On 10/08/07, Andre Engels <andreengels(a)gmail.com> wrote:
2007/8/10, Yury Tarasievich
<yury.tarasievich(a)gmail.com>om>:
> I was rather asking about whether the oft-encountered attitude of
> "this author represents a side-taking-group which is "wrong" to
quote
> in context of this article and so should not be included" is
> justifiable by the Five Pillars of Gods?
...
I think it is justifiable, yes. The alternative would
be to give every
fringe theory 'equal representation' on Wikipedia. The only
...
I wasn't talking about fringe (freakish) theories here, and anyway I
see no definition of fringe theory on en:wp.
What's troubling me now is that what you say seems to me
likecontradicting the following pieces in the WP:OR:
* The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.
* In many cases, there are multiple established views of any given
topic. In such cases, no single position, no matter how well
researched, is authoritative. It is not the responsibility of any one
editor to research all points of view. But when incorporating research
into an article, it is important that editors provide context for this
point of view, by indicating how prevalent the position is, and
whether it is held by a majority or minority.
---