Do you remove fringe theories from Wikipedia?

Nathyn

Thinker
N
Joined
Nov 19, 2006
Messages
141
For skeptics here, here's something worth doing.

Check out this noticeboard:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard

Wikipedians seem to have done a very good job overall, dealing with certain issues, like the 9/11 Twoofers and Homeopathy. However, there's still often work to be done. Frequently, for instance, you have those on the political right pushing fringe theories regarding global warming.

Right now, I've been focusing most of my work on removing pseudoeconomics from Wikipedia, since it's filled with it, mostly Libertarians passing off Austrian economics as mainstream.

You must enjoy discussing skeptical issues. Do any of you regularly remove fringe theories and other nonsense from Wikipedia?
 
My experience with Wiki is that the quack topics are controlled by quacks and any attempt to correct them is deemed vandalism. For example, the article on naturopathy began "Naturopaths are medical doctors ..." which is wrong, and they don't call themselves that because they think they are better. I changed it to "not medical doctors" [without the italics] and that was quickly reverted.

The Wiki proscription on "point of view" (POV), which they equate with bias, is ridiculous. Why is it POV to say naturopaths are not medical doctors; but; to say they are doctors is, acceptable, non-POV.

To make matters worse, the entire sentence was gone a couple months later. It simply isn't worth the time to correct something that may well be deleted later. For crackpot notions, the only value for Wiki is finding references to quack literature. For instance, it was the quickest way for me to find what chiros, today, think of "innate intelligence" (their name for the imaginary "life force").

Even in non-controversial matters, some people change stuff just for kicks. I have read (here, I think) of a guy who so. It was not corrected, and a professor easily found that some of his students plagiarized the article (by tracking the mis-information).
 
JJM said:
My experience with Wiki is that the quack topics are controlled by quacks and any attempt to correct them is deemed vandalism.
Click to expand...
That may have been true in the past and, in many cases, it is true, but that's not the general rule and there are policies to deal with it.

When quack topics are controlled by quacks, with good faith editors being the minority, any good faith editor can consider the quacks' edits to be in bad faith (which means you can revert their edits as many times as you want) and\or ignore all rules (see WP:IAR. If the person engages in an edit war, you can report them to an admin. If they report you first, any admin will simply see that they're a quack and you're not, and act appropriately.

As I said, people have done a good job on several articles. Homeopathy is an ideal example. From Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy

The ideas of homeopathy are scientifically implausible[6] and directly opposed to modern pharmaceutical knowledge.[7] Claims for the efficacy of homeopathy are unsupported by the collected weight of scientific and clinical studies.[8][9][10][11] This lack of convincing evidence supporting its efficacy, along with its stance against modern scientific ideas, have caused homeopathy to be regarded as "placebo therapy at best and quackery at worst" in the words of a recent medical review.[12] Various publications using meta-analysis, a common approach to pooling the results of many studies, reported positive results from the use of homeopathy. Facing difficulty in controlling for publication bias and the flawed designs of the studies they analyzed, these reports were regarded as inconclusive and unconvincing.[13][14] A 2005 meta-analysis published in The Lancet comparing homeopathic clinical trials with those of conventional medicine demonstrated that homeopathy's effects are unlikely to be different from those of a placebo.[6] Homeopaths are also accused of giving 'false hope' to patients who might otherwise seek effective conventional treatments. Many homeopaths advise against standard medical procedures such as vaccination,[15][16][17] and some homeopaths even advise against the use of anti-malarial drugs.[18][19][20]
Click to expand...
 
Yes, I frequently remove fringe theories from Wikipedia.

Most recently, I noticed that someone had edited the Wikipedia entry on Tablecloths, stating that "decorative borders of thread, cord, or the like" had been added to tablecloths in the sixth century, for "aesthetic reasons."

It was a ridiculous theory, totally unsourced, and I removed it.
 
Last edited:
Nathyn said:
That may have been true in the past and, in many cases, it is true, but that's not the general rule and there are policies to deal with it.
Click to expand...
I concede that my attempts were years ago.

Nathyn said:
When quack topics are controlled by quacks, with good faith editors being the minority [is this (minority) what you mean?], any good faith editor can consider the quacks' edits to be in bad faith {snip} you can report them to an admin.
Click to expand...
What if I get a "bad faith" editor, how can I control that?

Nathyn said:
If they report you first, any admin will simply see that they're a quack and you're not, and act appropriately.
Click to expand...
Quackery has been my hobby for 30 years and I know that most people cannot separate fact from opinion. People (e.g., journalists) fall back on the notion that the best approach is to give equal time to both "opinions." Can you offer evidence that the powers that be at Wiki do better?

Nathyn said:
As I said, people have done a good job on several articles. Homeopathy is an ideal example. From Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy
Click to expand...
The article begins by calling homeopathy "controversial." It may be socially controversial (in terms of public opinion); but it is factually nonsense. The facts trump the opinions- it is not controversial, it is nonsense. However, the section you quote looks promising.

Still, knowing that anything I take the trouble to compose can be gone in a well-intended re-write (even, properly re-stated) makes me loathe to contribute to, or cite (in the case of removed material), the Wiki.
 
Last edited:
JJM said:
Still, knowing that anything I take the trouble to compose can be gone in a well-intended re-write (even, properly re-stated) makes me loathe to contribute to, or cite (in the case of removed material), the Wiki.
Click to expand...

You created this thread, and contributed to it, although it will almost certainly die. You have conversations that no one will remember. Wikipedia is less ephemeral than either of these. Which is not to say that you have some sort of obligation to contribute to Wikipedia, but if you have the right approach it need not raise your blood pressure.
 
juniper_ann said:
You created this thread
Click to expand...
"Oops" accepted.

juniper_ann said:
{snip} and contributed to it, although it will almost certainly die. You have conversations that no one will remember. Wikipedia is less ephemeral than either of these. Which is not to say that you have some sort of obligation to contribute to Wikipedia, but if you have the right approach it need not raise your blood pressure.
Click to expand...
This is an interesting observation. However, I learn things here from knowledgeable people, and I learn about poor arguments from people who are less knowledgeable. My messages here are neither corrupted nor deleted by an anonymous person. The conversations, here, have real-time value to me.

As for the archives of JREF and Wiki, they are equally unknown in terms of value.
 
Reading the history files on wikipedia is often more interesting than the entry. While some may claim wikipedia doesn't matter, you wouldn't know it from the years long battles over what is, and what is not.

Just the wording of something can be fought over for years.

Like the entry for "Jesus". Go figure. Edit warriors are still fighting over that one.

:D Who would have thought?
 
Last edited:
I've put a few modifications in there recently. I tend not to delete, just add for more clarification like when they quote arsenic is used in homeopathic solutions. I just add the part that explains the dilution and that it's not actually in the preparation.

We'll see how long they last.
 
I don´t, but I have had most of my fringe-ish theories removed from Uncyclopedia.

Bastards.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom