Wikipedia:Fringe theories: Difference between revisions

This page documents an English Wikipedia content. Editors should generally follow it, though exceptions may apply. Substantive edits to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page.

Shortcut [[:|WP:FRINGE]]

This page offers guidance on establishing which non-mainstream "theories" should have articles in Wikipedia, and to an extent how those articles should approach their subjects. We use the word theory in a very broad sense, including conspiracy theories, ideas which purport to be scientific theories, esoteric claims about medicine, novel re-interpretations of history and so forth. Some of the "theories" addressed here may in a stricter sense be hypotheses, conjectures, or speculations.

We propose these guidelines in the belief that an appearance on Wikipedia should not make something more notable than it actually is. Since Wikipedia self-identifies primarily with mainstream opinion, and because other mainstream sources often view our project as a contender for mainstream status, it is important that Wikipedia itself not become the notability-validating source for these non-mainstream theories. If another, adequately reputable source discusses the theory first, Wikipedia is no longer the primary witness to notability. Furthermore, one probably cannot write about a subject in an NPOV manner if the subject completely lacks mainstream discussion; doing so risks violating the No original research policy.

"Mainstream" here refers to ideas which are accepted or at least somewhat discussed as being plausible within major publications (large-circulation newspapers or magazines) or respected and peer-reviewed academic publications. This should be understood in a commonsense sociological way and not as an attempt to create a rigorous philosophical demarcation between "mainstream" and "non-mainstream", which may well be impossible. We leave the finer distinctions to the philosophers (see demarcation problem). Fortunately, the authors of non-mainstream theories sometimes explicitly proclaim their non-mainstream status in one form or another (for example, by arguing that they are ignored because of some great conspiracy, or because other practitioners aren't ready to accept their truths, and similar arguments).

• Any non-mainstream theories should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major mainstream publication or by another important mainstream group or individual. Even debunking or disparaging references are adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its small group of adherents. References that are brought about because of the notability of a related subject, such as the creator of the theory, and not the theory itself, should be given far less weight when deciding on notability. Due consideration should be given to the fact that reputable news sources often cover less than strictly notable topics in a lighthearted fashion, such as on April Fool's Day, as "News of the Weird" or during "slow news days". (See junk food news, silly season, komkommertijd.)
• The discussion of a non-mainstream theory, positively or negatively, by other non-mainstream groups or individuals is not a criterion for notability, even if the latter group or individual is themself notable enough for a Wikipedia article. If a non-mainstream theory is so unnotable that mainstream sources have not bothered to comment on it, disparage it, or discuss it, it is not notable enough for Wikipedia.
• Inventors of fringe theories have in the past used Wikipedia as a forum for promoting their ideas. Existing policies discourage this type of behavior: if the only statements about a fringe theory come from the inventor of that theory, then various "What Wikipedia is not" rules come into play. Wikipedia is neither a publisher of original thought nor a soapbox for self-promotion and advertising. The notability of a fringe theory should be judged by statements from verifiable and reliable sources, not the proclamations of its adherents. Attempts by such inventors and adherents to artificially inflate the perceived renown of their fringe theories, such as sock puppetry in AfD discussions, should be firmly discouraged, though always in a civil manner. Efforts of fringe-theory inventors to shill on behalf of their theories, such as duplicitously offering self-published books for sale under the guise of "references", should be strongly frowned upon; as previously stated, Wikipedia is not an advertising venue. (See also Links normally to be avoided, Conflict of interest, Autobiography guidelines.)
• Theories should not receive attention in Wikipedia disproportional to the level of technical detail in the sources from which the article is written. For example, if the only references to a particular theory are in news sources, then a level of technical detail which is greater than that which appears in these news sources is inappropriate, as it would constitute original research. On the other hand, where existing primary sources are available, they may be carefully used in addition to secondary sources. WP:OR strongly encourages the collection and organization of information from existing primary and/or secondary sources; such information is not "original research", but "source-based research", and is essential to writing an encyclopedia.
• Theories which have not received critical review from the scientific community should be excluded from articles about mainstream scientific subjects. If the purpose of the article is to explain a scientific subject and there are people who dispute this subject, unless there is a verifiable refutation from the scientific community the theory does not represent a significant minority opinion within science itself. The theory may still be written about and expounded upon in articles devoted to the theory itself or non-scientific contexts.
• Notable topics which are primarily non-scientific in nature but which contain claims concerning scientific phenomena, should not be treated excessively as scientific theory and handled on that basis. For example, the Book of Genesis itself should be primarily covered as a work of ancient literature, as part of the Hebrew or Christian bible, and/or for its theological significance rather than as a cosmological theory. On the other hand, subjects such as creationism or creation science, which involve a direct conflict between scientific and religious doctrine, should be evaluated both on a scientific and theological basis.

Notability does not imply correctness or acceptance by an academic community. Many hypotheses widely believed to be incorrect are nonetheless notable, and the claimed correctness of a hypotheses does not confer notability. If it can be documented in reliable sources that scientists or historians consider a hypothesis correct, then notability is satisfied per the above. However, a proponent claiming that a hypothesis is correct does not satisfy notability.

Articles which cover hypotheses in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of acceptance among the relevant academic community of the hypothesis. If proper attribution cannot be found among reliable sources of a hypothesis's standing, it should be assumed that the hypothesis has not received consideration or acceptance. However, a lack of consideration or acceptance does not necessarily imply rejection; hypotheses should not be portrayed as rejected, or labeled as pseudoscience, unless such claims can be documented in reliable sources.

Hypotheses which have been rejected, which are widely considered to be absurd or pseudoscientific, which are only of historical interest, or which are primarily the realm of science fiction, should be documented as such.

Hypotheses which are of borderline or minimal notability may be documented in Wikipedia, but should not be given undue weight. Wikipedia is not a forum for presenting new hypotheses, for countering any systemic bias in institutions such as academia, or for otherwise promoting hypotheses which have failed to merit attention elsewhere. Wikipedia is not a place to right great wrongs. Exclusion of non-mainstream hypotheses from articles about mainstream scientific topics may occur when the scientific community has ignored the hypotheses. By the same token, the purpose of Wikipedia is not to "debunk" notable hypotheses which the mainstream scientific community may consider to be absurd or unworthy. Hypotheses should not be excluded from the encyclopedia simply because they are widely held to be wrong.

Wikipedia is also not a crystal ball. While currently accepted scientific ideas may later be rejected, and hypotheses previously held to be controversial or incorrect sometimes become accepted by the scientific community (such as plate tectonics), it is not the place of Wikipedia to venture such projections. If the state of a given hypotheses changes, then the encyclopedia changes to reflect that change. Wikipedia should primarily focus on the state of knowledge today, should document the past when appropriate (identifying it as such), but should avoid speculating on the future.

Wikipedia is meant to be a tertiary source of information, summarizing the information gleaned from primary and secondary sources. Primary sources about research and investigations should only be used to verify the text and should not be relied upon exclusively as doing so would violate Wikipedia's ban on original research. In the case of obscure fringe theories, secondary sources that describe the theories should be carefully vetted for reliability. This includes references, citations, and external links.

While proper attribution of a perspective to a source satisfies the minimal requirements of Wikipedia's neutral point of view, there is an additional editorial responsibility for including only those quotes and perspectives which further the aim of creating a verifiable and neutral Wikipedia article. Quotes that are controversial or potentially misleading need to be properly contextualized to avoid unintentional endorsement. This is to say that just because a quote is accurate and verifiably attributed to a particular source does not mean that the quote must necessarily be included in an article, but neither must it necessarily be excluded from an article. The sourced contribution must simply aid in the verifiable and neutral presentation of the subject.

For example, in the article about bigfoot, a verifiably attributed and accurate quote might take the following form:

The Bigfoot Field Researchers Association has stated, "Scientists from various disciplines put the most compelling sasquatch evidence to the test. Collectively their conclusions are ground-breaking. There is now scientific proof for the existence of a giant primate species in North America — a species fitting the descriptions of sasquatches (bigfoots)."

Including such a controversial quote needs to be carefully contextualized as a particular point-of-view. Simply including such a statement in the lead or in a section on scientific evaluation of bigfoot claims is potentially misleading, non-neutral, and lacking in verifiability. The quote should only be included if it can be contextualized in a verifiable and neutral sense as a point-of-view of the Bigfoot Field Researchers Association and not necessarily a factual statement. The consensus of editors may even be to not include the quote at all.

Inclusion and exclusion of content related to fringe theories and criticism of fringe theories may be done by means of a rough parity of sources. If an article is written about a well-known, mainstream topic, fringe theories that may seem relevant but are only sourced by obscure texts that lack peer review should not be included in the article. Likewise, if a notable fringe theory is primarily described by amateurs and self-published texts, verifiably and reliable criticism of the fringe theory need not be published in a peer review journal. For example, the Apollo moon landing hoax accusations article may generally include material gleaned from private and non-reviewed sources. Verifiable critiques of that material can likewise be gleaned from private and non-reviewed sources.

Parity of sources may mean that certain obscure fringe theories are only reliably and verifiably reported or criticized in alternative venues from those that are typically used in publishing about mainstream topics. For example, the lack of peer-reviewed criticism of creation science should not be used as a justification for marginalizing or removing scientific criticism of creation science since mainstream journals routinely reject submissions relating to the subject.

One important bellwether for determining the notability of fringe ideas related to science, history or other academic pursuits is the presence or absence of peer reviewed research on the subject. While a lack of peer-reviewed sources does not automatically mean that the subject should be excluded from Wikipedia, there is a real danger that such ideas represent original research. What is more, while peer review is a necessary feature of reliable sources that discuss scientific, historical or other academic ideas, it is not sufficient. It is important that original hypotheses that have gone through peer review do not get presented in Wikipedia as representing scientific consensus or fact. Subjects that are sourced solely and entirely on the basis of singular primary sources (even when they are peer reviewed) may be excluded from Wikipedia on notability grounds.

• Creation science — most scientists consider this to be pseudoscience and that it should not be taught in elementary public education. However the very existence of this strong opinion, and vigorous discussion amongst mainstream groups (including but not limited to scientists, scientific journals, educational institutions, political institutions, and even the United States Supreme Court) give the theory itself more than adequate notability to have articles about it featured on Wikipedia.
• Apollo moon landing hoax — This particular conspiracy theory, while probably not held as true by very many people, has generated enough discussion in mainstream sources (books, television programs, debunking statements from NASA) that it deserves an article on Wikipedia.
• Time Cube — an all-encompassing but difficult to comprehend proposition espoused by Gene Ray, self-proclaimed "Doctor of Cubicism". His Time Cube covers time, human behavior and many other things. Not addressed by mainstream scientists or philosophers (who are in Ray's words "stupid and evil"), it is still notable as an Internet meme and source of humor.
• Paul is dead — a famous urban legend alleging that Paul McCartney of the British rock band The Beatles died in 1966 and was replaced by a look-alike, sound-alike duplicate. Denied by all four Beatles (including McCartney, who is alive and well as of 2006), this conspiracy theory has been fueled by "clues" found among The Beatles' many recordings. The rumour has been the topic of much sociological examination because its development, growth and rebuttal took place very publicly, due to The Beatles' enormous popularity.

• Port Chicago disaster conspiracy theory — There exists a theory that this disaster (which itself is of unquestioned notability), held by official reports to be an ammunition-loading accident, was actually a detonation of a nuclear weapon with the intent of testing the effects on American soldiers. This theory has been proposed by one journalist, and he has published on it almost exclusively through his own self-published website and e-book, which many other non-mainstream websites and publications have parroted. The theory does not probably deserve its own Wikipedia article, as there is no mainstream reference to it whatsoever, but could easily have a small mentioning of it in the main Port Chicago disaster article, since its Internet presence is very large due to the aforementioned fringe websites. The exact wording of the mention is of course dictated by NPOV and other content guidelines.