User talk:Sennalen/sandbox/essay7

Draft essay

This is a first draft of an essay which will likey be controversial. Please offer suggestions to help improve it.

Some particular questions to consider:

Is there anything unambiguously wrong?
Is there any policy interpretation that is explicity contradicted elsewhere?
Is any part overly long or belabored? (I already moved a large section of text to a note, since it was not directly related to the point of the essay.)
What could be a suitable title or shortcut?

Sennalen (talk) 18:13, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm considering whether to spin the "hateful views" section out into a separate essay, since it's more of an original analysis on my part than a close reading of policy like the rest. Sennalen (talk) 19:35, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some observations and suggestions

After reading your essay and the related discussions on the Fringe theories Noticeboard and at the Village pump (policy) I have some thoughts that I'll add under this heading. Random person no 362478479 (talk) 15:01, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The first is that I find one of your section headings highly problematic, namely "Fringeness depends on sources". I think the content of the section is fine, but you should not suggest in the title that whether or not a theory is fringe depends on sources, but only whether or not a theory falls under WP:FRINGE. There is an unfortunate tendency on Wikipedia to talk about applicability of Wikipedia policies as though one was talking about innate characteristics of the subject matter, especially when notability is discussed. The difference between being notable and being notable according to Wikipedia's criteria is an important one that often seems to fall through the cracks and which is probably to blame for a lot of acrimony in discussions about what should and what should not be covered by a Wikipedia article. So it is important to keep these kinds of things separate. Random person no 362478479 (talk) 15:10, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The second concerns the section on Hateful views. While I think that I understand what you are going for the section is rather opaque and the connection to the topic of fringe theories is not made clear. Random person no 362478479 (talk) 15:14, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The third point has already been brought up in the FTN and VP discussions: without any examples -- be it Wikipedia articles or outside examples -- it is not really clear what the impetus of the essay is. You clearly intend more than just a verbose exposition of WP:FRINGE. But the essay does not really make clear what you're aiming for. Do you believe that there are problems with WP:FRINGE? If so, what? Do you believe that there are problems with how it is being applied? If so, where (i.e. is it a Wikipedia wide problem or does it only affect certain areas or specific articles) and how? I realise that using examples, especially if they are taken from Wikipedia, will be a cause for controversy and acrimony, but without them I don't expect this essay to have much if any impact. Random person no 362478479 (talk) 15:23, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another point is that it doesn't seem to be controversial that fringe views should get there due weight. The issue is how much weight is due. You may want to focus more on that question. Random person no 362478479 (talk) 15:27, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A point that you address, but that deserves more weight (probably it's own essay), is the fact that there are important differences between the issues that get lumped together as "fringe". Obsolete theories, fringe theories, pseudoscience, minority views and alternative theories in fields without firm established scientific consensus tend to get thrown together and -- highly problematically -- treated as pseudoscience. Another issue that there is an enormous difference between fringe theories in different fields (being fringe in physics and being fringe in history are very different). And of course motivation has to be taken into account: is it fraud for financial, political, or ideological reasons or is it a scientist who honestly and seriously looks at the evidence and just sees something else? Random person no 362478479 (talk) 15:38, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On a lighter note, do you know Tim Minchin's Storm[1]? Random person no 362478479 (talk) 15:40, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Never heard of it, or him, but thanks for the introduction. I'll take all these points into consideration. Sennalen (talk) 15:52, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]