User:Happyme22/AGF Challenge 2 Exercise Answers

Mr. Leak

1. No, negative reviews of the fictional Mr. Leak's works do not violate WP:BLP. The only argument is that they are negative, which is not necessarily a bad thing. Per WP:NPOV, both sides of the argument should have their views adequately presented. Yes, I think that an external link to a negative review is warranted, although per WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT, an external link to a positive review would also merit inclusion under those circumstances. Wikipedia cannot outright and definitively state that the scientific community agrees or disagrees with his theories, although we can provide the "agree with" and "disagree with" arguments of both sides and let the reader make up his/her own mind. Mr. Leak's ideas are not necessarily fringe theories, though they probably would never be considered 100% accurate without even the majority opinion of the scientific community. I am a big advocate of WP:NPOV, which states that both sides arguments merit inclusion; editors need to be cautious, though, about another very important aspect of writing: how much WP:WEIGHT they place on each argument based on the references to reliable citations. In this case, it is up to the editors over how much time they wish to spend dealing with the matter.

No original research!

1. To me, this situation is very clear: the bottom line is that Applebutter needs a citation if he wants to make any comparisons and write them as fact. I don't think that it is necessarily WP:OR to convert the numbers into percentages, but it is WP:OR to compare them and draw conclusions without a citation. RunOff is clearly overstepping his boundaries, and attention should be brought to that. Admins are not above Wikipedia policy. Again, I think that it is up to the editors and users involved with this matter over how much time they wish to spend on it.