16 ms·

these minority viewpoints don't need to be given prominence, but I think they should certainly be given the right to exist and to be documented. From my perspec

these minority viewpoints don't need to be given prominence, but I think they should certainly be given the right to exist and to be documented. From my perspective, even the most egregious views should be aired against their subject of interest, for numerous reasons: - if they are badly argued ideas they will stand in stark contrast to well supported ideas, naturally diffusing the benefit that conspiracy theories often gain from being "banned" in the style of "what they don't want you to know"-type arguments. - The best way to critique an idea into the ground is to understand it better than its advocates. - Even a bad idea can raise questions of good ideas, in the same vein as getting to the right answer through the wrong reasoning. Poking holes in our best ideas forces innovation. - More awareness of the kind of ideas that exist in the world is, in my opinion, never a bad thing. - An outlier opinion can still be right. Obviously theories like flat earth don't fall into this category, but quantum mechanics and heliocentrism once did.

DmenshunlAnlsis 8y ago
From development to widespread acceptance QM didn’t take very long, because of course it’s possible to test to a high degree of accuracy. Flat Earth was debunked many centuries (millennia really) ago, but still persists. I’m not sure how much more critique needs to be done, or what questions can be raised. Most people are aware of it, and rightly dismiss it. The only people who think it should be treated seriously are people who, believe in it. So why entertain it? Because of some vague ideological opposition to curation? It seems to me, from experience at least, thst it usually has to do with a desire to use “universal acceptance” as an excuse to smuggle someone’s own pet crank idea into the mix. Creationists don’t seriously care about scientific inquiry or bias, they just started using those lines when legal bans on teaching evolution failed. Fascists and racists turned from trying to dominate society, to undermining it. Once an idea has been thoroughly and comprehensively discredited it’s a waste of time at best, propaganda at worst. Yes, it can be challenging to deal with ideas on the borderline, and we should always try harder, but the solution isn’t intellectual nihilism. Ceasing to use any critical thinking because it might invite bias is a bad idea, and I think only really put forth by people who’s marginal ideas have no other hope of being heard. After all, terrible ideas are documented, but there’s no moral, practical or intellectual reasons to document them everywhere.
PeterisP 8y ago
All of these things should certainly be given the right to exist and to be documented, but not in an encyclopaedia. Going through all your reasons: If an idea is badly argued - it's not yet ready/mature enough to be described in encyclopaedia. The best way to critique an idea into the ground needs to happen in the scientific discussion, and only the aftermath of that critique needs to be included in an encyclopaedia. Poking holes in our best ideas - again, that's the scientific discussion happening on papers in response to other papers; this process is good and important, but it should happen in that medium, and kept out of Wikipedia. More awareness of wrong ideas without appropriate disclaimers that they're wrong and why they're so leads to mass disinformation and is essentially harmful propaganda. There is a tradeoff between being authorative+truthful and all-encompassing; getting one of those requires to actively work against the other. As Wikipedia has chosen that it "wants" to work towards the first, so it's chosen not to be the place that will facilitate "more awareness of the kind of ideas that exist in the world" - this was a contentious issue some decades ago, resulting multiple other wiki-like resources with lower criteria for notability, achieving what you propose but sacrificing other things that are important for Wikipedia. An outlier opinion can later be shown to be right - when that happens, an encyclopaedia like Wikipedia should describe it.

DmenshunlAnlsis 8y ago

From development to widespread acceptance QM didn’t take very long, because of course it’s possible to test to a high degree of accuracy. Flat Earth was debunked many centuries (millennia really) ago, but still persists. I’m not sure how much more critique needs to be done, or what questions can be raised. Most people are aware of it, and rightly dismiss it. The only people who think it should be treated seriously are people who, believe in it. So why entertain it? Because of some vague ideological opposition to curation? It seems to me, from experience at least, thst it usually has to do with a desire to use “universal acceptance” as an excuse to smuggle someone’s own pet crank idea into the mix. Creationists don’t seriously care about scientific inquiry or bias, they just started using those lines when legal bans on teaching evolution failed. Fascists and racists turned from trying to dominate society, to undermining it. Once an idea has been thoroughly and comprehensively discredited it’s a waste of time at best, propaganda at worst. Yes, it can be challenging to deal with ideas on the borderline, and we should always try harder, but the solution isn’t intellectual nihilism. Ceasing to use any critical thinking because it might invite bias is a bad idea, and I think only really put forth by people who’s marginal ideas have no other hope of being heard. After all, terrible ideas are documented, but there’s no moral, practical or intellectual reasons to document them everywhere.

PeterisP 8y ago

All of these things should certainly be given the right to exist and to be documented, but not in an encyclopaedia. Going through all your reasons: If an idea is badly argued - it's not yet ready/mature enough to be described in encyclopaedia. The best way to critique an idea into the ground needs to happen in the scientific discussion, and only the aftermath of that critique needs to be included in an encyclopaedia. Poking holes in our best ideas - again, that's the scientific discussion happening on papers in response to other papers; this process is good and important, but it should happen in that medium, and kept out of Wikipedia. More awareness of wrong ideas without appropriate disclaimers that they're wrong and why they're so leads to mass disinformation and is essentially harmful propaganda. There is a tradeoff between being authorative+truthful and all-encompassing; getting one of those requires to actively work against the other. As Wikipedia has chosen that it "wants" to work towards the first, so it's chosen not to be the place that will facilitate "more awareness of the kind of ideas that exist in the world" - this was a contentious issue some decades ago, resulting multiple other wiki-like resources with lower criteria for notability, achieving what you propose but sacrificing other things that are important for Wikipedia. An outlier opinion can later be shown to be right - when that happens, an encyclopaedia like Wikipedia should describe it.