Wikipedia:WikiProject Pseudoscience

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a WikiProject, a collaboration area and open group of editors dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of a particular topic, or to organizing some internal Wikipedia process.
Please see the Guide to WikiProjects and the Directory of WikiProjects for more information.
Shortcut:
WP:WPPS

Contents

NOTE: This is a work in progress. Discussions about changes are welcome on the talk page.

[edit] Introduction

This WikiProject is intended as a tool for presenting articles about pseudoscience topics in a manner that is consistent with Wikipedia's neutral point of view rules, and for aiding in flagging articles that aren't encyclopedic for removal.

If you are interested in commenting on or contributing to this WikiProject, please leave a message on the project talk page.

[edit] Scope

This WikiProject is concerned with the management of articles about specific pseudoscientific theories.

[edit] Definition

A pseudoscience theory is a claimed description of physical laws which "purports to be scientific or supported by science but which is judged to fall outside the domain of science" (from pseudoscience).

Example:

A publication in a peer-reviewed physics journal claiming that the existence of five quark families provides a more accurate description of particle accelerator observations than the usual three, is probably not pseudoscience. It doesn't match accepted mainstream models, but it has passed fairly stringent tests verifying its use of scientific method, and so would be better described as a scientific hypothesis, or possibly as fringe science.

Example:

A publication claiming that the existence of five quark families provides a more accurate description of particle accelerator observations than the usual three, but appearing with debate or controversy in a peer-reviewed physics journal is possibly pseudoscience. It doesn't match accepted mainstream models, and so might be better described as fringe science. While demonstrating use of the scientific method, it is still subject to debate and scientific test. It may have difficulty gaining acceptance due to non-scientific reasons. One example of this from in the early 20th century was the then controversial theory of Continental drift, which eventually developed into the now accepted theory of plate tectonics.[1]

Example:

A web page claiming that quarks don't exist, and claiming that belief in them is due to the fact that "quantum mechanics theories are wrong", and citing either other web pages or an article published in an "Essays" compilation, is probably pseudoscience. It flagrantly contradicts mainstream models, and presents no evidence that its claims were derived through use of the scientific method. Sometime these papers cite non-scientific texts as proof.

[edit] Goals

The following ongoing tasks are goals of this WikiProject:

  • Assist removal of articles about pseudoscience theories that are original research.
  • Assist removal of articles about pseudoscience theories that are not notable (i.e., that are only of interest to a very tiny group).
  • Help to ensure that pseudoscience articles that are kept are encyclopedic.
  • Help to ensure that pseudoscience articles that are kept are written from a neutral viewpoint, as defined by the Wikipedia policies and conventions on neutral point of view.

See Decision criteria below for a more detailed discussion.

[edit] Tools

The following tools are provided to aid in achieving this WikiProject's goals:

  • A list of Decision criteria constituting an informal guideline for assessing importance, encyclopedic status, and neutrality of viewpoint.
  • A set of Templates intended to aid the editing of pseudoscience articles.
  • A Sample article intended to demonstrate the desired style of pseudoscience articles.
  • A list of Useful links to other tools and articles useful for tracking and management of pseudoscience articles.
  • A shared watchlist of articles which are known or can be expected to attract pseudoscience POV pushing edits.

[edit] What this WikiProject is not

While every attempt has been made to make the guidelines in this WikiProject consistent with Wikipedia policy, check the relevant policies and guidelines directly when in doubt. Several relevant policies are listed in the wikipedia policies subsection. Others can be found through Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines.
List pages that need modifying there. Note your changes there. It is important for Wikipedia to function as a community, which means that editing should be vetted by the community. Posting to PNA/Physics brings your edits to others' attention.
If you think an article needs editing, be bold, but pay attention to discussion on the article's talk page, and note your edits on PNA/Physics.
If you think an article should be deleted, follow due process and start a vote for deletion after appropriate discussion on the article's talk page and PNA/Physics. Only vote to delete articles that you have read thoroughly and for which you believe Wikipedia's deletion policy applies.

[edit] Participants

[edit] Decision criteria

Note: This is temporary content.

  • For a pseudoscientific theory to be encyclopedic, peer-reviewed papers in reputable journals have to be published about it.
    • Notes on the distinction between "journal of X", and "essays", "letters", "transactions", and arxiv.
  • For a pseudoscientific theory to be important, it has to have the paper trail to be encyclopedic, and have other scientists publish in response, or cite its articles.
  • For NPOV compliance, there are several guidelines that must be respected:
    • All descriptions in proper scientific language, with all jargon terms used correctly.
    • No gushing about how wonderful the pseudoscientific theory is. That will be obvious without the gushing if it's true.
    • Clearly and prominently note points of disagreement between the pseudoscientific theory and mainstream science.
    • Cite sources, and clearly acknowledge mainstream reputability or disreputability of sources cited.

[edit] Templates

[edit] Blank "disputed science" article

  • Template for the article skeleton goes here.

[edit] "Disputed science" infobox

Disputed Science:
{{{name}}}
Disciplines: {{{topics}}}
Core Tenets:
{{{claims}}}
Year Proposed: {{{origyear}}}
Original Proponents:

{{{origprop}}}
Current Proponents:

{{{currentprop}}}

An infobox template has been created in an attempt to provide a standardized way for information about a pseudoscientific article to be summarized. This is the {{Infobox Pseudoscience}} template, shown at the right. To use it, insert text along the lines of the following:

{{Infobox Pseudoscience
|name=Martian Origin of Navel Lint
|topics=
* [[Biology]]
...
}}

Guidelines for the fields are as follows:

  • name: Short but reasonably complete name of the observation, belief, or theory. Might or might not be the same as the article name.
  • disciplines: List of disciplines the theory would be considered a part of if correct. Wikipedia lists are ok if started on a new line.
  • claims: Extremely brief listing of both the core tenets of the theory, and how they differ from the tenets of mainstream physics. Save details for the article itself.
  • origyear: Year the theory was originally written about or otherwise verifiably proclaimed in a public forum. Make the year a link.
  • origprop: List of original notable proponents of the theory. These should only be links if the originators in question are notable enough to have their own articles on Wikipedia.
  • currentprop: List of currently-active notable proponents of the theory. These should only be links if the proponents in question are notable enough to have their own articles on Wikipedia.

[edit] Headers for flagging well-known pseudoscience topics

This article describes a perpetual motion machine, which violates the known laws of physics. Claims of the development of such devices are considered pseudoscience by most scientists.

This article describes Antigravitation, which violates the known laws of physics. Claims of the development of such devices are considered pseudoscience by most scientists.

This article describes Faster-than-light transport of information, which violates the known laws of physics. Claims of the development of such devices are considered pseudoscience by most scientists.

This article describes Cold fusion, which violates the known laws of physics. Claims of the development of such devices are considered pseudoscience by most scientists.

This article describes a kind of free energy that violates the known Laws of thermodynamics. Claims of the development of such devices are considered pseudoscience by most scientists.

This article lacks in logic and violates the rules of Boolean algebra.
Claims including such arguments are considered pseudoscience by most scientists.

[edit] Future tools

Things that might be handy to develop go here. These should be discussed on the talk page before being created.

  • Possibly some kind of aid for point/counterpoint listings of theory vs. mainstream claims.

[edit] Sample article

A sample of the desired article format is presented at Wikipedia:WikiProject Pseudoscience/Green Cheese Model of Lunar Composition.

[edit] Subpages

[edit] Input needed

[edit] Articles for deletion

Please place newly-listed articles for deletion at the top of this list, along with the date. PLEASE NOTE: The AfD process is a discussion, not a vote.


[edit] Formerly AfD listed articles

[edit] Requests for comment

  1. Hey, someone has put up a bio page for David de Hilster, who is generally non-notable except for his vigorous advocacy of Autodynamics, including both editing that page and denouncing it on his listserv. Carezani and Autodynamics are pretty borderline in passing the "notable pseudoscience" criteria. Judged as either AD's PR man or as director of one unreleased documentary, de Hilster is thoroughly NN. Unless his samba activities are notable (I have no idea), it looks like a standard NN vanity bio. Any opinions, or anyone want to nominate for deletion?
  1. The article Ivor Catt appears to have been written by crackpots.

[edit] Useful links

The following articles and web pages are useful for tracking and managing pseudoscience.

[edit] Articles

[edit] Related WikiProjects

[edit] Wikipedia policies and guidelines

[edit] Arbitration Committee decisions

[edit] Lists that may contain articles needing attention

[edit] External References