Wikipedia and science

Wikipedia project

Menu

edit

General articles

• An introduction to Wikipedia
• Wikipedia and science
• List of prominent skeptical Wikipedia editors
• Wikipedia archives

Biographies of Wikipedia editors

• All biographies
• Adam Cuerden (Shoemaker's Holiday)
• Fyslee (Paul Lee) (BullRangifer)
• JzG (Guy Chapman)

Projects

• Parapsychology
• Skepticism
• Electronic voice phenomena
• Wikipedia

Wikipedia Arbitration Committee rejects expertise

"The Wikipedia philosophy can be summed up thusly: 'Experts are scum.'"

—Lore Sjöberg The Wikipedia FAQK}}

"The good thing about Wikipedia is anyone who spots something wrong can change it. The bad thing about Wikipedia is all the people who want things to be wrong (either from bias or cluelessness) outnumber the rest, and the worst editors (lack of real world credentials, strongest bias, dedicated spammers) devote the most time to it."

Mainstream experts -often highly credentialed scientists- have been complaining for years that Wikipedia does not value their expertise, and puts them on the same level as everyone else. However, previously it has not been Wikipedia policy to specifically and systematically favor non-expert opinion. In the area of any fringe topic, this has recently changed.

Summary of the Fringe Science case

The Arbitration Committee's ruling started out in a very promising way, making several laudable statements:

The prominence of fringe views need to be put in perspective relative to the views of the entire encompassing field; limiting that relative perspective to a restricted subset of specialists or only amongst the proponents of that view is, necessarily, biased and unrepresentative.

So far, so good: certainly, an encyclopedia needs to put things in a larger perspective. The Committee continued with its commendable statements:

Wikipedia is not for advocacy. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to state neutrally the current knowledge in a field, not to put forward arguments to promote or deride any particular view. In particular, conjectures that hold significant prominence must no more be suppressed than be promoted as factual.

Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality sources; if such sources are not available, the material should not be included.

Then things started getting interesting. The Committee made this statement, which in itself is well thought-out:

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and its content on scientific and quasi-scientific topics will primarily reflect current mainstream scientific consensus.

It continued:

In this ruling, the term "fringe science" refers to matters which purport to be science, or use its trappings and terminology but are not usually regarded as such by the general scientific community; and to matters which do not claim to be scientific but nevertheless make claims that are normally considered within the purview of science. (emphasis added)

Hmmm. This would apply to nearly every article. It would apply to articles on fiction and religion, for example Creation according to Genesis should primarily reflect current mainstream scientific consensus.

The Committee went on:

The dispute [In other words, the scope of this case] concerns articles whose primary topic is fringe science and coverage of fringe science as a secondary topic within other articles.

Synthesis

Let's put the ruling together in a condensed form:

Every article (or part of an article)which makes a claim about physical reality (the normal purview of science) needs to be put in perspective relative to the views of the entire encompassing field. The content of such articles will consist primarily (its "content" will "primarily reflect") of the current mainstream scientific consensus. This also applies to articles devoted to the fringe topics.

In essence, that is what the Arbitration Committee said. What does it mean, and does it make sense?

Analysis

The ruling does not make sense from several perspectives. However, a primary problem is that it misunderstands the nature of science. What is "scientific consensus?"

According to Wikipedia, scientific consensus is:

"the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study"

Where a "particular field of study" is

"a branch of knowledge which is taught and researched at the college or university level."

The scientific consensus, in other words, is among experts. Experts are a small minority. Thus, there is no such thing as mainstream scientific consensus. Scientific consensus consists of agreement among the small minority of experts.

Still, this does not sound too bad. It seems obvious that the Committee meant that Wikipedia should reflect the scientific consensus, and the word "mainstream" was used merely in error. But is that how it actually works on Wikipedia? Let's take a case study:

A case study: parapsychology

In the field of parapsychology, the consensus is that psi (psychic ability) exists. Will Wikipedia state that the scientific consensus is that psychic phenomena exist? Not likely. Is this because there is something different about parapsychology... for instance, that it does not qualify as a science? Not according to the Arbitration Committee, which stated:

"In addition to mainstream science which generally ignores or does not consider the paranormal worthy of investigation, there is a scientific discipline of parapsychology which studies psychic phenomena in a serious scientific way"

In other words, mainstream sciences, such as particle physics, do not refer to parapsychology. Parapsychology is nevertheless a scientific discipline, "a branch of knowledge which is taught and researched at the college or university level."

There is no possibility that, in fact, the Arbitration Committee meant to imply that Wikipedia should state that the scientific consensus is that psychic phenomena exist. The only interpretation left to us is that by "scientific consensus" the Committee meant the overall agreement of scientists in all fields, not what scientists call the "scientific consensus."

If you don't believe it, please go and edit the Parapsychology article accordingly. Please cite the Arbitration cases [1][2] as your reason. It is possible to ask the Committee itself for clarification.

A deadly blow

Defining "scientific consensus" as what you would get if you took a poll of scientists across all fields is a deadly blow to the portrayal of science, no matter whether the subject is mainstream or fringe.

The Pseudoscience Arbitration

Wikipedia also had an Arbitration proceeding on Pseudoscience. In it, the Committee said:

Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Wikipedia aspires to be such a respected work.

Note the term respected science. The Committee created a popularity test to see which viewpoint Wikipedia would emphasize. If a viewpoint did not have "respect," then it would not be emphasized. This conflicts with Wikipedia's other policies, in which the available reliable sources are meant to determine the weight given a subject. Again, what you see is that the Committee does not understand scientific specialization, but relies on the general reputation within the entire scientific community. Under the ruling, if one took a poll of quantum physicists and determined that they believed in the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics; and then took a poll to see what geologists, chemists, and psychologists thought of that interpretation; and it turned out that the scientists in other fields thought that the quantum physicists were freaks of nature; then, you would deem the quantum physicists to be un-respected, and you would emphasize the views of the other scientists. Expertise, in other words, is not respected on Wikipedia (the mix-up between respect for the science and respect for the scientists is intentional and typical of Wikipedia).

16) Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.

Note scientific community rather than relevant specialties such as astronomy and physics.

Here the Committee actually calls astrology a "theory" thus again showing their complete ignorance of science. According to the American Association for the Advancement of Science:

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.

The Arbitration Committee was speaking of science in order to define its relationship to the most-read encyclopedia in the world. Otherwise, perhaps it could be forgiven for using scientific terminology in a thoroughly colloquial way.

17) Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized.

Sometimes theories can be so characterized, just not generally? Wikipedia's principle of neutrality states that Wikipedia does not attempt to "characterize." This ruling again emphasizes popularity as the line between science and pseudoscience. (It is also interesting to note the obsession with respect.) Also, the Committee gives credence to "critics" without any reference to their expertise.

At the same time, the Committee said:

10) In the case of subjects which require considerable academic or experiential expertise, some deference to experts is appropriate.

How nice.

What constitutes a reliable source varies with the topic of the article, but in the case of a scientific theory, there is a clear expectation that the sources for the theory itself are reputable textbooks or peer-reviewed journals.

In this principle, the Committee makes it clear, again, that reputation is the deciding factor, in this case the reputation of the journal. This is appropriate in a way. In a very general sense, the more mainstream a thing is within science, the more likely it is to be true. There is such a thing as the wisdom of crowds. Yet again, it is not made clear whether expert opinion or general opinion is to be valued.

In addition, there are some peer-reviewed journals and textbooks which are not considered "reputable" by some Wikipedia editors. Thus, the Committee again falls back on general reputation, in this case reputation among Wikipedia editors

What should Wikipedia do instead?

This page is a stub: you can help WikiSynergy by improving or expanding it.

What should Wikipedia do, if it is not to rely on general opinion in deciding its emphasis?

---

Notes: NPOV intrinsically puts WP in the business of evaluating such things. At least, the way articles are written, they don't all one to distinguish the critic who is an expert in the general field, and the expert in the sub field. If the expert in the general field criticizes the expert in the sub field, then since they are both "experts in the field" they are given the same weight, unless editors push something. But WP will not state that "two people with essentially equal credentials are in conflict. One has studied the area deeply, the other has not. You decide." Thorough statements of the principles in a conflict might get WP out of most of this. But it wouldn't sound very much like an encyclopedia. The alternative is the current situation, or else making WP not take fringe subjects at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(science)#Assessing_the_reliability_and_relevance_of_sources

References