Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view

Notability of asteroid namings

The International Astronomical Union (IAU) can officially name minor planets after anything or anyone who they deem deserving of the honor. Often, the namesake will be notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. Since the early days of Wikipedia, many users have operated under the implicit assumption that such an asteroid naming is automatically notable, and deserves to be mentioned in the article about the namesake. For example, the biography Valentin Lebedev mentions asteroid 10015 Valenlebedev; the article about the village Fröjel mentions asteroid 10127 Fröjel. I estimate that about one third of all articles whose subject has an asteroid named after them mentions that fact. This rarely entails more than a single sentence, of the form "In 2025, asteroid X has been named in their honor." Sometimes it also includes a quote from the brief naming citation published by the IAU. I am not aware of a Wikipedia article where this has later been removed. That does make it look uncontroversial.

I agree with making such additions in principle, and have made some myself (example diffs: Martha Argerich; Hofheim, Hesse; and MS Zaandam). As a source, I usually refer to the official announcement by the IAU (that is, the corresponding issue of the IAU's WGSBN Bulletin [1] or of the Minor Planet Circulars [2]). Others have referenced astronomical databases like JPL's Small Body Database [3] or the MPC Database [4]. Those are undoubtedly reliable sources. However, to my knowledge, the assumption that this is notable by default has never received community consensus, or any form of discussion. This has become even more acute in recent years, when the numbers of known and named asteroids have increased dramatically. By now, the IAU has named about 25,000 asteroids, mostly small rocks in the main belt between Mars and Jupiter that themselves are completely non-notable (see WP:DWMP for the guideline how to deal with articles about the asteroids themselves).

The question is: Is a reference to WGSBN or a database entry enough to establish that the naming is notable enough to be mentioned in the namesake's article? That is, do we need additional coverage of the naming in reliable secondary sources, like the ABC news story [5] cited at Ghillar Michael Anderson in addition to the WGSBN Bulletin, to justify mentioning the asteroid? Or is the mere announcement of the name by the IAU enough? I personally believe that such a naming is generally interesting, and that a single sentence does little harm, but I'm too invested in asteroids to form an unbiased opinion.

There has been a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (astronomical objects) about this question, but this was found to be the wrong place to make such a decision. Still, you may want to refer to that discussion for further context, and for input from other users. Renerpho (talk) 03:09, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Notified: WT:ASTRO, WP:NASTRO. Renerpho (talk) 03:09, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

BALASP

I don't think BALASP (editors "should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject") reflects how articles are actually written. We aren't simply trying to reflect the treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. Apart from obvious (to experienced editors) caveats like NOT and BLP, the emphasis of sources covered by WP:BESTSOURCES, tertiary sources and retrospective accounts are understood to better establish emphasis than the "body of reliable, published material on the subject". Leaving source hierarchies aside, striving to treat each aspect with a proportional weight would result in movie articles that are 90% reviews and embedded systematic bias, which is just not how we try to write articles.

I asked WhatamIdoing what she thought about my assessment, and was told: BALASP needs to move away from pure "prominence in the reliable sources" towards "encyclopedia articles provide some basic context, even if reliable sources mostly ignore it". For example, every biography needs to place the subject in the basic context of time, place, situation, etc. If we write a ten-sentence stub about a 19th-century person, we don't spend two of those sentences on his birth and family because 20% of reliable sources are all about his birth and family; we do that because that's what encyclopedia articles do. The "articles should provide basic context" framing seems true, as do similar framings of articles should take explaining their subjects as the primary goal.

Generally, I find the framing of content inclusion/exclusion around neutrality strange. While overemphasizing aspects or including/excluding information can compromise neutrality, coherence, subject MOS compliance, preventing the article from looking unbalanced (irrespective of source emphasis) and subjective boundary drawing around subject definitions (tangentiality) will often be the driving reasons for adding or removing information to an article. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 07:50, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Scope of WP:DUE

I have seen a LOT of links to WP:DUE that make me think we are extending that shortcut to include things that go beyond NPOV… it is being used when discussing trivia and material that is deemed a minor aspect or not “important” to an article’s topic. I am wondering if we need to hive that shortcut off to a different (perhaps new) p&g page. Not proposing… just raising the observation for discussion. Blueboar (talk) 14:48, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Many editor seem to use WP:DUE when they mean WP:BALASP, but that's still a part of NPOV. It might be worth adding hatnote to DUE pointing to BALASP for matters of trivia. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:19, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Do we have a guideline on not giving minor aspects of a topic “undue weight”? (Not in terms of fringe… but simply in terms of relevance/importance to the topic?).

Example: Movie Star says something dumb on Twitter, and it gets lots of coverage on outrage media for a day or two and then fades. Because of the flurry of coverage, however, Star’s bio article currently has an entire section on this incident. A editor comments that this is giving too much “weight” to what was really just a dumb Twitter post that got blown out of proportion. They link to WP:DUE.

The problem is that WP:DUE is about fringe opinions… not normal stuff. the editor who wants to cut (or at least shorten) the material on the dumb Twitter post is using the term “DUE weight” in a different way than we use it in this policy. The dumb Twitter post isn’t “fringe”… it’s just overblown. Blueboar (talk) 18:02, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

BALASP says "For example, a description of isolated events, quotes, criticisms, or news reports related to one subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." In your example the dumb thing said on twitter shouldn't be given excessive prominence beyond it's significance to the overall subject of the movie star, even if it was well reported on at the time. It's coverage in the article should be weighted by how much effect it's had on the article (the movie star). If it ended or negatively effected their career it should be given as much exposure as is appropriate, but if it is now of little importance it should be cut back.
As is common the uppercase "DUE" gets confused with the word "due", removing content with 'DUE weight' should be reducing the coverage of a minority viewpoint,† the correct edit summary to use would be 'due PROPORTION'. This is less misusing DUE and more just naming the wrong part of NPOV.
†Although DUE spends a lot of time talking about fringe topics, it's actual about balancing view points in an article and not giving undue weight to minority views. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:44, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

I like “due PROPORTION” (I’ll start using it and see who salutes). Thanks. Blueboar (talk) 21:21, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

WP:DUE / WP:BALASP / WP:PROPORTION come up a lot and all refer back to this policy. I personally think that WP:NPOV is a fine place to put it, because it rests on one principle of neutrality that "an article can't just be a summary of what a subject said about itself". Giving too much coverage to "minor" details is a somewhat different issue, though it still fits. I'd wonder where it's coming up that you feel like WP:NPOV doesn't really fit. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:27, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

See also the above section on #BALASP. Part of the goal behind last year's Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Archive 67#Rearranging was to set us up for differentiating between DUE and BALASP more clearly. The ultimate goal is to have DUE for actual viewpoints ("Consequentialists say that the ends justify the means but Deontologists disagree") and BALASP for what you need to include/exclude just because it's an encyclopedia ("It's a biography, so you have to say something about when and where the person lived" or "It's an encyclopedia, so we're not including a complete list of non-notable boyfriends, even if you can source each name to twenty years' of WP:PRIMARYNEWS in a gossip magazine").

DUE is driven by sources; BALASP is driven partly be sources and partly by editorial judgment about what constitutes an encyclopedia article (yes to birthdates and nationality, even if sources barely mention it; [usually] no to what the BLP tweeted last week, even if it got some attention in the media).

I don't think this will be difficult, but it does constitute change, so I think we should take it slowly. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:51, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

I agree that would be helpful and also relates to NPOV and FRINGE. In my view DUE is more about what is UNDUE. It's about establishing what is the range of viewpoints within the mainstream, and which are insignificant minority viewpoints that should be recontextualized in a different article, or excluded. Andre🚐 20:57, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

• Apologies, only saw this afterwards, but I started a similar discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Policies and Guidelines#Due and undue weight. I think NPOV should be kept to instances where sources disagree, and have weighting aspects and level of detail (when sources are not in dispute) forked off into a new guideline? Kowal2701 (talk) 23:06, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

  Well... Imagine that we have an article about a hospital that begins "St Mary's Hospital is a hospital in Maryville that was founded in 1955". This is followed by 3,000 words about the maintenance staff going on strike for three days in 2018. There is nothing in the article about the history, services, funding, patient population, specialties, awards received, inspection results, or anything else. It's "There's a hospital, and we went on strike." No sources disagree (the strike really did happen exactly as described), but nearly all sources have something to say about the hospital that isn't about that particular labor action.

  Is that a "neutral" Wikipedia article in your opinion? Or does it present a thoroughly biased impression of the hospital? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:20, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

  Biased and cherrypicked. Andre🚐 23:28, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

  Meh… I would call it “Over-emphasis of a potentially minor detail”. I would use the words “undue weight” to describe it, but linking it to WP:UNDUE seems wikilawyerish. Pegging the over-emphasis on the strike as some sort of WP:Neutral point of view violation seems a bit off - as there is no “viewpoint” being expressed. Blueboar (talk) 23:43, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

  But that article would essentially be an WP:Attack page or a WP:Coatrack. Andre🚐 23:46, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

  My question isn't whether it's UNDUE. My question is whether the results is a neutral article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:49, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

  I’d reserve neutral to refer to differing POVs about a single aspect, although I can see what you’re saying, especially regarding giving too much weight to controversy. I wouldn’t say disproportionate weight to certain aspects is always a neutrality issue though, for instance too long of an "Early life" section at a biography. Kowal2701 (talk) 23:54, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

  In this scenario, giving too much weight to controversy produces a non-neutral article. Wikipedia editors did not choose neutrally between sources about what was included/excluded about the subject. Instead, we created a very biased subset of otherwise undisputed facts. It's an NPOV violation because it gives a slanted view of the subject. Instead of presenting it as an ordinary hospital with an ordinary number of local controversies, the article implicitly presents the view that the only thing you need to know about this subject is that there was a labor dispute seven years ago.

  One of the things semi-missing from our written policies (but not from our practices) is what I call the "Write an encyclopedia article" rule. All the rules circle around this, but there's no paragraph that you can point to, and say "See? It's our policy to write encyclopedia articles, and this isn't one." WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:37, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

  I think a guideline on balancing different aspects could serve that purpose? (expanding WP:ENCYCLOPEDIA a little may help) If we agree not all violations of said balance are neutrality issues, then I think it’d make sense to have a separate guideline, with a section here on the overlap with neutrality? Kowal2701 (talk) 01:53, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

  Why do you want to "downgrade" this issue to guideline status? Isn't getting ordinary encyclopedic balance correct a worthy subject for a policy? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:26, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

  Yes 100%, though could be challenging to write so it's applicable to every scenario. Like you said in the section above, sometimes there’ll be an important aspect of a topic that doesn’t get lots of coverage in RS, or (especially w media) RS will disproportionately focus on controversy, idk how that would be addressed without inviting OR and subjectivity or creating loopholes for bad-faith editing. Kowal2701 (talk) 04:06, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Pseudohistory

I believe pseudohistory, like pseudoscience, should also be explicitly identified as something that is WP:FRINGE and should not be given WP:UNDUE weight. We could include examples such as the White replacement conspiracy theory, Love jihad conspiracy theory, and others, similar to the examples given for pseudoscience, such as the Moon landing being fake. Many Wikipedia articles, such as Ayodhya (Ramayana), give undue weight to pseudohistorical narratives, and I believe explicitly addressing this here would strengthen efforts to counter it. — EarthDude (wanna talk?) 04:12, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Phantom time conspiracy theory and Historia Regum Britanniae could be good examples. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:27, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Agreed, Illig's "phantom time" is a good example, as would be some of the things mentioned in Historical revisionism and particularly in Pseudoarchaeology (the latter of which has also gained quite the following in recent years; modern interpretations of Atlantis are probably the best example). White genocide could be used as an example, too, as suggested.

Love jihad conspiracy theory, promoted by right-wing Hindutva activists, mentions the word "pseudohistory" only once, and only in that article's "see also" section. I hesitate to use it as an example of pseudohistory if our article doesn't explicitly label it as such. Hindutva pseudohistory may thus be the better example. An example that has adherents with a wide range of political views would be the 9/11 truth movement -- although, again, we're not currently labelling that as pseudohistory... Renerpho (talk) 14:05, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

@EarthDude If we're writing from recognizable examples of pseudo-history, the Tartarian Empire might be a good one to include. I haven't noticed any departures from NPOV in that or related articles (though I haven't followed those article histories closely, either).

Also, it might be worth mentioning the New chronology (Fomenko) alongside Phantom time; when dealing with these kind of topics even in policy space I think it's helpful to rely on a mixed set of examples - some more similar to one another and some more distinctive - rather than what readers might see as "unique" cases. Newimpartial (talk) 15:27, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Since FRINGE Holocaust denial and Moon landing conspiracy theories listed as prominent examples, I don't think we need to add any more. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:07, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing while those are both great examples of FRINGE theories, I think the premise of this section is that a more direct statement about pseudohistory would be helpful. And I don't think either of those examples work very well as a core example of pseudohistory.

Holocaust denial is the paradigmatic example of genocide denial, which typically reflects transparent political motivations. While these may be present in various forms of pseudohistory, I don't think they generally define it. Similarly, Moon landing hoax claims represent a typical conspiracy theory, and while some degree of conspiracy thinking may be required for pseudohistory in general ("this is what the mainstream is hiding!"), I think the difference in emphasis between a theory about" the conspiracy and a theory about the world the conspiracy is hiding does matter to some extent.

To give a concrete example, imagine if the focus of moon landing theorists was the great mass of cheese that is there to be mined at the edge of the gravity well, and the conspiracy to present the sound-staged Apollo program is understood as a cover up by the terrestrial cheese cartel. The main message of such theorists could be the cheesetopia that mainstream science is denying us, rather than the coverup itself. The more extreme forms that I see as pseudohistory tend to take that form - Tartaria for example - while less extreme examples seem more fixated on details of chronology and to me are even less focused on "the conspiracy itself" or on denying facts based on them being ideologically convenient.

I just think if there is an appetite for an expanded mention of pseudohistory in policy, it might be worth pointing to its more platonically ideal forms rather than only cases where it is a technique serving an obvious external agenda. Newimpartial (talk) 11:11, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

@EarthDude, I doubt anyone would object. I suggest coming up with some sensible wording and suggesting it on Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories. The smallest possible change is probably to find a sentence that currently says something about pseudoscience, and stick the phrase "pseudohistory and other forms of pseudo-scholarship" into it. (Start small; the less you add, the fewer objections you'll get.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:04, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

idea: if roughly more than 20% of serious, credentialed academic authors in a field hold a minority view, that view should be attributed, not be omitted or overly minimized

I think Wikipedia has been possibly overzealous with excluding or overly minimizing some views on the basis of FRINGE. I'm coming out of a discussion about for example, should articles on ancient religious figures present a dominant view of the history and archeology to the exclusion of other perspectives that are less popular in current academia, or about the extent that environmental determinism in population genetics studies of intelligence is a closed book consensus. Both pretty controversial areas with plenty of open issues that Wikipedia tends to gloss over to present the majority as the consensus view of academia, despite minority views in RS that aren't obviously pseudoscientific or misinfo, but aren't accepted by most, but not all, but not 99% either. More like 80%. WP:RS/AC demands an explicit academic consensus and it should already require other RS, not simply an editor's opinion, to exclude a minority POV. But what about a rough rule of thumb to put a little bit of an impetus on editors to remember how to write for the opponent and address some of the criticism that NPOV has become weak as the consensus side has stopped throwing a bone to the loyal opposition. To my mind 20 vs 1% is a meaningful distinction. Though I could see 30% or 1/3 also working. Andre🚐 00:53, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Setting a numerical threshold is a recipe for long arguments over exactly who should be counted and on which sides they should be counted. I don't see how this solves any problems. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:08, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks(?) for reminding me that I should check in on Talk:Cass Review again, where we have editors persistently saying things about "the whole world" when talking about sources applicable to mostly WEIRD countries where less than 20% of the world's population live. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:16, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

I agree with other editors that numerical thresholds are prone to bad applications and gaming. For better or for worse, Wikipedia needs people to intelligently evaluate and discuss an issue case-by-case. But I agree with the principle that if something is repeatedly picked up in multiple reliable sources, it should be covered. If it's a more controversial claim that is covered in multiple situational or dubious sources, then it should be covered from the careful lens of the most reliable sources with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy (or not covered at all). Shooterwalker (talk) 17:02, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Regarding Wikipedia:UNDUE

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

An editor is unhappy that a WP:SELFCITEd WP:PRIMARY source wasn't accepted in (semi-)relevant articles. There are no proposals to change this policy in this long discussion. If anyone wants to continue arguing about whether the English Wikipedia should include anything and everything that can be cited to some (semi-)reliable source, take it to your own User_talk: page and discuss it there, not here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:23, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

---

Imagine this — if Wikipedia had been deployed in the Copernican/Galilean era, what would have happened?

The religious government upheld the geocentric theory, while you insisted on publishing the heliocentric theory.

As a result, your article would either be undone, or the government would track you down through your ISP and execute you.

Just by invoking Wikipedia:UNDUE, it could become a literal “universally recognized Bible.”

Even today, news and academia are still controlled by politics and commerce.

Under the premise of WP:UNDUE, truth becomes taboo — because it threatens vested interests, it will never be acknowledged.

Wikipedia is no longer “the free encyclopedia,” but rather “the guardian of the scripture.”

Andre suggested, “If 20% of people agree with it, it should be allowed on Wikipedia.”

But I believe that a sharp, uncomfortable truth would struggle to gain even 20% support — simply because it’s so difficult to spread. Therefore, I think: “If the evidence is solid and the logic is sound, it should be permitted.”

The fundamental reason for the existence of WP:UNDUE is very likely to protect Wikipedia’s own interests. UEFI-code (talk) 11:20, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Andre has the following on their user page "Wikipedia doesn't care what you know - it only is interested in aggregating the source material. Which means that commonly held and reported, but erroneous knowledge that exists in 2022 and is corrected in 2048, is objectively wrong today, but still must be encoded in Wikipedia even if you know it's wrong." To put it another way at the time Wikipedia would have stated that the works of Copernican/Galilean were a minority viewpoint at best, or simply have left them out.

I can't find you quote from Andre, do you have a link? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:29, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Oh, I just ref "idea: if roughly more than 20% of serious, credentialed academic authors in a field hold a minority view, that view should be attributed, not be omitted or overly minimized" of Andre (from the above).

This sentence is too long, I just compressed it as “If 20% of people agree with it, it should be allowed on Wikipedia.”

Apologz for my bad English if caused your confusion UEFI-code (talk) 22:19, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, UEFI-code, your first post is perfectly understandable English but is a misquote of my idea, which was not about people who agree with something in general but the extent of weight by credentialed academic reliable sources, and it was a proposal for an idea that so far isn't implemented and probably won't be. But, as AD astutely points out with a quote of something I did actually write, if less than 20% of people were writing heliocentric work in the Galilean time period, and something like a Wikipedia existed or at least some kind of printed book with the same editorial policy, it is likely that under my dead-on-arrival proposed rule of thumb, heliocentrism wouldn't appear in Wikipedia-the-book. Wikipedia is not a place for new theories and original research. Consequently, as I wrote, there are likely many things in Wikipedia that are wrong. I have come to conceive of Wikipedia as a public utility. It is a baseline of publicly sourced, free, volunteer information. If you really want sophisticated, cutting edge, highly original information, increasingly, that information is behind a paywall in a proprietary source. It is very likely that there are true things that only 1% of sources know. Those things don't necessarily belong in Wikipedia. However the point of my proposal was that the 80-20 rule may apply. If we establish a baseline around 20 or 33 or whatever, it would provide the impetus to ensure that we do cover some of the bases without letting in everything. Andre🚐 00:25, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you to Andre and AD for the clarification. Andre’s idea is actually more conservative than how I described it, and I apologize for the misrepresentation.

Regarding the issue of "authority," I have wrote a paper specifically to address it. I am someone who opposes authority.

Beyond the issue of authority, I believe that the public often fears confronting certain truths. For example, when I revealed on Reddit that the so-called Asian “敬語” culture is actually a system to uphold hierarchy and protect those in power at the expense of subordinates, many people went silent; my account was deleted without any explanation of rule violations.

Both authority and consensus hinder the spread of truth, creating an information cocoon that protects public illusions.

Therefore, what I question is the very legitimacy of Wikipedia’s existence. When Wikipedia raises donations from the public, it claims to be “the free encyclopedia,” yet in practice it maintains a scripture-like body of content based on authority and consensus, even when it contains scientific inaccuracies (such as the earlier analogy between the geocentric and heliocentric models).

In my view, if Wikipedia truly aims to be a system based on “authoritative consensus,” it could just seek government funding. After all, public library systems have already fulfilled that function. UEFI-code (talk) 23:40, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia, by design, it is meant to reflect the majority consensus view in subjects, as shown in independent reliable sources. This means that by default it supports the current socio-culture and socio-economic structure, and all the issues that come with that.
But the issue you raise isn't an issue, because as I said this is by design. Encyclopedia's are tertiary sources, they are meant to reflect current knowledge and be a "scripture-like body". The encyclopedia is free to read, to use and re-use, and to edit (within reason). It's not a place to 'spread the truth', only to be a general encyclopedia. As to goverment funding, which government? This is the English language Wikipedia, an international project, not one connected to any particular country. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:58, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

You also mentioned "independent reliable sources," which shows that Wikipedia is not simply a system of "public consensus," but rather one of "authoritative consensus." Ordinary people cannot substantively edit Wikipedia freely—only authoritative groups can.

You asked me, "Which specific government should provide funding?" What I want to say is that the number of independent reliable sources is limited (I estimate somewhere between a few hundred to a few thousand), and the foundations behind them—governments and corporations—should be the ones funding it. UEFI-code (talk) 11:59, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

There is an infinite number of reliable sources, and a finite number of unreliable ones. The total number of sources is unknown, a small subset of sources have been discussed and by consensus are considered unreliable.
The idea that the sources of information should fund Wikipedia is a odd one, if you then used you paper as a reference you would have to help financially maintain the project. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:11, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

What you're looking to do is to radically alter academic publishing, so fundamentally you're in the wrong place. Wikipedia isn't for academic publishing, that's not it's purpose. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:05, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, you has understood my idea correctly. I also realized—after one of my edits was undone—that I came to the wrong place.

What I’m discussing here is Wikipedia’s design philosophy; it’s a metaphysical issue.

If Wikipedia were funded by governments and/or corporations, then I wouldn't care what policies it sets.

The problem is that Wikipedia collects donations from the public.

In that case, I think Wikipedia’s mission should be that of an “anarchic database,” where the public can freely write—not just read.

If Wikipedia were to establish public-interest policies such as “anti-spam” or “protection of human rights and animal welfare” (in line with UN recommendations), I would completely understand.

But the real issue is this: Wikipedia is using public funds while allowing only authoritative groups to monopolize editing rights.

Calling this “authoritative consensus” model neutral is the biggest irony of all. UEFI-code (talk) 12:00, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

No one is controlling editing priveledges at all. Anyone can participate, and the only reason you can lose that priveledge is if you violate established policies to a great degree. Any viewpoint can be considered for inclusion as long as it is backed by a reliable source that is known for editorial control and fact-checking. That last part is going to cause some viewpoints to be unable to be presented in any detail, things like flat earth theories, because no reliable source documents that theory as truth. We're not here to entertain inclusion of every possible view on a topic, but summarize what reliable sources have said about a topic. You're going to find the same thing at all major encyclopedias like Britanica as well. Masem (t) 12:07, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

What I'm referring to is "substantive editing," whereas what you refers to is "formal/technical editing."

In other words: if an edit is immediately undone, it doesn’t count as a substantive edit.

The key point I just described is that a “reliable source” is, in essence, a form of monopoly held by authoritative groups. UEFI-code (talk) 12:15, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

As I said anyone can edit, within reason. One of those reasons is that it must be verifiable to an independent reliable source, that's a core tenent of Wikipedia. It's based on what other sources say, and not the opinion, believes, or feelings of editors. You can make any edit you want, but it must be backed up by others not yourself. If you want to write without those limitations you're looking for Fandom or can setup you own site. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:08, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

According to AD’s explanation, the core issues now focus on two aspects:

1. What constitutes "independent reliable sources"?

"Independent" refers to third-party sources of information that are separate from the editor and Wikipedia itself—this is relatively easy to understand. However, the definition of "reliable" still does not go beyond the realm of authority—which is why, in my previous reply, I mentioned that “the foundations behind them (governments/corporations) should be funding it.” Otherwise, if I can just create a website myself and have it count as a reliable source—then that would be great! But is that actually the case?

2. AD said, "You can make any edit you want, but it must be backed up by others, not yourself."

This is even more absurd within Wikipedia’s logic: Technically, if I propose a theory and publish it on my own website, that’s Source 1. Then my friend reposts it on their website, making it Source 2. Does that mean they can now insert my theory into Wikipedia and not get reverted?

From a technical standpoint, Wikipedia is designed to ignore the identity of its editors—a completely new IP address from an unregistered account can be treated as a newcomer—which means the system is fundamentally unable to identify who an editor really is.

PS:

As for “not the opinion, beliefs, or feelings of editors,” please refer to this link. If the person submitting the edit isn't me, but my friend—would it then not be undone? UEFI-code (talk) 13:47, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

We judge reliable sources based on their history of editorial control of their work. An individual blog is not that, unless we know the person behind the blog is a recognized expert that has many past works already published in reliable sources. Basing what we include on reliable sources means we avoid most of the possible scenarios suggested here. Masem (t) 13:54, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

"Does that mean they can now insert my theory into Wikipedia and not get reverted?" Not unless you are a subject matter expert who has been previously published by other reliable sources, see WP:EXPERTSPS that shows how to handle selfpublished sources. Anyone can create a website and post any old nonsense, so we rely on other reliable sources to tell us if they should be used or not. In this case editors usually look to see if the author has been published by academic publishers or journals.
"the foundations behind them (governments/corporations) should be funding it" Goverments and corporation only make up a small amount of the sources used, they're really only generally reliable for their own statements not facts. So this just makes no sense.

"Then my friend reposts it on their website, making it Source 2 'Source 2' would be the same as the origin, both primary and selfpublished, reposting something doesn't make it a secondary source. WP:SECONDARY gives a somewhat incomplete explanation of what a secondary source actually is.
"If the person submitting the edit isn't me, but my friend—would it then not be undone?" Whether you submit it, or a friend, doesn't matter. Whoever makes the edit has to comply with Wikipedia's policies.
Again ultimately you are looking for somewhere to post content without any restrictions, that's not Wikipedia and it will never be, as it goes against the entire purpose of the site. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:44, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Excellent — we have once again demonstrated that “reliable sources” = authority.

The so-called concept of an “expert” simply refers to a person certified by authority.

I would like to point out that the number of “authorities” is finite, and in fact, very small (roughly a few hundred to a few thousand).

If Wikipedia recognizes a “professor’s” theory as a “reliable source,” then the institution behind that professor is the university (funded by corporations or governments).

For example, the governing foundation behind Japan’s national universities is MEXT.

If you were to list all universities in the world and identify their financial backers, you would probably find only a few dozen major foundations.

The same applies if you extend this reasoning to the world’s major corporations.

Since authority monopolizes the substantive editing power on Wikipedia, it would be entirely appropriate for those authorities to fund it.

It is absurd that the general public is asked to donate instead.

What I am discussing here is Wikipedia’s design philosophy — specifically, the absurdity of “Wikipedia using public donations to uphold authority.” UEFI-code (talk) 23:28, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

"The so-called concept of an “expert” simply refers to a person certified by authority." Nope, an expert is a person shown to have expertise. It's the doing that important.
"then the institution behind that professor is the university" Nope, that's not how that works. The publisher of a work is not the author is a work.
"If you were to list all universities in the world and identify their financial backers" Not relevant, this again fails to understand the difference between publisher's and authors.
"The same applies if you extend this reasoning to the world’s major corporations" Only if the reasoning makes sense, which it doesn't.
"Since authority monopolizes the substantive editing power on Wikipedia, it would be entirely appropriate for those authorities to fund it." They do, it's just that your idea of who that authority is is very misguided. The authority in this sense is the socio-cultural and socio-economic majority, or in other words the current social structure. That social structure is made up of, and maintain, by the people in it and that is where Wikipedia's funding comes from.
What you are discussing is your own misunderstanding of Wikipedia and the social structure it is part of. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 01:35, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

“an expert is a person shown to have expertise.”

How exactly is that shown?

Don’t tell me that “shown” means publishing papers in SCI journals — that just brings us back to the issue of journals and governments monopolizing the right to publish. UEFI-code (talk) 01:39, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

No it's brings us back round to groups of people who have education and training working together to increase the knowledge of the group. Fundamentally you don't want to play if they get to say that you're wrong, but that doesn't work in real life and it won't work here. If you want to publish content without any restrictions set up your own website, why should Wikipedia pay to host it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 01:43, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Well, you haven’t answered the question: how exactly is it “shown”?

If you refuse to answer this question, or fail to explain it clearly, then your logic is broken. UEFI-code (talk) 01:46, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Your question is only an issue due to your misunderstanding of how publishing works, it's impossible to answer a question that stands on such misconceptions. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 02:50, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

You didn’t give a clear definition of what you mean by “correct”; just vaguely said that I was misunderstanding. UEFI-code (talk) 03:20, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia would not exist without the scientific method because we require sources with a reputation for fact-checking. In the case of scientific theories, we expect fact-checking through hypothesis-testing and peer review. I don't think your description represents anything close to how Wikipedia actually works. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:26, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Please refer to my previous text and my paper.

I have already pointed out that peer review cannot achieve true “fact-checking.”

Even journals like Nature have a long history of retractions.

The only genuine way to verify facts is to allow readers to independently reproduce experiments themselves.

The so-called idea of “neutrality” should mean neutrally accepting everyone’s theories and objectively labeling them with relevant statistics — for example, how many people have successfully replicated the results, or whether the work has undergone peer review.

It should not mean “rejecting anything that lacks endorsement from authority.”

Otherwise, Wikipedia’s slogan should be “The Recognized Bible,” not “The Free Encyclopedia.” UEFI-code (talk) 23:32, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

You seem to be making an abstract point about knowledge. As a thought experiment let's posit an open-access journal on a wiki or blog or forum style platform that allowed anyone to publish original research. How would disputes between users be resolved. For example you appear on my website, sign up for an account under FRKyJr99 and post a screed about how circumcision causes autism, and a bunch of data you collected by interviewing all the town mohels. How do I know that you talked to all the mohels? Are you going to give the contact information and I call them all up and they say yes all of my clients' families developed autism. Is that better than the state of science whereby material about these topics go through gatekeepers and authorities that we trust to outsource the consensus reality to? See also: On the fragility of knowledge. Andre🚐 23:49, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

That’s a very good question.

In fact, what you’re pointing out is the issue of “anonymous statistical verification,” which is somewhat similar to my earlier idea about “anti-spam data policies.”

The simplest method would be to accept only voting data submitted by real-name users. However, this approach carries the risk of harassment, so I don’t recommend it.

Another method would be to use technical means to detect invalid traffic — similar to how Google Ads identifies fake clicks.

Although this method is somewhat crude, it can indeed help reduce spam data by increasing the cost of falsification.

However, fundamentally, this still cannot solve the problem of manipulating public opinion — since those in power could use incentives or threats to influence others to submit votes in their favor.

That said, my proposed approach is still far more neutral than a system that only accepts input from authorities. Even though it might lose in terms of traffic or popularity, at least it wouldn’t result in censorship or deletion.

In addition, experimental replication isn’t limited to simple yes/no voting. Readers could also upload their own experimental photos or data, which other readers could then verify through technical means — for example, using AI tools to detect fake images.

Generally speaking, if someone uploads a falsified experiment, others can easily spot inconsistencies or fail to reproduce the results. UEFI-code (talk) 00:13, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

That sounds very techno-utopian, but it won't work. The wisdom of the crowds is that crowds can be fairly dumb, and prone to gaming, misinformation, propaganda, brigading, or simply innocent garden-variety errors. Maybe if you had some kind of reputation system but we see what happens with that in China. (Or maybe Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom. Paging Cory Doctorow. He totally edits here I bet.) And it's not necessarily more neutral. More chaotic, maybe. But also it will never get off the ground to begin with. Andre🚐 00:25, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

As you said, the wisdom of the crowds is that crowds can be fairly dumb, and prone to gaming, misinformation, propaganda, brigading, or simply innocent garden-variety errors.

But that does not mean authority improves the problem. In fact, authority is a form of dictatorship—why suppress the heliocentric theory? Because heliocentrism threatened those in power. For their own interests, authorities can sometimes act even more crazily than the public.

However, as I argued, allowing all knowledge to be published—right or wrong—with collective voting affecting only traffic weight, is a compromise. For example, if I posted the heliocentric theory back then, my entry would be buried on Wikipedia at the time—but it would not be erased.

Also, to mitigate crowd stupidity, open-source AI could be used to check manuscripts for logical consistency, serving as a “neutral vote” to adjust traffic weighting. Generally, many rumours are internally self-contradictory.

For example: someone claims “the U.S. developed a virus that can kill all Chinese people.” If you don't investigate every U.S. research institute you won't know the truth. But the logical problems with this conspiracy theory are obvious: how would a virus recognize “nationality”? The U.S. is multiethnic—releasing such a virus would harm Americans too. Even if a virus could technically “read minds,” would foreigners who immigrate to China also be targeted? The fundamental logical problem is: this action offers little benefit to the U.S. It would be extremely difficult to get funding to research such a thing. UEFI-code (talk) 00:52, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

AI is a great way to hallucinate false information, and only can approximate true facts due to scraping public info like Wikipedia or reddit comment threads. That's not a magic wand to fundamentally fix the problem with your idea which is that it lacks structure or a mechanism or any incentive to work. Andre🚐 01:48, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

It’s important to note that I wasn’t suggesting letting AI generate anything — rather, I was proposing that AI perform logical consistency checks on user-submitted manuscripts. This is a fundamentally different concept. UEFI-code (talk) 01:54, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Equally impracticable with present-day LLM tech, though. Andre🚐 01:57, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

If the dataset used to train an AI contains biases, then the AI’s reasoning may also exhibit bias — I agree with that.

So, the two details I just mentioned are:

1. When AI acts as a “logical consistency reviewer,” it only plays a supporting role (affecting traffic weighting). Even if the AI makes mistakes, it won’t cause serious consequences.

2. The AI’s source code and training data are open source — anyone can inspect and remove emotionally charged descriptions from the dataset.

In addition, training an AI specifically for critical analysis requires far fewer resources (computing power, datasets) than training a general-purpose AI.

A “critical-purpose AI” means an AI that critiques all concepts without bias. For example, if you say, “The sun won’t explode tonight,” it would question you about the physical model underlying that claim.

As for the “user incentive mechanisms” you mentioned, I agree they’re important — but if designed poorly, they could create secondary bias issues.

The simplest approach is for the platform to take a hands-off stance — users might naturally share it with colleagues to show off or for a sense of accomplishment. UEFI-code (talk) 03:22, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.