Changes

'''Truth''' is not the criteria for inclusion of any idea or statement in a Wikipedia article, even if it is on a scientific topic.

'''Truth''' is not the criteria for inclusion of any idea or statement in a Wikipedia article, even if it is on a scientific topic.

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is [[Wikipedia:verifiability|verifiability]], not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. This is important to bear in mind when writing about topics on which you as a contributor have a strong opinion;

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is [[Wikipedia:verifiability|verifiability]], not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. This is important to bear in mind when writing about topics on which you as a contributor have a strong opinion;

you might think that it is a great place to set the record straight and [[Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing#Righting_Great_Wrongs|Right Great Wrongs]], but that’s not the case. We can record the righting of great wrongs, but we can’t ride the crest of the wave. We cannot be the correctors and educators of the world. You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views. See [[Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox|Wikipedia is not a soapbox]]

you might think that it is a great place to set the record straight and [[Wikipedia:Tendentious editing#Righting Great Wrongs|Right Great Wrongs]], but that’s not the case. We can record the righting of great wrongs, but we can’t ride the crest of the wave. We cannot be the correctors and educators of the world. You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views. See [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox|Wikipedia is not a soapbox]]

Some contributors have tried to get their preferred viewpoint enshrined as "the truth" on subjects dear to their hearts. Topics of great contention in the political and ideological arena have been described by advocates in ways that [[Wikipedia:POV pushing|advance their POV]], while condemning opposing POV - or even leaving it out of an article altogther. Often the justification for condemning or leaving out an opposing viewpoint is that it is merely one contributor's POV, even when it is a published one. Or the justification is that opposing viewpoints have no place at all in certain article, on the grounds of [[Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight|undue weight]].

Some contributors have tried to get their preferred viewpoint enshrined as "the truth" on subjects dear to their hearts. Topics of great contention in the political and ideological arena have been described by advocates in ways that [[Wikipedia:POV pushing|advance their POV]], while condemning opposing POV - or even leaving it out of an article altogther. Often the justification for condemning or leaving out an opposing viewpoint is that it is merely one contributor's POV, even when it is a published one. Or the justification is that opposing viewpoints have no place at all in certain article, on the grounds of [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue weight|undue weight]].

NPOV says 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. But how prominent must an opposing view be, to merit inclusion in an article? Suppose the article is topic of great scientific importance, and a published author disagrees with the scientific mainstream. Should his ideas and arguments be excluded merely because they oppose the mainstream? Would it violate policy to include them, even if they are held only by a minority of experts?

NPOV says 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. But how prominent must an opposing view be, to merit inclusion in an article? Suppose the article is topic of great scientific importance, and a published author disagrees with the scientific mainstream. Should his ideas and arguments be excluded merely because they oppose the mainstream? Would it violate policy to include them, even if they are held only by a minority of experts?