User talk:Valjean/Wikipedia sides with facts and RS

This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.

Workshop

Pinging:

• Doug Weller
• Shibbolethink
• Susan Gerbic
• Soibangla

Please ping others so they get added to this list. -- Valjean (talk) 15:49, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

• Alexbrn
• WhatamIdoing
• ProcrastinatingReader
• Colin

Adding users who I think A) will be very helpful in something like this as level-headed and experienced editors in rewriting and amending policy and B) who I think would like to be involved. But if any of you feel you would like to avoid this altogether, feel free to remove yourselves :) — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:48, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

WikiProject Countering Fringe Theories?

Copied from Doug Weller's talk page.

Hi Doug. We have Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism (which, even though I sympathize, I have never joined), but do we have anything like a Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering Fringe Theories? I feel we need something along those lines. Currently, we document fringe ideas, pseudoscience, conspiracy theories, misinformation, disinformation, and such like, and that's all good, but we need to actually counteract the effects of such things because RS also do that.

While we don't have literal disclaimers (now that Wikipedia is mature and a dominant voice in the world, I believe we should have them), we should have notifications (BS alerts) where BS is mentioned, sort of like how Facebook and Twitter have been forced to deal with misinformation. We should do the same for the most egregious and dangerous types. It's not enough to just document that BS exists. We don't censor misinformation, but we should "hand out a condom" whenever it's mentioned. I believe we have a duty to do this, and that it can be done in ways that don't violate NPOV. A Wikiproject might be the best place to hammer this out. -- Valjean (talk) 15:32, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Would WP:FTN not be useful for this? I agree that something useful like Article Alerts would be beneficial, and afaik those are only on wikiprojects. Perhaps we just need to be better at putting the WP: skepticism banner on more and wider articles so they wind up on more user watchlists? Or create a task force on that wikiproject with subsection article alerts? I personally agree with your sentiment 5000%, but I think any attempt at creating another wikiproject specifically about this would be countered by a large segment of the community. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:36, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Whatever works best. I feel the noticeboard isn't the right place, but is obviously a very relevant tool for dealing with fires that need to be put out. What we need is the creation of policies, additions to existing policies, creation of templates, notifications, and disclaimers. -- Valjean (talk) 15:39, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

History lessons

I have deliberately steered clear of the efforts of Susan Gerbic, as I saw that as a potentially dangerous project, and now she's in hot water. I sympathize with some of her goals, but the approach was wrong for how we work here. Wikipedia does not treat activists very nicely, and off-wiki coordination, and even on-wiki coordination, is fraught with perils. Therefore, we need to get this into policies that are approved by the community. With that as our backing, we can seek to counter the effects of dangerous fringe views without it being seen as lone activists who are tilting at windmills and attempting to RGW. I suspect Susan will find this project is aligned with her goals here. -- Valjean (talk) 16:12, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Because of the history of persecution endured by skeptics here, I believe everything should be done tactfully and openly, but without any fanfare, promotion, or waving of flags about "the superiority of scientific skepticism" and the "evils of fringe ideas." Low key efforts are best. Canvassing should be avoided in potentially touchy situations. What I'm proposing is, policy-wise, cutting edge activism, and you know what they say about "cutting edge"....you're on the wrong side of the blade. Here your own actions (no matter how legitimate) will be used to draw and quarter you in ArbCom kangaroo trials, and that's no fun. Been there, done that. We have lost some good editors to this persecution. Activism at Wikipedia should be avoided. There should be other, policy-based, reasons for what we do, and I think it can be done. Think outside the box.

Do RS document efforts to counteract dangerous fringe ideas? Yes. Do notable websites and social media actively warn against fringe ideas? Yes, they do. Wikipedia is no longer an amateurish, volunteer, project in its infancy. It is a major force in the world. It has grown up and should take a leadership role in using facts to counteract dangerous nonsense. There is a real battle in the real world over truth and error, and RS document this battle. Wikipedia should not pretend it isn't part of this battle. Wikipedia IS knowledge. Wikipedia IS facts. Like it or not, Wikipedia is involved, even if some here pretend it isn't, or shouldn't be, involved. It is time for us to drop our hesitancy about using disclaimers. Wikipedia should not be cowering in the shadows, but take control and responsibility for the influence it wields by having disclaimers that are better than those used elsewhere.

For all these reasons, I do NOT think it's a good idea to create a project with the title I mention above. Some other wording should be used. -- Valjean (talk) 16:57, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is no longer an amateurish, volunteer, project in its infancy. It is a major force in the world. It has grown up and should take a leadership role in using facts to counteract dangerous nonsense" and Wikipedia is actually surprisingly good at this role! Doesn't mean there isn't always room for improvement :) — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:16, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Totally agree. I'm seeking input on where we can improve, so this brainstorming is good. -- Valjean (talk) 17:48, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Agree with not creating a project. Count me in on occasional brainstorming; can also sometimes help with template function brainstorming, design, or implementation, if it comes to it. Can you maybe create a scoping section somewhere, defining what you wish to include, and what is beyond the scope? That would help set expectations. Mathglot (talk) 23:29, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Mathglot. I have retitled a section below for scope. I've also taken a stab at templates on the page itself. I'm a pure amateur at that. Feel free to try your hand at developing informational and warning templates, banners, etc. The scope of templates, their name, appearance, wording, and wikilinks are what we need to be develop.

We should stick to truly serious problem areas (that 95% of good editors can get behind), not minor stuff. This stuff should be "snow keep" unassailable in an AfD or TfD. When I say "serious", I mean life-threatening, societal disruption, etc. We aren't dealing with anything like differences of opinion within RS, such as the normal scuffles within scientific circles. We're dealing with rock-solid conflicts between solid facts and scientific evidence versus lies, misinformation, disinformation, pseudoscience, scams, etc. -- Valjean (talk) 00:04, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

What areas are not covered adequately by existing policies?

I applaud this as a very good idea, and think many editors will agree. A good first step, In my opinion, would be to A) identify which areas of the project are sorely lacking defined policy, and B) which edits/overhauls would most likely be amenable to community consensus. Here's a running list in my humble opinion, feel free to edit mine to make them more concise/targeted or broad/applicable and/or add your own at will. And perhaps the best thing we can do is have participants in this lil project add their view/criticism/agreement to each mini-proposal, as withe the recent RFA revisions. It will help us come to a consensus on which of these is most in need of attention, and what to do about it. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:41, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:PARITY

WP:PARITY is a good guideline, but it fails to be applied correctly in many cases. I feel the site would benefit from more templates, user warnings, and talk page notices related to PARITY, but also from a rewrite/forking of PARITY to differentiate between denying recognition of unreliable fringe-published sources on the one hand and not overly requiring hyper-good HQRSes for low-quality content spaces on the other. These are two distinct concepts that are, in my opinion, erroneously wrapped up together in this guideline subsection. I think it confuses people.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:46, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

"FRINGE" notifications and BS-asymmetry

I agree with Valjean that there is a problem on this site related to notification/watching of FRINGE articles. Part of the issue is that FRINGE-y editors add more and more obscure articles and sourcing faster than most pro-encyclopedic editors can observe and critique/PROD/AfD/NPOV edit these articles as necessary. They also can add BS-y content to existing contentious articles faster than pro-encyclopedic editors can take it down. In some places, we are quite good at this, in other places we are not. This is quite similar to Brandolini's law of bullshit asymmetry. FRINGE-y editors may always be more dedicated to their FRINGE belief than pro-encyclopedic editors are dedicated to removing/contextualizing/NPOV-ifying such content. One solution is to provide a way for more article alerts and auto-watching in the FRINGE space. Below are some possible mechanisms to enact that, off the top of my head... — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:59, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Add an article-alerts type thing to WP:FTN

WikiProjects have Article Alerts which tell you about AfDs, AfCs, DYKs, RfCs, etc related to the project. What if we could have an Article Alerts for articles which are heavily referenced at WP:FTN? Would this help? Articles would have to be manually added to it in all likelihood, but there could also be auto-additions based on Talk page banners such as Template:WikiProject Skepticism, Template:WikiProject Alternative medicine, Category:Conspiracy theories, Template:Ds/talk notice (acu, ps, etc.), Template:Arbitration ruling on pseudoscience, etc. Automatically adding any page which has these things on it to a list. So I would characterize this proposal as "semi-automated." — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:07, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Statement from Alexbrn

• I have to say I'm a bit sniffy about GSoW. I mean, all power to debunking psychics and ghosthunters and wotnot, but for "fringe" on Wikipedia there are much bigger fish to fry – basically ensuring Wikipedia isn't a source of serious/damaging misinformation from articles which are viewed hundreds or thousands of times per day ... my primary interest is fringe medicine. Personally, I'm also a bit sniffy too about the whole Skeptic™ scene. I mean, scepticism is good and a necessary aspect of a rational approach to life but the whole identify-as-a-skeptic thing often seems to devolve into irrational obnoxiousness (Dawkins and Shermer don't help). I've stopped calling myself a "skeptic".

• I'd be nervous about organizing as a ANTIFRINGE group partly for this reason, but also because such a group would make a nice identifiable target for attack too. One of the strengths of Wikipedia is that editors pushing back against pseudo/woo are a varied lot, with slightly different takes and approaches but consensus where it matters. One of the strengths is that "we" don't organize and play with a straight bat.

• Personally, I too think WP:FT/N is the right place to raise problem fringe content on Wikipedia. It's not a "club" of skeptics (indeed the page has followers of many varied and strange opinions), it's not even a WikiProject, but a Noticeboard tied to WP:FRINGE which in turn is rooted in the core policy of WP:NPOV. This gives it strength and legitimacy. I do however add relevant article to WikiProject Skepticism so that alerts about activity on them can be seen at Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism/Article alerts. Alexbrn (talk) 17:07, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Agreed, there is a tendency for edits and editors in this space to become pedantic, opinionated, POV in reverse, etc. It's an undeniable trait of skepticism in general, and recognizing it in the movement and in oneself I think is very important, and often neglected. Especially in a place like Wikipedia where NPOV is paramount.
    I don't think it actually needs to be a cohesive ANTIFRINGE thing—more, an effort to improve the coverage of FRINGE ideas. ANTIFRINGE is definitely not the look anyone would want. I very specifically say "pro-encyclopedic" instead of ANTIFRINGE. I think every effort should be made to make these mechanisms decentralized and difficult to pin down, such as "every editor who has WP:FTN on their watch list" We can also make mechanisms proposed here be decentralized in a similar way, such as Article Alerts which are not a thing you can easily figure out or track down if you are a brand new SPA or Anonymous IP coming here after being canvassed on some twitter thread, for example.
    And yes, such a thing could be used by PRO-FRINGE editors, that is the downside of decentralized solutions. But one benefit is the other side of the coin of the BS asymmetry principle: pro-encyclopedic editors tend to be pro-encyclopedic editing in most FRINGE spaces, where pro-FRINGE editors tend to be pro-their own corner of FRINGE, and ignore most other things. Is there a lot of overlap? Yes, but I don't think there's any association between people who believe in JFK assassination conspiracy theories and people who believe in Rudolf Steiner's BS, for example. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:12, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Exactly. That's my point in the "History lessons" section above. Skeptics have tendencies that are self-defeating. We need a different approach toward reaching the same goals of informing and protecting the public. Counteracting BS is part of that, but going after individuals is often a time sink and counterproductive, especially in the legal realm. Wikipedia's "discuss content, not editors" is a good principle to follow. Continue to propose ideas and solutions here. -- Valjean (talk) 17:52, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I think this means that we should concentrate on guideline development rather than a central project. That way, no matter whether it's at FTN or an article, we refer to a guideline and use templates that are approved by the community. -- Valjean (talk) 18:10, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes I think this is a good idea. More universal and nimble without issues of doxxing. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 02:51, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

That is a very real concern I've had to deal with. When I started on the internet and on Wikipedia, I was naive enough to believe that openness and honesty were always the best policy. Well....openness gets exploited. There are nasty people, even here. -- Valjean (talk) 06:13, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, no I still get threatening messages on this site and on Reddit and via Email on a regular basis. Yesterday some rando told me that I and all the other virologists were helping to perpetrate the largest genocide since the Armenian. And that, if they got the chance to, they would happily spit in my face IRL. I think it's a symptom of anonymity. But, on the whole, I think the benefits of being in the open outweigh the costs. Perhaps the only tangible cost is that I spent time installing a security system in my house after somebody threatened to show up and "show me what real Americans do to Chinese sympathizers." But also a really fun project to make my own custom security system, lol. On some level, it also shows that what one is doing is actually have an effect of some kind. All in all, definitely a personal calculus that is ever-evolving. And I think anything we can do to reduce the level of harassment incurred by NPOV-advocates is a good thing. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 02:54, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I started my Wikipedia career with all openness and laughed when my employer got weird letter in green ink. But recently there have been some nasty death-threaty comments and it's easy to work out where I (and my family) live if the breadcrumbs are followed - so I've made an effort to have my "real life" identifying stuff on WP removed. It has to be said, some people in the profringe space are (seriously) problematic. Alexbrn (talk) 17:44, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Guideline development

Guideline development sounds interesting. Where? WPS? FTN? If you've followed WP:RSN#Official policy regarding genetics sources there are some relevant comments, eg [1] "if there are a bunch of people advocating something that is clearly and unambiguously fringe, holding an RFC to establish that it is fringe could help. After that WP:PROFRINGE applies to anyone who is plainly editing to advocate it. This approach was reasonably successful on Fascism and Race and intelligence, which were plagued by people advancing fringe views for a long time. --Aquillion"". Doug Weller talk 09:01, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Aquillion should be here. -- Valjean (talk) 16:48, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, they are very insightful about these things — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 02:57, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

We have policies and guidelines that help us deal with forbidden WP:Advocacy of fringe POV, but not where Wikipedia itself documents views in a way that leaves a lie laying there with no qualifying statement that it's a lie. This happens all the time when we describe the views of people. Here's an example of two approaches for dealing with mentions of fringe ideas:

1. Mollie Hemingway believes the 2020 election was "rigged" by Democrats. (Readers may assume she's right.)
2. Mollie Hemingway believes the debunked and disproven conspiracy theory that the 2020 United States presidential election was "rigged" by Democrats. (Readers are clear she believes BS.)

The latter can be done, but will often be contested by fringe editors (editors who get their ideas from unreliable sources and are uncomfortable with our use of RS, contrary to policy). We need a guideline that literally requires the latter approach when we mention fringe ideas. Lies need to be debunked on-the-spot. As I've written elsewhere here, I'm not talking about minor and disputable things, but rock-solid facts vs lies. -- Valjean (talk) 16:48, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Good idea. For example, I often seen the word "false" removed from "claims about the election". (Not that I edit those articles usually, I just watch them). Doug Weller talk 16:52, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

That's one of the most frequent and dubious edits which exposes a fringe editor. We need a guideline that makes clear that such disclaimers are legitimate, but also that they must be accompanied, like all else, with RS or a wikilink to an article about that subject. My example above does both. A guideline is essential. We need the community behind this.

If we can end up with nothing more than such a guideline, my mission here will be fulfilled. -- Valjean (talk) 16:58, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes I 100% agree this is a major part of the weakness on this site. We need more rock-solidly written PAGs which enforce having the majority RS view in the open, alongside fringe statements. FRINGE statements should never be made in wiki-voice, and should always be contextualized in some way. Not just attributed, but contextualized. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 03:01, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Ooh! I like this: "Not just attributed, but contextualized." Very well put. Make that a requirement for fringe topics. -- Valjean (talk) 03:20, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

We need a guideline that clearly states: A falsehood should not be described without clarifying that it is false, and that applies to all articles. -- Valjean (talk) 17:10, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

yes agreed because right now the way WP:FRINGE is written, it allows some wiggle room in the most obscure content-specific articles, to just attribute these views rather than describe them as patently false. See: WP:ONEWAY and WP:EVALFRINGE. On the other hand, I think WP:FRINGELEVEL actually handles this quite well. But it conflicts with the two aforementioned sections in some subtle ways. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 03:02, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Based on the above, I'll try to sum this up:

Fringe context guideline

Wikipedia is a mainstream, fact-based, encyclopedia. Reliable sources treat mainstream ideas positively and treat fringe ideas negatively, therefore Wikipedia always gives more weight to mainstream ideas, largely because they are usually factual. The corollary is that unreliable sources treat fringe views positively, and Wikipedia does not give those sources or ideas any weight, largely because they are often false.

When dealing with fringe topics and how reliable sources and fact-checkers describe the contradiction between facts and misinformation, between science and pseudoscience, between mainstream and fringe ideas, the description and mention of the fringe view should never be made in wiki-voice, and should always be contextualized in some way. Not just attributed, but contextualized. Contextualization means we never describe a false topic without clarifying that it is false, and that applies to all articles. Readers should never be left in doubt about which view is likely true and which view is likely false.

Feel free to tweak this and add wikilinks to PAG. Also, work on a better name for the guideline. -- Valjean (talk) 06:59, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Shibbolethink, the above is largely based on your wording. It is no doubt TLDR, so needs improvement. -- Valjean (talk) 19:15, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Example of application of guideline

Without contextualization:

• Mollie Hemingway believes the 2020 election was "rigged" by Democrats. (Readers may assume she's right.)

With contextualization:

• Mollie Hemingway believes the debunked and disproven conspiracy theory that the 2020 United States presidential election was "rigged" by Democrats. (Readers are clear she believes BS.)

Valjean (talk) 19:15, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

We make sure that a false claim or belief is labeled false. That's because RS do it. We don't leave readers in doubt and at risk of being deceived. When they leave Wikipedia, they are better informed and know which road to take when they reach that fork in the road. We don't leave any doubt about which road is the right road. -- Valjean (talk) 06:27, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Take a look at your example: the "debunked", "disproven", and "conspiracy theory" redundancy? Linking to big lie with images of Hitler and Goebbels? Just who do you think would be convinced by that ham-fisted polemic? Such contextualization tells me much more about the editors than it does the subject. fiveby(zero) 04:39, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Scope of subjects worthy of attention

Some forms of pseudoscience, extremism and disinformation are so dangerous that we should have prominent warnings/notifications on their articles. Lives are at stake, either from Darwin Awards stupidity or from death threats and actual murder by unhinged activists.

• Vaccine hesitancy is dangerous because public health is not a private matter. Private anti-vax decisions literally kill other people, most often children. Wikipedia must not be neutral on this subject, but should warn against it at all vaccine-related articles and when anti-vax views are mentioned in articles. When describing the anti-vax views of people, we should mention that those views are false.
• COVID-19 misinformation and vaccine hesitancy. One example of how dangerous this is can be seen by how Anthony Fauci's life is complicated by death threats.
• Homeopathy is not innocent or free from harm. It causes people to avoid legitimate treatment that can save their lives.
• Big lie#Trump's false claim of a stolen election is a lie so dangerous that it has led to deaths, threats of violence, insurrection, a destabilization of society, moves favoring civil war, and it threatens free and fair elections.
• Climate change denialism threatens society, national stability, affects refugees, national borders, and life itself.

These articles and subjects are just some of the main ones that need banners and blurbs.

• A falsehood should not be described without clarifying that it is false, and that applies to all articles.

Mollie Hemingway is one article where her BS should be pointed out. That she advocates conspiracy theories should be clarified with sourced mention (even if the source does not mention her) that the theories she believes and pushes are false.

The notifications could be in the form of colored banners at the top of relevant articles and small blurbs to be inserted into sections and sentences, similar to what Facebook and Twitter have done. We need guidelines that specifically address how to do this properly. -- Valjean (talk) 18:05, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Nice idea but I doubt that we could do this. Is there any precedent? Or policy/guideline that would allow it? Doug Weller talk 08:57, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Doug. That's why my emphasis is on creating a clear guideline first. Currently, such additions are sometimes contested, which leaves some mentions of BS uncontested so readers might get the impression they are true. We need to have a guideline that helps prevent this situation. BTW, I have just taken a stab at improving the Mollie Hemingway article. It may need more eyes on it.

See the new section above for Guideline development. -- Valjean (talk) 16:17, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

@Valjean: I see. As you may know, my main interests are pseudoarchaeology and pseudohistory, and I'm trying hard to find time to work on a couple of relevant articles but keep getting distracted. And although I feel well in myself, I have health problems - which I will beat - that may mean I have even less time to edit, see User_talk:DaxServer#lyadante. Doug Weller talk 16:55, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I understand. Life isn't a bed of thorn-free roses. Keep us up-to-date. You have many friends here who admire and respect you. (I have recently finished radiation for prostate cancer and am doing well.) As a health care professional, my main interest has long been quackery, alternative medicine, and pseudoscience, but with Trump's arrival, his threat to national security and democracy has made politics a main focus. Quacks don't pose that kind of threat. -- Valjean (talk) 17:09, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry to hear you've had cancer, glad you're a survivor. Doug Weller talk 17:17, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

When caught early, prostate cancer is easy to beat. It's normally a slowly developing cancer. Now all I need is a twice-yearly PSA test. What are you dealing with? Feel free to email me. -- Valjean (talk) 17:21, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Wow @Valjean and @Doug Weller, I'm glad you're both still here and editing up a storm! Hope you have many good years to come, wiki or not. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 03:07, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Biopsy went smoothly. Results in a couple of weeks. Doug Weller talk 10:18, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

• Hi Valjean — I came across this talk page while reading/editing the article about the Law of Jante. I think it is a mistake to place black box warning labels on articles. From a legal standpoint, it is not clear to me that the FDA would require this of Wikipedia, even though it does require such warnings by pharmaceutical companies on the literature of certain drugs.

On the more general notion of warning labels, I also think it is a mistake to use them. Such labels placed onto articles would give the appearance of advocacy by the organization to right great wrongs. Can you imagine Encyclopædia Britannica having such warning labels. On the gun article, there would be the warning: "Guns Kill. Do Not Use Them."

However, it is smart to bring this issue of “warning labels” to the wider community. I have seen editors coatracking medical warnings onto article leads which I find highly problematic. I hope Wikipedia does not jump the shark on this topic. As journalist Mann stated in that article "Happy Days soldiered on for another seven years after the stunt. The scene meanwhile, became the prime example of a once-loved TV show losing touch with its original appeal." --Guest2625 (talk) 10:00, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

• Hi Guest2625. Thanks for your thoughtful analysis. I appreciate it and sympathize. I don't think we should have something that bold, but I am trying to figure out a less obtrusive middle ground and need advice, like yours, on the best way to do it. Maybe a contextualization statement.

By requiring we use RS and give them more weight than unreliable sources, which have zero weight, Wikipedia does take the side of RS and facts over unreliable sources and patent BS, so I am not proposing anything radical in that regard. What might be seen as different is that I propose we make it plain to all readers and not leave them in doubt about whether a piece of information is actually true or false. We should make that plain by contextualization. It doesn't have to be a strongly colored bar or even use a stop sign, like my beginning attempts elsewhere here. Those are just beginning, but maybe misguided, attempts, so your guidance is appreciated. Please stick around.

Above you'll find this: "FRINGE statements should never be made in wiki-voice, and should always be contextualized in some way. Not just attributed, but contextualized." Shibbolethink. That is the key, and it can be done without violating any existing PAG. To ensure that it doesn't meet any resistance, the idea needs to become an official fringe contextualization guideline (not sure what title to give it). We also have DS alerts on talk pages for specific topics, so Wikipedia does take sides, but only editors see that. We need a modified form of alert that's at the very top of the article page, right above the lead. Take a template and make a trial edit, then view it without saving to get an idea of how it looks. -- Valjean (talk) 16:32, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Example with different colors:

Vaccines are the subject of controversy in the public mind but not among experts. There is an overwhelming scientific consensus that vaccines are generally safe and effective and that the activities of anti-vaccination activists are a danger to public health, especially children. Public health is not a private matter. The World Health Organization characterizes vaccine hesitancy as one of the top ten global health threats.

Vaccines are the subject of controversy in the public mind but not among experts. There is an overwhelming scientific consensus that vaccines are generally safe and effective and that the activities of anti-vaccination activists are a danger to public health, especially children. Public health is not a private matter. The World Health Organization characterizes vaccine hesitancy as one of the top ten global health threats.

Vaccines are the subject of controversy in the public mind but not among experts. There is an overwhelming scientific consensus that vaccines are generally safe and effective and that the activities of anti-vaccination activists are a danger to public health, especially children. Public health is not a private matter. The World Health Organization characterizes vaccine hesitancy as one of the top ten global health threats.

See Web colors for other options. -- Valjean (talk) 17:05, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Trust in the accuracy of the World Health Organization (WHO)

Trust in World Health Organization (WHO) to provide unbiased COVID-19 information independent of members.

These public service banners have not persuaded me to change my mind. They are a form of advocacy, and Wikipedia does not do advocacy. The banners give the impression that Wikipedia has an agenda, and is trying to tell me what to do and think. You are free to use these banners and try to persuade the community to your opinion; however, my sense is that this ad format from 90s does not work. I hope the community agrees, because otherwise tens of thousands of words, which could have been used on articles, will be wasted on this topic. Here are two old headlines from October 22, 2020:

Wikipedia and WHO Collaborate to Provide Better Coronavirus Information[2]

Wikipedia and WHO Join to Combat Covid-19 Misinformation[3]

Look at the two graphs I have provided. These are damaging headlines for Wikipedia’s reputation as any brand manager understands. Why does the Word Health Organization latch on to Wikipedia? We are our own organization – and we have our own mission – that is to be the most reliable, neutral source in the world. Oh.. and to last for centuries as Britannica did – that is until she hit the shoals, because of that unwise decision not to negotiate a licensing deal with Google to be their content provider for the knowledge side panels. I wonder if Google would ever change its search algorithm to prefer Britannica over Wikipedia. Thank God we are free.

Thank you for the invite to participate in this conversation. I am sure there are many more editors at the village pump who would also like to join in. --Guest2625 (talk) 11:09, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Guest2625, thanks for the good explanation of your thinking. There are indeed right and wrong ways to do what I'm proposing. There are two aspects to that: (1) Is it the right thing to do? (2) Is THIS the right way to do it? I'd like to see discussion of these two points. Let's do that in a new section I'll create, not here.

I think you're misunderstanding WP:Advocacy. Advocacy of fringe POV is forbidden but advocacy of facts is what we like. No one gets in trouble for saying that the world is basically round or arguing it is round when confronting some fringe flat earther. The flat earther gets blocked for advocacy of a fringe position, just like a recent user page self-description as a "proud anti-vaxer" got an editor blocked indefinitely. We do not tolerate pushing of BS. We advocate against it and advocate for facts.

Wikipedia already advocates information from RS over misinformation from unreliable sources. Wikipedia's agenda is to provide accurate descriptions of the sum total of human knowledge as found in RS, but never in a manner that advocates the fringe views from unreliable sources. We just describe them as false fringe views. Wikipedia is taking the side of facts over BS. Wikipedia does not take sides in disputes between RS.-- Valjean (talk) 16:47, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Lack of trust in WHO is due to many factors, especially conspiracy theories and disinformation exercises. Doug Weller talk 17:53, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I doubt I have much to contribute to this conversation, but I find the vaccine subject interesting due to elective travel vaccines. If I buy a Hep A vaccine but not a JE vaccine am I anti-vax? JE is really expensive and had relatively low risk of exposure. Maybe this has more general implications for this type of warning label. Incidentally, I just read that the JE vaccine is not authorized for those under 18(in Canada anyway). I think it will be hard to navigate the fr...edge cases with labels like this. But I like the general spirit of the efforts here. SmolBrane (talk) 22:49, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

More to the point—if RSes are divergent, but speak in certainties, are POV forks(and worse) not inevitably emergent? For instance, Joe Rogan said that young people don't need COVID vaccines. Many RSes say this is incorrect, or false, so that's what wikivoice says. Meanwhile, Reuters reports that Sweden has decided against recommending COVID vaccination in ages 5-11, an official quoted as saying “we don't see any clear benefit with vaccinating them”. If this source gets integrated into the COVID in Sweden article, does it not constitute a POV fork? Which article gets the banner? SmolBrane (talk) 18:41, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't think of using banners in such situations. When RS differ, then we document the difference without taking sides. When RS differ with unreliable sources, we take the side of RS. We should only do this for clear cut cases, not minor issues.

Advice about COVID-19 precautionary measures are often compromises that vary from the scientifically ideal situations. That's one reason we keep seeing a resurgence, the ups and downs. Ideally, seen from a scientifically ideal situation, we would have seen total lockdowns until there were no more cases. Literally self-isolation for everyone. Without people moving around, there would have been no further spread and the disease might have died out, but could society and business tolerate such a thing for six months or more? No. Therefore countries and states have adopted their own rules which compromised the situation. States that were GOP denialist in nature, kept everything open and banned all mandate or restriction laws, so COVID-19 spread wildly in those states, and infection spread from those states to others. It's been a horrible situation, where, because this is a new thing, even top authorities were uncertain what was the best course of action, and then they had to change strategies as they learned more. What we're talking about on this page isn't for such things. -- Valjean (talk) 19:43, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

My issue is that RSes are treating Rogan's comments like misinformation, subjecting them to the criteria of and label of vaccine hesitancy, where the Swedish position isn't receiving criticism at all, as far as I can tell. There's a large editorial gap between what you describe as “compromises that vary from the scientifically ideal situations” and “Wikipedia must not be neutral on this subject, but should warn against it at all vaccine-related articles and when anti-vax views are mentioned in articles. When describing the anti-vax views of people, we should mention that those views are false.” If RSes do not differentiate effectively between these views, we will have incoherence between wiki articles. Or wiki will have to take on the weight of editorial interpretation.

No people moving around may have prevented the pandemic but I think it would have been impossible in practice. I doubt that air travel would have ever been shut down and with it operating, endemic spread seemed inevitable to me. China certainly didn't help by delaying their recognition of the outbreak. Ultimately, I think that COVID and climate change are both subject to medical indication, which is hardly ever a binary decision, but this may not be framed this way in RSes. SmolBrane (talk) 15:30, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

With vaccines that are so safe, with extremely few contraindications, and imminent threat of a spreading pandemic, it becomes a public health issue more than a "medical indication" issue. In such instances, it really is a binary decision. In such instances, with the COVID pandemic, when vaccines are FDA approved, and individuals continue to spread misinformation about their safety, then yes. A banner is justified. A label of their misinfo as "false" is justified. Regardless of who is spreading the misinfo. I understand intimately the difficulty with choosing which vaccines to get when traveling, because it involves many more choices and pros/cons weighed. I have experienced this as a traveler and as a medical professional. The choice around the covid vaccine is not this complicated. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:11, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree with you that COVID vaccines are well indicated, but evidently there is enough contraindication for the Swedish decision I describe. I couldn't find precisely why, although I didn't look too hard. Perhaps because they don't reliably prevent transmission, which is a historically critical element of vaccines and their application in low-risk populations. Reuters now reports from the Swedish Health authority that COVID no longer poses a “danger to society.”

Although I think Valjean is right that my objections are more of a primary disease than what's being attempted here. But if we want to say COVID vaccines are well indicated, it should be specified; not all vaccines are indicated in all circumstances. SmolBrane (talk) 16:02, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

SmolBrane, I'm curious about your "not all vaccines are indicated in all circumstances." What vaccines would fall in that class? As with all medications, it comes down to the risk–benefit ratio. Having lived and traveled in Asia from birth until I was nine years old, I have received myriad vaccines (occasionally the same vaccines twice in one day, so, as a result, all in my family have very strong immune systems), and right now I can't think of any current vaccines I would hesitate to get. Refresh my memory of those that might give one pause to use.

I am not referring to the fact that certain people should not get some vaccines because they might suffer severe allergic reactions. That principle applies to all medications. People react differently. -- Valjean (talk) 03:03, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

To make this easier, here is the list of recommended child vaccines:

• Influenza vaccine (annual flu shot)
• Diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis vaccine (DTaP)
• Tetanus, diphtheria and acellular pertussis vaccine (Tdap “booster” for adolescents)
• Poliovirus vaccine (IPV)
• Measles, mumps and rubella vaccine (MMR)
• Varicella vaccine (Chickenpox)
• Pneumococcal vaccine (PCV)
• Haemophilus influenzae type b vaccine (Hib)
• Rotavirus vaccine
• Hepatitis B vaccine (Hep B)
• Hepatitis A vaccine (Hep A)
• Human papillomavirus vaccine (HPV)
• Meningococcal vaccine (MenACWY)
• Meningococcal B (MenB)

BTW, this is my talk page, so don't worry about any FORUM vio. -- Valjean (talk) 03:37, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Dengue vaccine is VERY not recommended without a confirmed prior infection. Rabies vaccine is only recommended for high risk individuals in specific industries, or immediately post-exposure. HPV vaccine is not recommended in people over 27 depending on the jurisdiction. Pfizer vaccine for COVID-19 is not approved for use in children under 5, and they recently delayed their application for this approval by the FDA.

Not sure what you mean about FORUM, there's no content in dispute here as far as I know. And I don't want to cloud your efforts here with the POV issues that are mostly tangential. If I should link to my noticeboard discussion here, please say so. Anyway, the subject here is the 'scope', and if wiki is going to start advising readers in such a general and significant way, it would be useful to create boundaries around this scope, so that the advice doesn't sound like the sky falling. Also, COVID advice is changing and is subject to change; I think something like a 'current event' banner would be better—especially given the lack of maintenance I'm seeing in 'COVID-19 in <country>' articles. Messages like this usually end with something like “please consult your local health authority”, there may be a legal requirement to do so even, but I am a long way from a lawyer. SmolBrane (talk) 03:37, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

What I meant was that FORUM does NOT apply here, IOW I'm giving you free reign to express any advice, thoughts, or concerns. They are much appreciated.

I don't envision use of these templates for borderline cases, areas where policies change, or where there is legitimate scientific debate. They are for clear-cut rejection of solid scientific/medical consensus. They should be worded with that in mind. Does that make more sense to you? -- Valjean (talk) 03:52, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Ahh I misunderstood about FORUM, thanks. I'm still a bit skeptical that this will be applied rigorously, and I worry about the misuse of certainties by RSes, specifically in the COVID area, but I consider my objections heard and I'd have to see how it works in practice. SmolBrane (talk) 04:34, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Scope statement

Feel free to develop a Scope Statement. As we develop things here, we can then transfer a rational and more formal presentation at RS/N or somewhere else and get much more input. We just need to work out the bugs and weaknesses first. We should concentrate on formal guideline development approved by the community rather than a central skeptic project. That way, no matter whether it's at FTN or an article, we can always refer to an approved guideline and use templates that are approved by the community. -- Valjean (talk) 00:14, January 31, 2022‎ (UTC)

Right and wrong way to do this

There are indeed right and wrong ways to do what I'm proposing. There are two aspects to that:

1. Is it the right thing to do?
2. Is THIS the right way to do it?

I'd like to see a discussion of these two points. It's certainly possible to do the right thing in the wrong way, in which case one should not throw the baby out with the bathwater. -- Valjean (talk) 16:50, 5 February 2022 (UTC)