User:GTBacchus/sandbox
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Nutshell
-
- In order to be notable enough to appear in Wikipedia, a fringe idea should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory.
- Even debunking or disparaging references are adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents.
[edit] Lead
Most of the lead is very good. At the end there's a weird bit:
- It is Wikipedia's convention that arbitration committee rulings are considered precedent and carry the weight of policy. Those editing articles dealing with fringe theories and pseudoscience are bound by these precedents. See Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Arbitration cases.
I've been under the impression for some time that ArbCom rulings explicitly do not carry the weight of policy, but I'm not finding it in print right now, nor any statement that the above is correct. Am I mistaken? I suspect I've heard in said in context rather than reading it on some official page. People often try to cite ArbCom as precedent, but their decisions aren't binding outside of their native contexts. Consensus is binding, and ArbCom regularly tells the community to develop good consensus-backed guidelines to cover future cases. That's what this is, so citing ArbCom here would seem to put the cart before the horse.
[edit] Identifying fringe theories
Why is it necessary to identify something as a fringe theory before applying our core content policies, which is all we're going to do, right? The contents of the section seem to be a slight tightening of WP:RS, which I'm unsure about. Is the idea that, if we can identify and label something as a "fringe theory", then we set a higher notability standard for its inclusion than we normally use? If not, then why do I get that idea when I read this section?
