NPOV and credibility (was Re: [WikiEN-l] Original research)

Fri Dec 10 09:38:27 UTC 2004

Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote:

>Mark Richards wrote:
>  
>
>>This becomes more and more difficult in controversial subjects, like
>>water floridization (sp?) for example, or ESP. Who are the 'experts'
>>on the subject?
>>
It's "fluoridation".

>I don't really see what the difficulty is.  I'm not trying to be dense
>here, but to me this is quite simple.
>
>Our current article on Extra-Sensory Perception, for example, is quite
>bad.  And the reason is precisely the lack of _credible_ sources.
>These exist, but the current article appears to be written by people
>who would prefer for these not to be named.
>
I agree that that article is dreadful.  To begin with it is sprinkled 
throughout with with words like "supposed" or "alleged" which if 
repeated tend to bias the commentary, and certainly detract from the 
flow of the text.  Expressions  like "ESP's critics, a group that 
includes most mainstream scientists," is a gratuitous reference to the 
authority of scientists.  I think that it would be closer to the truth 
to say that most scientists have never paid any serious attention to 
ESP, so that the basis which that majority criticizes ESP is its own 
lack of knowledge.  That to me is not very reassuring.  Many articles 
would be much better if the science lobby started to show some 
restraint.  A single well-written paragraph can more than adequately 
represent the views of the detractors.  Trying to debunk concepts that 
have never been proven, with equally questionable data only makes for an 
article full of sniping.   The average reader does not choose to read 
the article to watch the sniping.

Credible sources for both sides of this argument are available, and it 
would be nice if they were chosen in a context of mutual respect..

Ec