The Fairy-Tale Cult of Wikipedia
by Henry H. Bauer

Wikipedia is inherently a non-innovative reference work: it stifles creativity and free-thought. If Wikipedia had been around at the time of Galileo, his ideas would have been subject to my incisive commentary and editorial braggadocio — even if I agreed with him. I am a status quo promoter.

I act to mitigate, redesign, and occasionally destroy the offerings of users who think that a particular 'breakthrough' or 'notable idea' deserves more consideration than it has gotten in the academic world. Such grandstanding is forbidden by a variety of Wikipedia policies and guidelines (WP:V, WP:SOAP, WP:NOR, WP:FRINGE, WP:WEIGHT, WP:NOT, and WP:REDFLAG to name just a few).

• “Reliable sources* — This page documents an English Wikipedia content guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page.”
  One notices that this does not erase the original rub, given the failure, indeed the impossibility, of defining, "generally accepted", "common sense", and "consensus", even without the "occasional exceptions".
   

• WP:SOAP*: “Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising”
  — but ScienceApologist and HIV/AIDS vigilantes and untold others have used it and continue to use it precisely as soapbox and battleground, and Wikipedia's supposed means of resolving disputes have not put a stop to that.
   
• WP:NOR*: “Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses or to publish new information”
  — but the mainstream-defending dogmatists are precisely publishing their own thoughts and analyses; and it is not obvious what "new" information is supposed to be excluded. What if it's from "reliable sources"?
   
• WP:FRINGE*: “In order to be notable enough to appear in Wikipedia, an idea should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory. Even debunking or disparaging references are adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents.”
  — note first that a judgment is already implicit in the heading "Fringe", and then of course there are the host of following imprecisions ("extensively", "serious", "major", "notable", "independent"). Worse perhaps is the apparent allowing of "debunking or disparaging", as though adherents of a "fringe" matter ought to be honored to mentioned at all in Wikipedia.
  “Coverage on Wikipedia should not make a fringe theory appear more notable than it actually is.[1] Since Wikipedia describes significant opinions in its articles, with representation in proportion to their prominence,[2] it is important that Wikipedia itself does not become the validating source for non-significant subjects”
  — as though Wikipedia could or should ever be regarded as a "validating source"! Printed encyclopedias carried a certain imprimatur because the publisher's reputation — and therefore livelihood — hinged on the validity of its entries, and often the individuals responsible for those entries were identified or identifiable. In Wikipedia, we have anonymous and pseudonymous contributors and editors, whose penchant for denigrating the views of others is evident on any matter where differing views on a particular subject exist.
   
• WP:WEIGHT*: “Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more widely held views; generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority. In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, the views may receive more attention and space. However, such pages should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite content strictly from the perspective of the minority view.”
  — This of course underscores ScienceApologist's declared ambition to keep out of Wikipedia even ideas like Galileo's that turned out to be correct and that overturned an incorrect majority view.
   
• WP:NOT*: specifies all the things that "Wikipedia is not" — even as many entries illustrate that in practice it is, for example, a soapbox and battleground.
   
• WP:REDFLAG**: “Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim:
  – surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources;
  –reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended;
  – claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or which would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living persons. This is especially true when proponents consider that there is a conspiracy to silence them. Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality sources.[5] If such sources are not available, the material should not be included. Also be sure to adhere to other policies, such as the policy for biographies of living persons and the undue weight provision of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.”
  — That last policy, principle, or guideline is perhaps the only one that actually needs to be cited, to show what Wikipedia really is (a fairy-tale cult) and is not (an objective, reliable source):
   
• “Neutral point of view (NPOV)* is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors.”
  — Right. Anonymous and pseudonymous contributors all have neutral points of view. Their strong motivation to contribute is a natural corollary of possessing a neutral point of view on all matters significant ("notable") enough to be in Wikipedia. Non-negotiable!