Slim ownership of WP:V Options

[papaya]

After a loooong, drawn out compromise session, Blueboar comes up with a new formula to blunt the "not truth" dumb line, so when the discussion dies down and someone moves to close the discussion a few days early, SV seizes the opportunity to turn the whole thing on its head and attempt to force the whole process to start over.

[Detective]

I'm not one to give WP the benefit of the doubt, but there is something to be said in favour of giving all sides of the story, provided it is done in a genuinely unbiased way (a big if, of course). If an editor can find genuinely good sources saying something, even if it is rejected by the great majority of other sources, then it would be wrong for something claiming to be the sum of all human knowledge to ignore that. There should be an acknowledgement that "a few authorities say that the sky is usually green[127][129][133], although this view is strongly deprecated by other sources [128][130]".

If, however, something is only asserted by total crackpots, it should be ignored or shunted off somewhere else, e.g. Flat Earthers. I leave others to decide how to deal with Ottava and Communicat.

[iii]

If an editor can find genuinely good sources saying something, even if it is rejected by the great majority of other sources, then it would be wrong for something claiming to be the sum of all human knowledge to ignore that. There should be an acknowledgement that "a few authorities say that the sky is usually green[127][129][133], although this view is strongly deprecated by other sources [128][130]".

If, however, something is only asserted by total crackpots, it should be ignored or shunted off somewhere else, e.g. Flat Earthers.

And by what metric do you propose to determine that the Green Skiers are authorities while the Flat Earthers are crackpots?

The "sum of all human knowledge" is a worthless canard. Wikipedia functions as a first-stop-spot for research for many who are unaware of its limitations. Those that realize that, including educators, PR-representatives, image consultants, and other propagandists of various stripes, will forever be removing "knowledge" from Wikipedia regardless of the authoritativeness of the silliness-purveyor until or unless Wikipedia shuts down its editing functionality.

[Detective]

If an editor can find genuinely good sources saying something, even if it is rejected by the great majority of other sources, then it would be wrong for something claiming to be the sum of all human knowledge to ignore that. There should be an acknowledgement that "a few authorities say that the sky is usually green[127][129][133], although this view is strongly deprecated by other sources [128][130]".

If, however, something is only asserted by total crackpots, it should be ignored or shunted off somewhere else, e.g. Flat Earthers.

And by what metric do you propose to determine that the Green Skiers are authorities while the Flat Earthers are crackpots?

I have already answered that. "If an editor can find genuinely good sources saying something", e.g. (hypothetically) that the sky is green, that is my metric. I concede that then you have the problem of deciding what are genuinely good sources, which is very difficult without expert knowledge. It is a fundamental problem with the WP model that expertise is ignored, even deprecated. Still, I think that we'd all agree that if something is stated in a reputable peer-reviewed journal, or a book published by the press of a leading university, it must have some credibility.

[iii]

Precisely; but it gets worse. Flagrant disregard for the key principle of NPOV also reflects a severely retarded intellectual capacity, and a chronic inability to rise above a Dark Age mentality. Wikipedians can learn a lot from modern quantum physics. The behaviour of light, for example, can be explained either in terms of the movement of waves or the movement of particles. Both explanations are equally valid and they are not mutually exclusive. In short, a neutral explanation of what constitutes light is that it consists simultaneously of both waves and particles, and an either/or position and outcome depends essentially on the presence of an observer.

Of course it's a bit more complicated than that, but the theory still serves as a useful analogy for an understanding of what NPOV should properly be. (In Eastern mysticism, sages of ancient times had already recognised the same basic principle of quantum theory, which they referred to as "yin-yan", a fundament of the proto-scientific religion Taoism).

Spare me such mumbo-jumbo. Both the wave and the particle theories are wrong. The prescription that accords with the data is that of the waveparticle. An appropriate encyclopedic approach would be to exclude the views of both the wave-ists and the particle-ists and not accommodate incorrectness.

I concede that then you have the problem of deciding what are genuinely good sources, which is very difficult without expert knowledge. It is a fundamental problem with the WP model that expertise is ignored, even deprecated. Still, I think that we'd all agree that if something is stated in a reputable peer-reviewed journal, or a book published by the press of a leading university, it must have some credibility.

"Good sources", "reputable peer-reviewed journals", and the "press of a leading university" are the stuff of protracted and pointless arguments on Wikipedia. The mouth-breathers who usually end up winning these arguments tend to be the obsessives with enough time on their hands to wear down the patience of their opponents. That's how Wikipedia works.