Wikipedia:Scientific consensus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an essay; it contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it.

When writing about scientific consensus which appears to coalesce around a certain view of a scientific matter, Wikipedia should not endorse this consensus. Rather it should identifies the parties which espouse the mainstream view and/or consent to it. Articles should indicate the existence of the controversy and identify proponents of minority views.

It is not undue weight to report the existence of a dispute, provided that the article does not exaggerate the proportion of experts in the field who advocate minority views. But repeating the premise of any contrived dispute or artificial controversy such as Teach the Controversy as a fact does give undue weight to the viewpoint of those who have created the dispute. In cases where the controversy has been created and promoted to further a particular group's goals, describing the goals and manner in which the controversy was created is necessary in order for an article to meet the Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View policy.

In addition to the undue weight clause, the treatment of the scientific consensus is also described in the the 'equal validity' and 'pseudoscience' clauses of the Neutral Point of View policy:

• Neutral point of view: Giving" equal validity" "Please be clear on one thing: the Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views. It does state that we must not take a stand on them as encyclopedia writers; but that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such; from fairly explaining the strong arguments against the pseudoscientific theory; from describing the strong moral repugnance that many people feel toward some morally repugnant views; and so forth."
• Neutral point of view:Pseudoscience "Pseudoscience is a social phenomenon and therefore significant, but it should not obfuscate the description of the main views, and any mention should be proportionate and represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly."

The Arbitration Committee also ruled on the presentation of the scientific consensus in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience.

• 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.
• Serious encyclopedias: 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.
• Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more.
• Generally considered pseudoscience: 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.
• Questionable science: 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.

Also relevant is Wikipedia's guideline on Reliable sources:

• Claims of consensus: Claims of consensus must be sourced. The claim that all or most scientists, scholars, or ministers hold a certain view requires a reliable source. Without it, opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources.

It is important to note that in forming its consensus it is the scientific community which determines what is widely accepted science and what is deemed questionable science or pseudoscience, public opinion or that of promoters of what is considered pseudoscience by the scientific community hold no sway in that determination.