I can imagine this back in the day. "Though almost every scholar agrees that the earth (though flat) is the center of the universe, some people do persist in s

I can imagine this back in the day. "Though almost every scholar agrees that the earth (though flat) is the center of the universe, some people do persist in saying that the earth is not only in orbit around the sun, but is also round. Most of these minority claims rely on "mathematics" and other potentially incorrect "proofs" of their theorems." I am reminded of the "paradigm shift" approach to the history of science, as flawed as it may be to some (look it up, sigh, on wikipedia). It implies that the dominant point of view is held as fact until a preponderance of evidence shifts the minority view from "flawed" to "edge cases" to "the new paradigm". Then it cycles again. What was the sworn truth with history behind it is now the "old paradigm" and disregarded. For wikipedia, I've never felt there to be a requirement for "article completeness", just an eye to be "well rounded", and so it often feels that whatever the dominant paradigm is currently will be the primary driver of inclusion and presence in an article. Wikipedia is in that interesting tension between sticking to it's original mission, which was pretty wonderful, and potentially becoming more, but at the risk of becoming useless. For all it's flaws, I still think the world is better with it than without it, and at some point, I suspect a way to let folks contribute more original research and have it coexist on wikipedia will evolve.