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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]