Usuario:Balderai/Fringe Theories

Even demonstrably incorrect assertions and fringe theories like the Face on Mars can merit inclusion in an encyclopedia - as notable popular phenomena.
Aún aquellas afirmaciones que pueden demostrarse incorrectas y las teorías marginales como la Cara de Marte pueden ameritar su inclusión en Wikipedia - como fenómenos populares notables.

Wikipedia maintains a non-negotiable principle of neutral point of view in which all significant views are represented fairly and without bias, with representation in proportion to their prominence.​ In this context, this page offers guidance on establishing which fringe theories and opinion should be included in Wikipedia, and to a certain extent how those articles should approach their subjects.​

En Wikipedia existe el principio no negociable de mantener un punto de vista neutral, según el cual todos los puntos de vista son presentados adecuadamente y sin sesgos, representados en forma proporcional a su prominencia. Esta página ofrece, enmarcada en ese contexto, una guía para establecer cuales opiniones y teorías marginales deben ser incluídas en Wikipedia y, hasta cierto punto, cuál debe ser el enfoque con el que se debe tratar a los sujetos de dichos artículos.

An appearance on Wikipedia should not make something more notable than it actually is. Since Wikipedia describes in its articles significant opinions, it is important that Wikipedia itself does not become the significance-validating source for non-significant theories. If another well-known, reliable, and verifiable source discusses the theory first, Wikipedia is no longer the primary witness to such claims. Furthermore, one may not be able to write about a subject in a neutral manner if the subject completely lacks secondary sources that are reliable.

La inclusión de un tema en Wikipedia no debe hacer al tema más relevante de lo que realmente es. Ya que la Wikipedia describe opiniones relevantes en sus artículos, es importante que la propia Wikipedia no se convierta en la fuente validadora de relevancia de teorías no relevantes. Si alguna otra fuente conocida, confiable y verificable discute antes una teoría, la Wikipedia deja de ser el fedatario principal de tales afirmaciones. Además, podríamos ser incapaces de escribir sobre un tema en forma neutral si el tema carece por completo de fuentes secundarias confiables.

Identifying fringe theories

Cómo identificar teorías marginales

We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular en:field of study.​ Examples include conspiracy theories, ideas which purport to be scientific theories but have not gained en:scientific consensus, esoteric claims about medicine, novel re-interpretations of history and so forth. Some of the theories addressed here may in a stricter sense be hypotheses, en:conjectures, or en:speculations.

En esta guía usamos el término teoría marginal para describir en un sentido amplio aquellas ideas que se apartan significativamente del punto de vista preponderante en su campo de estudio particular. [...] Ejemplos de estas ideas serían las teorías conspiratorias, ideas que pretenden ser teorías científicas sin haber alcanzado el consenso científico, afirmaciones esotéricas sobre la medicina, reinterpretaciones novedosas de la historía y demás. Algunas de las teorías mencionadas aquí podrían considerarse, en un sentido más estricto, como hipótesis, conjeturas o especulaciones.

In order to be notable, a fringe theory 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. References that are brought about because of the notability of a related subject — such as the creator of the theory, and not the theory itself — should be given far less weight when deciding on notability. Due consideration should be given to the fact that reputable news sources often cover less than strictly notable topics in a lighthearted fashion, such as on en:April Fool's Day, as "en:News of the Weird" or during "slow news days". (See junk food news, silly season, komkommertijd.)

Para ser relevante, una teoría marginal debe haber sido referida en forma seria y extensiva por al menos una publicación importante o por un individuo o grupo destacado que sea independiente de la teoría. Las referencias son adecuadas incluso si desaprueban o demeritan la teoría, ya que establecen su relevancia mas allá de su grupo de defensores. Tendrán menor valor para determinar la relevancia aquellas referencias que establecen la relevancia de un tópico relacionado con la teoría (por ejemplo, del autor de la teoría en lugar de la teoría misma). Se deberá considerar el hecho de que las fuentes noticiosas confiables ocasionalmente cubren tópicos no estrictamente relevantes en forma humorística, tal como sucede en el Día de los Inocentes. [...]

Theories should receive attention in Wikipedia in proportion to the level of detail in the sources from which the article is written. For example, if the only references to a particular theory are in news sources, then a level of detail which is greater than that which appears in these news sources is inappropriate, as it would constitute original research. en:WP:NOR strongly encourages the collection and organization of information from existing secondary sources, and allows for careful use of primary sources in addition to these; such information is not "original research", but "source-based research", and is essential to writing an encyclopedia.

Las teorías deben recibir una cobertura en Wikipedia que sea proporcional al nivel de detalle con el que son discutidas en las fuentes del artículo. Por ejemplo, si las únicas referencias a una teoría particular son tomadas de fuentes noticiosas, entonces es inapropiado dedicar un nivel de detalle mayor al que aparece en dichas fuentes, pues esto constituiría investigación original. En WP:NFP se recomienda la recolección y organización de la información existente en fuentes secundarias y permite el uso cuidadoso de fuentes primarias como complemento de aquellas; la información obtenida de esta forma no constituye "investigación original", sino "investigación basada en fuentes", que es esencial en la redacción de una enciclopedia.

Unwarranted promotion of fringe theories

Proponents of fringe theories have in the past used Wikipedia as a forum for promoting their ideas. Existing policies discourage this type of behavior: if the only statements about a fringe theory come from the inventor of that theory, then various "What Wikipedia is not" rules come into play. Wikipedia is neither a publisher of original thought nor a soapbox for self-promotion and advertising. The notability of a fringe theory must be judged by statements from verifiable and reliable sources, not the proclamations of its adherents. Attempts by such inventors and adherents to artificially inflate the perceived renown of their fringe theories, such as sock puppetry in AfD discussions, should be firmly discouraged, though always in a civil manner. Efforts of fringe-theory inventors to en:shill on behalf of their theories, such as duplicitously offering self-published books for sale under the guise of "references", are unacceptable; as previously stated, Wikipedia is not an advertising venue. (See also Links normally to be avoided, Conflict of interest, Autobiography guidelines.)

Los proponentes de teorías marginales han utilizado a Wikipedia en el pasado como un foro para la promoción de sus ideas. Las políticas existentes previenen contra este tipo de comportamiento: si las únicas menciones de una teoría marginal provienen del autor de dicha teoría, entonces varias reglas sobre "lo que Wikipedia no es" entran en juego. Wikipedia no es un lugar para publicar ideas originales ni una tribuna para la autopromoción o la publicidad. La relevancia de una teoría marginal debe ser juzgada basándose en declaraciones de fuentes verificables y confiables y no en las proclamaciones de los defensores de la teoría. Debe disuadirse de manera firme pero respetuosa a estos autores y defensores de intentar inflar (por ejemplo, mediante el uso de títeres en las consultas de borrado mediante argumentación) el renombre percibido de sus teorías marginales. [...]

The discussion of a fringe theory, positively or negatively, by groups or individuals is not a criterion for notability, even if the latter group or individual is itself notable enough for a Wikipedia article. If a fringe theory meets notability requirements, secondary reliable sources would have commented on it, disparaged it, or discussed it. Otherwise it is not notable enough for Wikipedia.

La discusión positiva o negativa de una teoría marginal por individuos o grupos no es un criterio para valorar su relevancia, aún si estos individuos o grupos son ellos mismos suficientemente relevantes para ameritar un artículo en Wikipedia. Si una teoría marginal cumple los requerimientos de relevancia es porque ha sido comentada, refutada o discutida en fuentes secundarias confiables. De otra forma la teoría no es suficientemente relevante para ser incluida en Wikipedia.

Conjectures that have not received critical review from the scientific community or that have been rejected should be excluded from articles about scientific subjects. However, if the idea is notable in some other way such as coverage in the media, the idea may still be included in articles devoted to the idea itself or non-scientific contexts.

Aquellas conjeturas que no hayan sido objeto de una revisión crítica por la comunidad científica o que hayan sido rechazadas deben ser excluídas de los artículos sobre temas científicos. Sin embargo, si las ideas son relevantes por algún otro aspecto, tal como su cobertura en los medios, entonces dichas ideas aún podrían ser incluídas en artículos dedicados a las ideas mismas o en artículos de contextos no científicos.

Evaluating scientific and non-scientific claims

Evaluación de afirmaciones científicas y no científicas

Notable topics which are primarily non-scientific in nature but which contain claims concerning scientific phenomena should not be treated exclusively as scientific theory and handled on that basis. For example, the Book of Genesis itself should be primarily covered as a work of ancient literature, as part of the Hebrew or Christian Bible, or for its theological significance, rather than as a cosmological theory. On the other hand, subjects such as en:creationism or en:creation science, which involve a direct conflict between scientific discoveries and religious doctrine, should be evaluated on both a scientific and a theological basis.

Aquellos tópicos relevantes que sean de una naturaleza principalmente no científica pero que contengan afirmaciones concernientes a fenómenos científicos no deben ser tratados exclusivamente como teorías científicas. Por ejemplo, el libro del Génesis debe ser tratado principalmente como una obra de literatura antigua, como una parte de la Biblia judaica o cristiana, o por su relevancia teológica en lugar de ser tratado como una teoría cosmológica. Por otra parte, temas como el creacionismo, que involucran un conflicto directo entre los descubrimientos científicos y la doctrina religiosa, deben ser evaluados tanto en su aspecto científico como en el teológico.

Notability versus correctness

Reporting on the levels of acceptance

Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community. If proper attribution cannot be found among reliable sources of an idea's standing, it should be assumed that the idea has not received consideration or acceptance; ideas should not be portrayed as accepted unless such claims can be documented in reliable sources. However, a lack of consideration or acceptance does not necessarily imply rejection either; ideas should not be portrayed as rejected or labeled with pejoratives such as en:pseudoscience unless such claims can be documented in reliable sources.

Los artículos que cubran en detalle ideas controvertidas, disputadas o descartadas deberán documentan con fuentes fiables el nivel actual de aceptación del que gocen entre la comunidad académica relevante. Si no puede encontrarse una valoración del nivel de aceptación de una idea en fuentes confiables, deberá suponerse que la idea no ha sido aceptada o no ha sido suficientemente considerada. Sin embargo, la falta de consideración o de aceptación no implica tampoco un rechazo de la idea; las ideas no deben ser descritas como rechazadas ni etiquetadas con términos peyorativos tales como pseudociencia a menos que tales afirmaciones puedan ser documentadas con fuentes confiables.

Ideas that have been rejected, are widely considered to be absurd or pseudoscientific, only of historical interest, or primarily the realm of en:science fiction, should be documented as such, using reliable sources.

Las ideas que hayan sido rechazadas, que sean ampliamente consideradas como absurdas o pseudocientíficas, que sean únicamente de interés histórico o que pertenezcan principalmente al contexto de la ciencia ficción, deberán ser documentadas como tales usando fuentes confiables.

Ideas that are of borderline or minimal notability may be mentioned in Wikipedia, but should not be given undue weight. Wikipedia is not a forum for presenting new ideas, for countering any en:systemic bias in institutions such as academia, or for otherwise promoting ideas which have failed to merit attention elsewhere. Wikipedia is not a place to right great wrongs. Fringe theories may be excluded from articles about scientific topics when the scientific community has ignored the ideas. However, ideas should not be excluded from the encyclopedia simply because they are widely held to be wrong. By the same token, the purpose of Wikipedia is not to offer originally synthesized prose "debunking" notable ideas which the scientific community may consider to be absurd or unworthy. Criticisms of fringe theories should be reported on relative to the visibility, notability, and reliability of the sources that do the criticizing.

Las ideas que tengan relevancia mínima o marginal pueden ser mencionadas en Wikipedia, pero no debe otorgárseles un valor indebido. La Wikipedia no es un foro para presentar ideas nuevas, para contrarrestar sesgos sistemáticos en instituciones como la academia o para promover de otra forma ideas que no han logrado recibir atención en otro sitio. Wikipedia no es un lugar para corregir grandes injusticias. Las teorías marginales pueden ser excluidas de artículos sobre temas científicos cuando la comunidad científica haya ignorado estas ideas. Sin embargo, las ideas no deben ser excluidas sólo porque preponderantemente se les considere incorrectas. No es el propósito de Wikipedia ofrecer prosa original que refute ideas relevantes que la comunidad científica pueda considerar absurdas o sin valor. Se deberán reportar las críticas de las teorías marginales en una extensión acorde a la visibilidad, relevancia y confiabilidad de las fuentes de donde emanan dichas críticas.

Wikipedia is also not a crystal ball: While currently accepted scientific paradigms may later be rejected, and hypotheses previously held to be controversial or incorrect sometimes become accepted by the scientific community (such as en:plate tectonics), it is not the place of Wikipedia to venture such projections. If the status of a given idea changes, then Wikipedia changes to reflect that change. Wikipedia primarily focuses on the state of knowledge today, documenting the past when appropriate (identifying it as such), and avoiding speculation about the future.

Wikipedia no es una bola de cristal: A pesar de que los paradigmas científicos actualmente aceptados puedan ser rechazados posteriormente, y que hipótesis anteriormente consideradas controvertidas o incorrectas en ocasiones alcancen la aceptación de la comunidad científica (como en el caso de la tectónica de placas), no corresponde a la Wikipedia aventurar predicciones sobre tales cambios. Si el estatus de una idea cambia, entonces Wikipedia cambiará para reflejar ese cambio. El enfoque primario de Wikipedia es documentar el estado del conocimiento en el presente, documentando el pasado (e identificándolo como tal) cuando sea necesario y evitando especular sobre el futuro.

A note about publication

Comentario sobre teorías publicadas

One important bellwether for determining the notability and level of acceptance of fringe ideas related to science, history or other academic pursuits is the presence or absence of en:peer reviewed research on the subject. While a lack of peer-reviewed sources does not automatically mean that the subject should be excluded from Wikipedia, the sources must allow the subject to be covered in sufficient detail without engaging in original research.

Un indicador importante para determinar la relevancia y el nivel de aceptación de las teorías marginales relacionadas con temas científicos, históricos u otros campos académicos es la presencia o ausencia de investigación revisada por pares sobre el tema. Aunque la falta de fuentes sometidas a arbitraje no implica automáticamente que un tópico deba quedar excluido de la Wikipedia, las fuentes deben permitir que el tema sea cubierto en suficiente detalle sin que esto constituya investigación original.

Peer review is an important feature of reliable sources that discuss scientific, historical or other academic ideas, but it is not the same as acceptance. It is important that original hypotheses that have gone through peer review do not get presented in Wikipedia as representing en:scientific consensus or fact. Articles about fringe theories sourced solely from a single primary source (even when it is peer reviewed) may be excluded from Wikipedia on notability grounds.

La revisión por pares es una característica importante de las fuentes fiables que discuten ideas científicas, históricas o de otros campos académicos, pero no es un equivalente de aceptación. Es importante que aquellas hipótesis originales que hayan sido sometidas a arbitraje no sean presentadas en Wikipedia como representativas de hechos o de un consenso científico. Los artículos sobre teorías marginales basados exclusivamente en una única fuente primaria podrían ser excluidos de la Wikipedia, aún cuando la fuente primaria haya sido sometida a arbitraje.

Sourcing and attribution

Wikipedia is meant to be a en:tertiary source of information, summarizing the information gleaned from secondary sources, and in some cases from primary sources. Primary sources about research and investigations should only be used to verify the text and should not be relied upon exclusively as doing so would violate Wikipedia's ban on original research. In the case of obscure fringe theories, secondary sources that describe the theories should be carefully vetted for reliability. This includes references, citations, and external links.

Wikipedia pretende ser una fuente terciaria de información, sumarizando la información obtenida de fuentes secundarias y en algunos casos de fuentes primarias. Las fuentes primarias sobre investigación únicamente deben usarse para verificar el texto y no debe dependerse exclusivamente de ellas, pues hacerlo violaría la prohibición de Wikipedia acerca de incluir investigación original. En el caso de teorías marginales relativamente desconocidas, las fuentes secundarias que las describan deberán ser valoradas cuidadosamente para asegurar su fiabilidad. Esto es aplicable también a las referencias, las citas y los enlaces externos.

While proper attribution of a perspective to a source satisfies the minimal requirements of Wikipedia's neutral point of view, there is an additional editorial responsibility for including only those quotes and perspectives which further the aim of creating a verifiable and neutral Wikipedia article. Quotes that are controversial or potentially misleading need to be properly contextualized to avoid unintentional endorsement or deprecation. What is more, just because a quote is accurate and verifiably attributed to a particular source does not mean that the quote must necessarily be included in an article. The sourced contribution must simply aid in the verifiable and neutral presentation of the subject.

For example, in the article about bigfoot, a verifiably attributed and accurate quote might take the following form:

The Bigfoot Field Researchers Association has stated, "Scientists from various disciplines put the most compelling sasquatch evidence to the test. Collectively their conclusions are ground-breaking. There is now scientific proof for the existence of a giant primate species in North America — a species fitting the descriptions of sasquatches (bigfoots)."

Including such a controversial quote needs to be carefully contextualized as a particular point-of-view. Simply including such a statement in the lead or in a section on scientific evaluation of bigfoot claims is potentially misleading, non-neutral, and lacking in verifiability. The quote should only be included if it can be contextualized in a verifiable and neutral sense as a point-of-view of the Bigfoot Field Researchers Association and not necessarily a factual statement. The consensus of editors may even be to not include the quote at all.

Independent sources

While fringe theory proponents are excellent sources for describing what they believe, the best sources to use when determining the notability and prominence of fringe theories are independent sources. For example, when trying to decide whether a fringe theory is prominent enough for inclusion in a particular article on a mainstream subject, mention of the fringe theory in an independent source firmly establishes its relevance and can provide a guide for appropriate contextual framing of the fringe theory within the mainstream article.

Parity of sources

Inclusion and exclusion of content related to fringe theories and criticism of fringe theories may be done by means of a rough parity of sources. If an article is written about a well-known topic, it should not include fringe theories that may seem relevant but are only sourced by obscure texts that lack peer review.

In an article on a fringe topic, if a notable fringe theory is primarily described by amateurs and self-published texts, verifiable and reliable criticism of the fringe theory need not be published in a peer reviewed journal. For example, the Apollo moon landing hoax accusations article may include material from websites, movies, television specials, and books that are not peer reviewed. Critiques of that material can likewise be gleaned from websites and books that are not peer reviewed, since the accusations themselves are not peer reviewed.

Parity of sources may mean that certain fringe theories are only reliably and verifiably reported on, or criticized, in alternative venues from those that are typically considered reliable sources for Wikipedia. For example, the lack of peer-reviewed criticism of creation science should not be used as a justification for marginalizing or removing scientific criticism of creation science since peer-reviewed journals routinely reject submissions relating to the subject.

Examples

Sufficiently notable for devoted articles

• Creation science — The overwhelming majority of scientists consider this to be pseudoscience and say that it should not be taught in elementary public education. However the very existence of this strong opinion, and vigorous discussion regarding it amongst groups such as scientists, scientific journals, educational institutions, political institutions, and even the United States Supreme Court, give the idea itself more than adequate notability to have articles about it on Wikipedia.
• Apollo moon landing hoax — This particular conspiracy theory, while probably not held as true by very many people, has generated enough discussion in books, television programs, debunking statements from NASA, etc., that it deserves an article on Wikipedia.
• Time Cube — an all-encompassing but difficult to comprehend proposition espoused by Gene Ray, self-proclaimed "Doctor of Cubicism". His Time Cube covers time, human behavior and many other things. Not addressed by scientists or philosophers (who are in Ray's words "stupid and evil"), it is still notable as an Internet meme and source of humor.
• Paul is dead — a famous urban legend alleging that Paul McCartney of the British rock band The Beatles died in 1966 and was replaced by a look-alike, sound-alike duplicate. Denied by all four Beatles (including McCartney, who is alive and well as of 2008), this conspiracy theory has been fueled by "clues" found among The Beatles' many recordings. The rumour has been the topic of much sociological examination because its development, growth and rebuttal took place very publicly, owing to The Beatles' enormous popularity.

Warranting mention in other articles

• Port Chicago disaster conspiracy theory — There exists a theory that this disaster (which itself is of unquestioned notability), held by official reports to be an ammunition-loading accident, was actually a detonation of a nuclear weapon with the intent of testing the effects on American soldiers. This theory has been proposed by one journalist, and he has published on it almost exclusively through his own self-published website and e-book, which many other non-mainstream websites and publications have parroted. The theory probably does not deserve its own Wikipedia article, as there is no mainstream reference to it whatsoever, but could easily have a small mention in the main Port Chicago disaster article, since its Internet presence is very large due to the aforementioned fringe websites. The exact wording of the mention is of course dictated by NPOV and other content guidelines.

See also

• WP:COATRACK
• Wikipedia:Snowball clause
• Wikipedia:Steamroll minority opinions (parody)
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Rational Skepticism
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative Views