[WikiEN-l] NPOV and 'new physics'

Fri Sep 26 20:59:27 UTC 2003

Jimmy Wales wrote:

>Geoff Burling wrote:
>
>>I'm wondering if the proper crieria for inclusion/exclusion is the
>>fact that any theory, beit mainstream, minority or other, is whether
>>or not it is available in print.
>>
>
>I think that's a very valid way to look at it, yes, absolutely.  
>
It's still only one of several possible criteria to consider.

>>I'm sorry, but a post to Usenet or a statement on a webpage just isn't
>>convincing enough for little old me.
>>
>
>That's right, although I can imagine some hypertechnical sticklers
>abusing this notion.  Some facts can be found more or less only
>online, particular facts about contemporary Internet culture.  Who
>is the current maintainer of BIND?  Probably that isn't in a book, but
>it's an uncontroversial fact that could be looked up online.
>
It too is another fact to be considered.

There will always be borderline cases.  In cases of doubt and 
uncertainty, I would give the benefit of the doubt to inclusion.  If the 
science is really that bad, it will still have value as comic relief.

Ec