wikipedia policies should be descriptive. Please stop bolding your comments, and do not make accusations that cannot be supported. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  21:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I must have missed the part where you explained that you are currently involved in a dispute on the very aspect you changed. Oh, sorry, you didn't. Please stop tailoring policy to suit your arguments. Ronnotel (talk) 21:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Before adding prose to the boilerplate...
Please form a consensus about the EXACT wording for proposed boilerplate additions. I found the wording MaxPont and Gandalf61 were insisting upon to be problematic and so did Verbal. In the future, it'd be great if people made their proposals on the talkpage FIRST. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Shortcut
I have removed the WP:MAINSTREAM shortcut from the essay tag, because that shortcut now redirects to SA's userfied version of this essay/proposal at User:ScienceApologist/Mainstream. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot. It is unacceptable if a user is using his own page to deceive readers with pseudo-policies, and even more if redirects are used. MaxPont (talk) 06:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There are remaining issues. The WP:MAINSTREAM is still active and there are a number of places on WP where this shortcut now points to a user page. The shortcut itself should be removed. MaxPont (talk) 06:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The original shortcut should come back to here and SA should create a new shortcut to the userfied version of this page.  That way we can have a clear difference between the two.  Brothejr (talk) 11:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The shortcut should go to the currently active page that the shortcut fits best to. In this case that would be SA's subpage. Please try to leave your personal feelings out of it. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  20:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, my personal feelings don't factor into anything I am or have been saying. The thing is WP:Mainstream was created for this page.  The userfied version is a new page and thus should have something new.  Simply put: to shift the shortcut to the userfied version and to shift focus over to the userfied version is an attempt to hide the history of this policy proposal.  This is to hide the fact that this had started life as a policy proposal that the community could not come to a consensus over and now SA and verbal are trying to recast it as an essay and use that version as if it was a policy while hiding the fact that when it was a policy it failed.  (I'm just calling it as the evidence and SA's and Verbal's actions show it to be.) Brothejr (talk) 21:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

While I'm fine with Gandalf61's work, I find MaxPont and Brotherjr's desires for the redirect to be unnecessary and without cause. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * During the period from Nov08 until now there are number of redirects to this Policy Proposal. It would be misleading if they suddenly ended up at a users subpage. The best solution would be to remove the WP:MAINSTREAM redirect altogether but an alternative is to restore it and have it point to this page, given that it is clearly marked that it is a failed policy proposal. MaxPont (talk) 08:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * What Links Here does not seem to show a huge number of "redirects" (whatever that's supposed to mean -- I'm not precisely sure). I don't understand how the current situation is "misleading" at all (an example might help) nor do I see where "it is clearly marked that it is a failed policy proposal". Even if the latter was true, I have no idea why that's relevant. In short, the previous comment seems almost like a non-sequitor. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The shortcut already existed and I now restored the template, since the page is in project space and is clearly identified as an essay. — Paleo  Neonate  – 20:57, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Comment
Being a mainstream encyclopedia involves not just keeping out bad sources, but including good sources from all relevant areas. For most topics, the scientific consensus is important but not the only perspective. History, ideology, sociology, popular belief and culture, are all noteworthy aspects of subjects. Mainstream cannot mean SPOV, since NPOV is our policy, and while SPOV makes sure to keep out unworthy RS, it also keeps out worthy RS that address non-scientific aspects of a subject, and even those that address scientific aspects of a subject unscientifically but are still deserving of summary as a POV. Otherwise, all of our articles would just be like binary math: true/false. Welcome to the world the mainstream is describing: it has a million facets and so many shades. Wikipedia must have a full crayon box if it is going to portray the world as all reliable sources see a subject. Ocaasi c 06:21, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Where is it defined that Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia?
Where is this mandated? Is the opening sentence of this essay accurate or is it a declaration? Wikipedia has very powerful and wise polices like WP:NPOV which work very well. However, the very meaning of mainstream is disputed, and points of view are relative. I agree completely with using good sources, and representing the sources accurately. However, the term "mainstream" has potential to be used as a false arbiter to argue against significant viewpoints that are not presented in the mainstream news with as much weight, for instance, and therefore has the potential to tie Wikipedia to a viewpoint that is sociologically not necessarily most accurately representative of a general range of viewpoints held by most experts. The mainstream media does not always reflect with accuracy the general consensus of opinions in a field, nor valid viewpoints that may be significant and well-sourced if there is no complete consensus in a topic. SageRad (talk) 14:16, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

"Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints."


 * Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:45, 28 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The reason is: an encyclopedia has to render only reliable information. Reliable information (as judged by the experts in the field) is found in mainstream science, mainstream scholarship, mainstream press, etc. So that's why Wikipedia is biased for the mainstream (meaning the the mainstream of reliable sources, not the mainstream of uninformed opinion). Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:55, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by reliable information? Does this reliable information exclude hypotheses and conjectures?--89.120.156.224 (talk) 21:14, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * String theory is just a hypothesis, but it is thoroughly documented in mainstream sources. So, we describe what these sources say, without taking position on whether string theory is valid or not, see WP:BALL. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:24, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * That does not follow logic or observations, to my mind, and also sounds like original research. If an essay is going to purport to define what Wikipedia is, in such a major and serious way, then it ought to be able to express why that is so, and have sources. If Wikipedia is a "mainstream encyclopedia" than that is news to me. Reliable sources, yes, Good information, yes. Verifiability, yes. But this is not synonymous with "mainstream". SageRad (talk) 13:51, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Let me explain further my concern with the definition of Wikipedia as a "mainstream" encyclopedia. "Mainstream" is a complex term. Aside from what's most popular or prevailing in terms of beliefs, it also embodies a power dynamic, and in a society where there is unequal power among different groups, it can mean those beliefs that are favored by the power elite. That's what it's a serious thing to define Wikipedia as a "mainstream encyclopedia" -- it's a political definition, and it fundamentally changes the nature of what Wikipedia is. Of course i support the mode reliable knowledge, verifiable, and NPOV. However, i cannot support the favoring of one class of knowledge over another just because it's more aligned with the interests of the more powerful groups in society. Therefore, to say that reliable knowledge is mainstream, and mainstream knowledge is reliable, is not correct. SageRad (talk) 14:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It's an interesting question. I don't think it is well-defined. WP:NOT focuses on excluding what isn't encyclopedic. I vaguely recall some ArbCom findings...
 * "Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience, "Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Wikipedia aspires to be such a respected work." I think there's been elaboration on this since. --Ronz (talk) 17:14, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, thank you. I appreciate the guidance toward what might be construed as a somewhat lukewarm endorsement of the concept of it being a mainstream encyclopedia. I appreciate that this is only an essay, not a policy, and that essays are not endorsed by Wikipedia in any official way nor are the policy nor do they need to be followed. I am opposed to the concept of this essay because of reasons i have outlined above, mainly that "mainstream" is often a way of codifying establishment alignment, and not strictly reliability or accuracy. Often, in fact, "mainstream" is counter to reliable and accurate knowledge. So be it. This essay says something, and i disagree with it. At least there are many tracks here on the talk page to show that i'm not alone, and future readers will see mine. My concern is that essays are often cited as if they are policy, and new editors get fooled or intimidated by that. SageRad (talk) 17:31, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The wording seems to parallel what's in WP:FRINGE. --Ronz (talk) 18:45, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't deny that there is a power dynamics involved in defining mainstream knowledge, but if Wikipedia would not choose the side of the mainstream, chaos would result as an effect of warring factions involved in a conflict of agit-prop. We do not WP:CENSOR marginal information, but we do present it from the viewpoint of mainstream sources. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:33, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * E.g., we describe what ISIL stands for, but we do so employing mainstream sources. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:36, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

"articles that would be appreciated as being of the highest quality by a consensus of experts in any field of science or scholarship"
Noone actually believes this is what goes on here, right? 2601:140:8400:36C0:D4E:6A9E:31EA:C0D2 (talk) 22:48, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

"Orthodox" or "Unorthodox"—which is it?
One of the key bullet points in the boxed summation at the top of the article appears to be incorrect. The bulleted point states:

"Orthodox" means that which is generally or traditionally accepted, the opposite of "fringe". So this can't possibly be correct. Allreet (talk) 19:09, 23 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm changing it to "unorthodox", but if I'm missing something that contradicts my understanding, feel free to revert. However, I would appreciate a ping since the Mainstream guideline is pertinent to several current issues. Allreet (talk) 20:35, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Justification at the end
'Is this situation fair? Perhaps not. But it is the situation we must tolerate if we are going to take the goal of making Wikipedia into a mainstream encyclopedia seriously.'

This is a poor justification. 'We must make Wikipedia express mainstream viewpoints, because our goal is to make Wikipedia into a mainstream encyclopedia' is basically a tautology. It presupposes that making Wikipedia into a 'mainstream encyclopedia' is a goal at all, whereas this still has to be motivated. It also presupposes that Wikipedia isn't already a 'mainstream encyclopedia', whereas in fact it was probably the most popular and widely used encyclopedia already about 15 years ago, let alone now. One may object that this doesn't make it mainstream, but this only highlights the fact that the article needs to define what it means by 'a mainstream encyclopedia' (and 'mainstream' in general, too - that's a vague concept which may, in fact, mean 'most popular' or 'most widespread' and the meaning of 'scientific consensus' attributed to it here may be too idiosyncratic). Finally, it presupposes that Wikipedia isn't good enough as it is compared to 'real encyclopedias', whose elite ranks it still has to join. Again, this smacks of an inferiority complex, where Wikipedia sees itself as a poor provincial cousin of Encyclopedia Britannica, whom it is expected to imitate, when it is arguably more prominent than Encyclopedia Britannica at present and not necessarily worse than it overall (I've seen this argued, I think there is some data in the article Reliability of Wikipedia). 87.126.21.225 (talk) 10:09, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Looking at the talk above, I see the author just meant something like 'follow Encyclopedia Britannica in all things and on every given subject'. Which is wrong, because Encyclopedia Britannica may, on some subjects, fail to reflect the scientific consensus adequately, come short of what WP:NPOV and WP:NOR require, and thereby be worse than Wikipedia. This is an entirely possible situation - Britannica is written by humans, too. In cases where WP:NPOV & WP:NOR and Britannica contradict each other, we must go with WP:NPOV & WP:NOR, not with Britannica. And as for the cases where they do not contradict each other, we don't need Britannica, since we already have WP:NPOV and WP:NOR themselves.--87.126.21.225 (talk) 10:28, 28 September 2023 (UTC)