Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Arbitration cases
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In December of 2006 and again in July 2007, the Arbitration Committee ruled on guidelines concerning the presentation of topics which are fringe, questionable, or pseudoscientific. The two cases are Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal. Arbitration Committee rulings constitute the final step in the dispute resolution process. Committee decisions apply policy to a specific set of circumstances, and rulings are binding on editors. The rulings on Pseudoscienc and the Paranormal set forth the following guidance:
[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience
[edit] Principles
[edit] Neutral point of view
1) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of all significant points of view regarding the subject of an article, see comment by Jimbo.
- Passed 5-3 at 02:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Neutral point of view as applied to science
1a) 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.
- Passed 7-0 at 02:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Notability
2) There must be sufficient verifiable information from reliable sources regarding a subject for there to be an article about it, Wikipedia:Notability. Guidelines regarding notability have been developed for a number of areas, but not for scientific theories (The proposal Wikipedia:Notability (science) is based on principles elucidated in this case).
- Passed 8-0 at 02:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] No original research
3a) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue weight quotes Jimbo Wales, stating "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not." Following this principle, theories which have not been published in reputable sources should not be included in articles on mainstream scientific topics.
- Passed 8-0 at 02:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Appropriate sources
4a) Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources require that information included in an article have been published in a reliable source which is identified and potentially available to the reader. What constitutes a reliable source varies with the topic of the article, but in the case of a scientific theory, there is a clear expectation that the sources for the theory itself are reputable textbooks or peer-reviewed journals. Scientific theories promulgated outside these media are not properly verifiable as scientific theories and should not be represented as such.
- Passed 8-0 at 02:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia is not a crystal ball
5) While it may be that paradigm shifts occur from time to time, it is not the place of Wikipedia to venture projections regarding them, Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball.
- Passed 8-0 at 02:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Wiki process
6) As practiced on Wikipedia, the wiki process contemplates that any editor may edit any article provided they do not disrupt it.
- Passed 7-1 at 02:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Experts
7) Historically, although a perennial subject of discussion, see, for example, the rejected proposal Wikipedia:Expert editors and the brainstorming essay, Wikipedia:Expert retention, experts were accorded no special role or status on Wikipedia.
- Passed 4-1 with 3 abstentions at 02:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Content disputes
9) Restrictions are placed on users only in cases where their behavior seriously disrupts the wiki process or fulfillment of Wikipedia's mission to produce an accurate and useful reference work.
- Passed 7-1 at 02:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Academically demanding subjects
10) In the case of subjects which require considerable academic or experiential expertise, some deference to experts is appropriate.
- Passed 5-0 with 3 abstentions at 02:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Experts are required to cite sources
11) Experts are presumed to have an adequate command of appropriate sources for information they add or positions they take. Bare assertions of expertise without supporting sources are unacceptable, especially if there is conflict with other users.
- Passed 7-1 at 02:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Experts are subject to the no original research rule
12) Wikipedia:No original research applies to users who are experts in a field and who may be engaged in original research. The latest insights resulting from current research are often not acceptable for inclusion as established information as they have not yet been published.
- Passed 8-0 at 02:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Conflict of interest
13) Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Self-promotion, a guideline, strongly discourages editing which promotes the editor's projects.
- Passed 8-0 at 02:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Serious encyclopedias
14) 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.
- Passed 5-1 with 2 abstentions at 02:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Obvious pseudoscience
15) Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more.
- Passed 7-1 at 02:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Generally considered pseudoscience
16) Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.
- Passed 8-0 at 02:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Questionable science
17) Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized.
- Passed 8-0 at 02:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Alternative theoretical formulations
18) Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.
- Passed 7-1 at 02:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Findings of Fact
[edit] Notability
1a) The notability of a scientific theory may arise in ways that are not determined by its contemporary validity.
- Passed 7-1 at 02:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Pseudoscience
9) Wikipedia contains articles such as , a theory of time, which, while notable, have little or no following in the scientific community, often being so little regarded that there is no serious criticism of them by scientific critics. In the case of Time Cube, an anonymous editor, "Time Cube Guy," frequently reverts to his favored version.
- Passed 6-0 with 2 abstentions at 02:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal
[edit] Principles
[edit] Neutral point of view
1) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view regarding a subject. If there is controversy regarding the subject, all sides of the controversy should be fairly represented.
- Passed 9-0 at 03:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Advocacy
2) Wikipedia is not an appropriate forum for advocacy, see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox.
-
- Passed 9-0 at 03:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Basis for inclusion
3) In addition to firmly established scientific truth, Wikipedia contains many other types of information. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" (from Wikipedia:Verifiability).
- Passed 9-0 at 03:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Categorization, non-content
4.1) Articles are placed in a category as an aid to the reader. Categories are not intended to define or limit the subject of the article as belonging exclusively to that category.
- Passed 9-0 at 03:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Appropriate handling of epistemological status, no content
6.1) It is the responsibility of editors to appropriately handle any question regarding the epistemological status of a subject, that is, questions of whether something exists, is hypothesized to exist, general scientific consensus, etc. The goal is not arrival at the correct conclusion, but adequate treatment of any controversy.
- Passed 8-1 at 03:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Adequate framing
6.2) Language in the introduction of an article may serve to frame the subject thus defining the epistemological status. Examples include "mythical", "fictional", "a belief", and in the present case "paranormal", "psychic", "new age", "occult", "channeling". or "parapsychological researcher". "UFO", "Bigfoot", "Yeti", "alien abduction", and "crop circle" serve the same function. It should not be necessary in the case of an adequately framed article to add more, for example to describe Jeane Dixon as a psychic who appeared on TV says it all. "Purported psychic" or "self-described psychic" adds nothing.
- Passed 9-0 at 03:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Editorial judgment regarding reliability
9) Determining the reliability of sources is a matter of sound editorial judgment informed by expertise.
- Passed 7-2 at 03:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Editorial judgment regarding reliability
9.1) Determining the reliability of sources is a matter of sound editorial judgment informed by expertise. Exceptional claims should be supported by strong sources. Sensationalist sources, when used at all, should not be the sole sources for an article. Topics for which no reliable source can be found are not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia.
- Passed 7-2 at 03:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Conflict of interest
10.1) Wikipedia:Conflict of interest strongly cautions but does not forbid an editor from working in subject areas where the editor is strongly invested. Such editing must be done responsibly. Other editors are expected to respond diplomatically even when they believe a conflict of interest may exist.
- Passed 9-0 at 03:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Generally considered pseudoscience
11) Theories which have a following, such as various manifestations of the paranormal, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may, with adequate sourcing, properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.
- Passed 8-1 at 03:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Findings of Fact
[edit] Status of parapsychology
3) Parapsychology has an ambiguous status, engaging in scientific research, but strongly criticized for lack of rigor.
- passed 7-1 at 03:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Cultural artifacts
5) "Psychic" or "clairvoyant" and similar terms are cultural artifacts, not people or things which necessarily exist. A psychic may not have psychic abilities, nor does use of the term imply that such abilities exist.
- passed 8-0 at 03:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Subjects without referents
6) Wikipedia covers many notable subjects which may not have a referent in the real world. A discussion of the epistemological status of such subjects is often included in articles regarding such subjects such as "mythical creature" or "a hypothetical conflict", but not every referral to mythical beasts or projected future events need be accompanied by a qualifier.
- passed 9-0 at 03:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] External campaigning
7) Activists, including a "Tom Butler" have put up pages which campaign regarding the content of Wikipedia articles [1] and [2]. Here Martinphi refers a new user Crystal Healer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) to the external site.
- passed 9-0 at 03:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Popular culture
8) Wikipedia includes many articles regarding matters that are of notable popular interest such as alien abductions, animal mutilations and crop circles. Often there exists little scientific interest or analysis of such purported events.
- passed 8-0 at 03:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Flat statements of fact
9) Articles exist which contain flat assertions of fact regarding fantastic formulations, for example Astral projection starts off "Astral projection (or astral travel) is an out-of-body experience achieved either awake or via lucid dreaming or deep meditation." and contains nowhere in the article the viewpoint that there is no such thing. Others such as Astral plane contain attribution, "The astral plane, also called the astral world or desire world, is a plane of existence according to esoteric philosophies, some religious teachings and New Age thought."
- passed 8-0 at 03:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Conflation of parapsychology with unscientific concepts
10.1) According to the Parapsychological Association, parapsychology should not be confused with sensational, unscientific beliefs and stories about "the paranormal". This has occurred in some instances; for example Ectoplasm (parapsychology).
- passed 9-0 at 03:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Three layer cake with frosting
11) In addition to mainstream science which generally ignores or does not consider the paranormal worthy of investigation, there is a scientific discipline of parapsychology which studies psychic phenomena in a serious scientific way, and popular culture concepts which have a following either in historical or contemporary popular culture, but are not taken seriously or investigated even by parapsychology. A fourth phenomenon is skeptical groups and individuals devoted to debunking.
- passed 8-0 at 03:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Paranormal as an effective tag
12) The use of a link to paranormal in the introduction of an article serves to frame the matter. Links to psychic, new age, or occult serve the same purpose.
- passed 8-0 at 03:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] WikiProjects
17) Wikipedia contains the following projects of relevance: Wikipedia:WikiProject Rational Skepticism, Wikipedia:WikiProject Paranormal, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Pseudoscience.
- passed 8-0 at 03:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
