Wikipedia:Fringe theories: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia


Article Images

Content deleted Content added

Line 116:

Parity of sources may mean that certain fringe theories are only reliably and verifiably reported on, or criticized, in alternative venues from those that are typically considered reliable sources for scientific topics on Wikipedia. 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 creation science itself is almost never published in peer-reviewed journals. Likewise, views of adherents should not be excluded from an article on creation science solely on the basis that their work lacks peer review, other considerations for notability should be considered as well. Fringe views are properly excluded from articles on mainstream subjects to the extent that they are [[WP:WEIGHT|rarely if ever included]] by reliable sources on those subjects.

The prominence of fringe views needs to be put in perspective relative to the views of the entire encompassing field; limiting that relative perspective to a restricted subset of specialists or only among the proponents of that view is, necessarily, biased and unrepresentative. In fields related to health and medicine, the websites, [[Quackwatch]] and Science-Based Medicine (see [[Mark Crislip]], [[Steven Novella]], and [[David Gorski]]) are can be useful sources in this regard.<ref name=Dymoke>{{cite news|last=Szabo|first=Lisa|title=How to guard against a quack|url=http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/06/18/how-to-spot-a-quack/2429471/|newspaper=[[USA Today]]|date=18 June 2013}}</ref><ref name=TheGoodWebGuide>{{cite book|author=Arabella Dymoke|title=The Good Web Guide|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=JCipdQBDUucC&pg=PA35|accessdate=4 September 2013|year=2004|publisher=The Good Web Guide Ltd|isbn=978-1-903282-46-5|page=35|quote=Quackwatch is without doubt an important and useful information resource and injects a healthy dose of scepticism into reviewing popular health information. Its aim is to investigate questionable claims made in some sectors of what is now a multi-million pound healthcare industry.}}</ref>

===In-text attribution===