User talk:HatlessAtlas/fringe rework

A quick note on the discussion of this document guideline

When drafting this guideline, lets try to keep examples to well-settled historical situations, rather than try to use this to resolve disputes currently going on. 199.209.144.40 (talk) 17:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fringe theories are not scientific

The first sentence is wrong. Fringe theories can be found in a lot of academic disciplines, not just science. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. HatlessAtless (talk) 23:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Made a whole lotta changes

I fixed wording and added some points where I thought problems may be arising. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, your generalization of this is appreciated. Any comment on what you actually think of the guideline proposal?HatlessAtless (talk) 23:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My rationale for this draft guideline

I created it to address what I see as some aspects of the way this guideline is built that prevent it from being a useful barrier to editors who are using fringe pages to POV-push. I have preserved much of the material in the existing guideline, but I have made it more internally consistent and presented it as a specific reading of wikipedia policy in terms of fringe theory rather than as a set of specific guidance points that are obviously hindsight solutions to edit wars. In particular, I have done the following:

The extant guideline harps on quality measurements of primary sources. This puts editors in the bad position of having to evaluate "peer reviewed journals" for validity, which is beyond the expertise of most wikipedia editors. This doesn't help anyone. I have recast this guideline to be more in line with the core policy WP:NOR, in particular, the part where it explicitly states Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources..

The extant guideline approaches different topics at different points with different degrees of emphasis. This opens the guideline up to argument and wikilawyering since the different emphasis can create apparent conflicts of priority within the guideline sections. I have rebuilt the guideline to say much the same thing as it had, but maintain the same tone within the guideline, so as to eliminate any aparrent conflicts.

The extant guideline reads as an admonition to editors pointed to this page. While that is exactly what the page should be, this guideline will be more effective and more useful if that is not what this page sounds like. I have corrected this by maintaining an even handed tone throughout the draft guideline. While it is intended to have the same intended effect, maintaining an evenhanded tone should be more successful.

The extant guideline does not have a coherent thesis. While NPOV is invoked initially, most of the guideline deals with NOR, RS, and NOTABILITY. I have rebuilt the introduction to provide a clear thesis, as well as provided clear scope and parameters for the guideline.

The extant guideline does not give editors a useful heads up as to the what they can expect to encounter. I have made the introduction spell out clearly what editors can expect.

The structure of the proposed guideline provides editors a clear and useful way of guiding tendentious editors to this page. It allows an editor or administrator to point to a specific policy, and then explain exactly how and why the TE is violating that policy in terms of the guidance provided here. By being careful with internal consistency, there is less recourse to other sections of the same policy to conflict with such an admonition.

Please tell me what you think, provide comments, make suggested changes to the draft on my userpage, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HatlessAtlas (talk • contribs) 02:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]