Участник:Melirius/Fringe

Шаблон:Subcat guideline

Вкратце: To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea. More extensive treatment should be reserved for an article about the idea, which must meet the test of notability.

For questions or help with specific examples, please visit the fringe theories noticeboard.

Шаблон:Guideline list

Википедия суммирует значимые мнения в пропорциях, обусловленных их распространённости в авторитетных источниках. Статья Википедии о маргинальной теории не должна представлять её более значимой, чем она есть на самом деле. Утверждения в статьях должны базироваться на независимых авторитетных источниках. Идея, не поддерживаемая большинством экспертов в данной области, не должна занимать непропорционально большое место в статье об общепризнанной концепции^[1], и должны быть приведены авторитетные источники, которые серьёзно и последовательно подтверждают влияние и взаимодействие маргинальной идеи с общепринятой.

Такой образ действий диктуется различными причинами. Википедия не является и не должна становиться средством придания значимости незначимым предметам. Википедия — не форум для оригинальных исследований^[2] И для пишущих и редактирующих статьи участников, чтобы соблюдать нейтральную точку зрения в статьях о противоречивых предметах, жизненно необходимо максимально точно воспроизводить сказанное вторичными источниками разумной достоверности и качества.

Основу правил об освещении в Википедии маргинальных теорий составляют три столпа: Нейтральная точка зрения, Недопустимость оригинальных исследований и Проверяемость. Вместе они говорят, что статьи не должны содержать оригинального анализа или синтеза источников, что неочевидные утверждения требуют авторитетных источников, и что все доминирующие и существенные менее распространённые мнения, представленные в авторитетных источниках, должны быть представлены честно и пропорционально их распространённости. Если между данным руководством и правилами возникает противоречие, правила имеют приоритет.

Маргинальные теории и соответствующие статьи были объектом нескольких Арбитражных исков, например, АК:722, АК:742, en:Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Arbitration cases.

В Википиедии термин маргинальная теория применяется в очень широком смысле для описания идей, которые серьёзно отличаются от доминирующих взглядов взглядов в некоторой области. Академическое сообщество, как правило, наиболее авторитетно для определения преобладающих взглядов, с двумя исключениями: не каждый объект имеет изучающую его академическую дисциплину, а мнениям экспертов из другой области не следует придавать непропорционального веса. Например, маргинальные научные теории существенно расходятся с научным консенсусом и имеют слабую поддержку научного сообщества или не имеют её вовсе. Другие примеры: теории заговора и эзотерические медицинские практики.

• WP:FRINGE/PS

При обсуждении предметов, которые авторитетные источники характеризуют как псевдонаучные или маргинальные теории, редакторы должны быть особенно аккуратны, чтобы не представлять псевдонаучные маргинальные взгляды вместе с научным или академическим консенсусом как если бы они были противоречащими друг другу равнозначными точками зрения. В то время как псевдонаука в некоторых случаях может быть достаточно значимой для статьи о ней, эта статья не должна скрывать от читателя описания и распространённости общепринятых взглядов.

Предметы, которые должны быть в норме классифицированы — для преамбулы или целей категоризации — как псевдонаучные, включают в себя:

1. Очевидную псевдонауку: Теории, которые, претендуя на научность, очевидно фиктивны, должны быть помечены и категоризированы как псевдонаучные без дополнительной аргументации. Например, так как универсально принятые научные взгляды включают в себя невозможность вечного движения, любой вечный двигатель (например, en:Stanley Meyer's water fuel cell) должен быть явно псевдонаучным.

2. Псевдонауку по мнению большинства: Теории, которые имеют сторонников, такие как астрология, но которые обычно рассматриваются как псевдонаучные научным сообществом, могут правомочно быть охарактеризованы как псевдонаучные и категоризированы как таковые.

Некоторые предметы требуют большей осторожности:

3. Маргинальная наука: Теории, имеющие существенное количество сторонников, но называемые псевдонаучными рядом критиков, должны содержать информацию об этом; тем не менее, они не должны описываться как неоспоримо псевдонаучные, пока вопрос об их псевдонаучности продолжает вызывать разумный объём академической дикуссии.

Другие предметы, которые обычно не должны описываться как псевдонаучные:

4. Альтернативные теоретические формулировки: Альтернативные теоретические формулировки в научном сообществе — это не псевдонаука, а часть научного процесса. Такие формулировки могут не соответствовать некоторым известным представлениям, но, если они окажутся более успешными в объяснении фактов, обычно они быстро получают признание. Например, теория дрейфа материков сурово критиковалась сторонниками доминировавшего фиксизма, так как не было известно механизма, способного вызвать движения материков. Когда такой механизм был открыт, теория стала доминирующей под современным названием «тектоника плит».

Для определения, относить ли предмет к псевдонаучным или к альтернативным, следует рассмотреть следующее:

• Альтернативные теоретические формулировки обычно имеют дело с частными проблемами на острие научного поиска или пытаются создать модель, лучше описывающую действительность, на основе существенного количества строго доказанных новых и неожиданных фактов.
• Псевдонаука обычно предлагает изменить базовые научные законы или саму реальность для того, чтобы позволить существовать какому-либо явлению, в которое сторонники данного направления хотят верить, но не имеют при этом достаточной доказательной базы, оправдывающей такие серьёзные изменения. Псевдонаука обычно опирается на попытки атаковать общепринятые научные теории и методологию (как это обычно среди научных креационистов), базируется на недостаточно обоснованных фактах (таких как слухи или неубедительные статистические данные, как в парапсихологии), или содержит подозрительные теоретические предпосылки (такие как память воды, защищаемая сторонниками гомеопатии).

Some Assumptions of Orthodox, Western Psychology (Tart, 1992a, Chapter 2, pp. 61-111)

The Nature of the Universe

• The universe was created accidentally or created itself or has always been around and there is no purpose or reason for the universe existing.
• The universe is dead; life is only an infinitesimal, insignificant part of the universe.
• Physics is the ultimate science, because physics is the study of the real world.
• What is real is what can be perceived by the senses or by a physical instrument, and what can be perceived by the senses can be detected by a physical instrument.
• Only the present moment exists.
• We can understand the physical universe without understanding ourselves.

The Nature of Man

• Man is his body and nothing more.
• Man exists in relative isolation from his surrounding environment. He is an essentially independent creature.
• Man starts life―"fresh", except for limitations set on him by his genetic inheritance, his cultural environment, and accidental happenings, all modified by his reactions to them.
• Man is completely determined by his genetic inheritance and environment.
• Even though we believe man is completely determined, in practice we must act as if he has free will.
• We have a rather good understanding of the history of man.
• We understand the origin and evolution of man.
• We can‘t expect too much from a creature like man, or there are no limits on man‘s attainments.
• Each man is isolated from all others, locked within his nervous system.
• Psychological energy is completely derived from physical energy, as expressed in physiological processes in the body.

Man’s Function in the Universe

• Man has no function in a purposeless universe.
• The only real purpose of life is to maximize pleasure and minimize pain.
• The universe is a harsh, uncaring, unresponsive place.
• We are here to conquer the universe.
• We are by far the supreme life form on earth, and are probably the only intelligent life form in the whole universe.
• Lower organisms exist for man‘s benefit.

The Nature of Human Consciousness

• Only human beings are conscious.
• Man is conscious
• Consciousness is produced by the activity of the brain, and therefore the activity of consciousness is identical with the activity of the brain.

Altered States of Consciousness

• Altered states of consciousness are simply a temporary reorganization of brain functioning.
• Our ordinary state of consciousness is generally the most adaptive and rational way the mind can be organized, and virtually all altered states of consciousness are inferior or pathological.
• A person who spontaneously goes into altered states of consciousness is probably mentally ill.
• Deliberately cultivating altered states of consciousness is also a sign of psychopathology.

Death

• Death is the inevitable end of human life.
• Physical death is the final termination of human consciousness.

Personality

• An individual‘s personality is what makes him unique, skilled, worthwhile, and gives him his sense of identity.
• A sense of personality, personal identity is vital, and its loss is pathological.
• The basic development of personality is finished or complete in adulthood, except in the cases of neurotics or other mentally ill persons.
• A healthy personality is one which allows the individual to be well-adjusted in terms of his culture.
• A normal adult has a fairly good degree of understanding of his own personality.
• Personality is a relatively unified structure in normal adults.

Cognitive Processes

• Reasoning is the highest skill possessed by man.
• Developing the logical mind, one‘s reasoning abilities, is the highest accomplishment a person can aim for.
• Extension of our basically sound knowledge and cognitive processes is the way to greater knowledge and wisdom.
• Knowledge is a hypothesis, a concept in the mind, and there is no direct, certain knowledge of anything.
• Philosophers are the ultimate authorities about the nature of knowledge.
• Almost all important knowledge can be transmitted by the written word, and the written word is the least ambiguous, most accurate way of transmitting it.
• Logical inconsistencies in the expression of something indicate its invalidity.
• When people agree with me they are being rational; when they disagree they are probably irrational.
• Fantasy is a part-time cognitive activity, usually done in our leisure hours.
• Faith means believing in things that are not real or that you have no solid evidence for.
• Intuition is a word we use for lucky guesses, coincidences, or rational processes that are outside of conscious awareness but are nevertheless rational.
• Symbols are nothing but physical objects with emotional meaning, or electrophysiological patterns within the brain.
• Our beliefs and psychological experiences affect only ourselves, not the "real" world, except when expressed by motor activities.

Emotion

• Emotions are electrical and chemical shifts within the nervous system.
• Emotions interfere with logical reason and make man irrational; therefore they should generally be suppressed or eliminated except for recreational purposes.
• Emotions have no place in scientific work, or while they may motivate individuals, they must be filtered out of the final product.
• Negative emotions are the inevitable lot of man.
• There are no higher emotions; all emotions are basically self-serving and animal.
• Play is for children.
• Pain is bad and should be avoided.

The Relationship Between Mind and Body.

• The body is a relatively passive servo-mechanism for carrying out the orders of the nervous system.
• The physical body is the only body we have.

Learning

• Learning is a matter of permanent and semi-permanent electrochemical changes in the brain and nervous system.
• Learning is a matter of accumulating knowledge.
• Intellectual learning is the highest form of learning, and a person with a very high IQ has the potential to learn practically everything of importance.
• Learning is a matter of taking in sensory impressions and applying cognitive processes to them.

Memory

• Memory is not very reliable; it is far better to depend on an objective record.
• The only memory we have is of impressions in this life up to the present moment.
• The only memories we have direct access to are our own.

Motivation

• Desiring things is the basic motivation that keeps a person‘s life functioning, and lack of desire for things is pathological.
• The primary motivations affecting people are desires for power and desires for sexual pleasure, along with an avoidance of pain.

Perception

• The only things there are to perceive are the physical world and the sensation from the internal operations of our body and nervous system.
• The nature of our sense organs determines the nature of our perceptions.
• Perception is somewhat selective and biased, but generally gives us a very good picture of the world around us.

Social Relationships

• The selfish, neurotic, unreasonable actions of others are the major source of our personal suffering.
• No normal person likes to suffer.
• Progress comes from improving society.

Miscellaneous Assumptions

• Scientific progress is cumulative.
• Our civilization (and its psychology) is the greatest civilization that every existed on this planet.
• Our civilization (and our psychology) is steadily progressing.
• An active, conquest-oriented approach is the way to make progress in understanding and controlling the universe.
• Being a scientist and being a mystic are incompatible.

Авторитетные источники необходимы для любой статьи Википедии. Они нужны, чтобы продемонстрировать достаточную для написания отдельной статьи значимость предмета, а для того, чтобы маргинальная теория описывалась в статье о мейнстримной, авторитетные источники должны рассматривать их взаимоотношения как существенные.

Авторитетные для Википедии источники включают рецензируемые журналы; книги издательств университетов; учебники высшей школы; журналы и книги уважаемых издательств; и мейнстримные газеты. Академические и рецензируемые публикации обычно являются наиболее авторитетными источниками в тех областях, в которых они доступны, но материал из надёжных неакадемических источников также может быть использован при описании этих областей.

Маргинальная теория может рассматриваться как достаточно значимая для отдельной статьи о ней, если она существенно и серъёзно разбирается как минимум в одной крупной публикации известной группой или человеком, независимым от этой теории. Ссылки, которые разоблачают или очерняют маргинальную теорию, также подходят для этой цели, так как они демонстрируют известность теории вне группы её адептов. Источникам, которые упоминают теорию из-за значимости какого-либо связанного с ней объекта — например, создателя теории — следует при оценке значимости приписывать гораздо меньший вес. Следует также учитывать, что тот факт, что даже респектабельные новостные ресурсы часто описывают не совсем значимые вещи в беспечном стиле, например, на 1 апреля, как "новости непознанного" или в периоды "новостного затишья". (См. en:junk food news и en:silly season.)

Предметы статей освещаются в Википедии пропорционально уровню детализации в источниках, на основании которых пишутся статьи. Например, если только новостные источники описывают предмет, то больший уровень детализации, чем тот, который представлен в этих источниках, неприемлем из-за недопустимости оригинальных исследований в Википедии. Это правило поощряет подбор и систематизацию информации из существующих вторичных источников, и позволяет осторожное использование первичных источников.

Сторонники маргинальных теорий пытаются использовать Википедию как форум для рекламы и распространения своих идей. Правила Википедии запрещают подобное поведение: если все утверждения о маргинальной теории исходят от её разработчиков или последователей, то это нарушает правило «Чем не является Википедия». Википедия не является ни местом для размещения оригинальных размышлений, ни soapbox for self-promotion and advertising. Значимость маргинальной теории должна определяться на основании утверждений проверяемых и авторитетных источников, а не прокламаций её сторонников. Attempts by such inventors and adherents to artificially inflate the perceived renown of their fringe theories, such as sock puppetry in AfD discussions, is strongly discouraged. Efforts of fringe-theory inventors to shill on behalf of their theories, such as the offering of self-published material as references, are unacceptable: Wikipedia is not an advertising venue. (See also Links normally to be avoided, Conflict of interest, Autobiography guidelines.)

The neutral point of view policy requires that all majority and significant-minority positions be included in an article. However, it also requires that they not be given undue weight. A conjecture that has not received critical review from the scientific community or that has been rejected may be included in an article about a scientific subject only if other high-quality reliable sources discuss it as an alternative position. Ideas supported only by a tiny minority may be explained in articles devoted to those ideas if they are notable. For a fringe theory to be considered notable, it is not sufficient that it has been discussed, positively or negatively, by groups or individuals, even if those groups are notable enough for a Wikipedia article. To be notable, secondary reliable sources must have commented on it, disparaged it, or discussed it. Otherwise it is not notable enough for a dedicated article in Wikipedia.

Many encyclopedic topics can be evaluated from a number of different perspectives, and some of these perspectives may make claims that lack verification in research, that are inherently untestable, or that are pseudoscientific. In general, Wikipedia should always give prominence to established lines of research found in reliable sources and present neutral descriptions of other claims with respect to their historical, scientific, and cultural prominence. Claims that are uncontroversial and uncontested within reliable sources should be presented as simple statements of fact – e.g. "An electron has a mass that is approximately 1/1836 that of the proton." Claims derived from fringe theories should be carefully attributed to an appropriate source and located within a context – e.g. "There are extreme academic views such as those of Jacques Halbronn, suggesting at great length and with great complexity that Nostradamus's Prophecies are antedated forgeries written by later hands with a political axe to grind." Such claims may contain or be followed by qualifiers to maintain neutrality – e.g. "Although Halbronn possibly knows more about the texts and associated archives than almost anybody else alive (he helped dig out and research many of them), most other specialists in the field reject this view." – but restraint should be used with such qualifiers to avoid giving the appearance of an overly harsh or overly critical assessment. This is particularly true within articles dedicated specifically to fringe ideas: Such articles should first describe the idea clearly and objectively, then refer the reader to more accepted ideas, and avoid excessive use of point-counterpoint style refutations. It is also best to avoid hiding all disputations in an end criticism section, but instead work for integrated, easy to read, and accurate article prose.

Notable perspectives 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. Perspectives which advocate non-scientific or pseudoscientific religious claims intended to directly confront scientific discoveries should be evaluated on both a scientific and a theological basis, with acknowledgment of how the most reliable sources consider the subjects. For example, creationism and creation science should be described primarily as religious and political movements and the fact that claims from those perspectives are disputed by mainstream theologians and scientists should be directly addressed. Fringe theories that oppose reliably sourced research – denialist histories, for example – should be described clearly within their own articles, but should not be given undue weight in more general discussions of the topic.

According to Jimbo Wales:

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 pseudoscience unless such claims can be documented in reliable sources.

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

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 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.

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 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.

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 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, there must be adequate reliable sources to allow the subject to be covered in sufficient detail without engaging in original research. Care should be taken with journals that exist mainly to promote a particular viewpoint. Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals.

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 by the scientific community. It is important that original hypotheses that have gone through peer review do not get presented in Wikipedia as representing 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. Likewise, exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality reliable sources.

Wikipedia is meant to be a 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 policies on original research. In the case of obscure fringe theories, secondary sources that describe the theories should be carefully vetted for reliability.

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:

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.

Наилучшими источниками для описания маргинальных теорий, а также для определения их значимости и распространённости, являются независимые авторитетные источники. В частности, относительная доля места, посвящённого различным аспектам маргинальной теории, должна определяться в основном независимыми источниками. Аспекты маргинальных теорий, не рассматриваемые в независимых источниках, вообще не должны упоминаться в статье. Независимые источники также необходимы для определения взаимоотношений маргинальных теорий с мэйнстримным академическим дискурсом.

• WP:PARITY

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. However, 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. Note that fringe journals exist, some of which claim peer review. Only a very few of these actually have any meaningful peer review outside of promoters of the fringe theories, and should generally be considered unreliable. Examples of unreliable journals include: The Creation Science Quarterly, Homeopathy, Journal of Frontier Science (which uses blog comments^[4] as its supposed peer review), and many others.

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 Moon landing conspiracy theories article may include material from reliable websites, movies, television specials, and books that are not peer reviewed. By parity of sources, critiques of that material can likewise be gleaned from reliable websites and books that are not peer reviewed. Of course, for any viewpoint described in an article, only reliable sources should be used; Wikipedia's verifiability policy is not suspended simply because the topic is a fringe theory.

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 scientific topics on 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 creation science itself is almost never published in peer-reviewed journals. Likewise, views of adherents should not be excluded from an article on creation science solely on the basis that their work lacks peer review, other considerations for notability should be considered as well. Fringe views are properly excluded from articles on mainstream subjects to the extent that they are rarely if ever included by reliable sources on those subjects.

The prominence of fringe views needs 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.

• WP:ITA

The careful use of sources is vital when writing about criticism of fringe theories. Since fringe theories may be obscure topics that few non-adherents write about, there may only be a small number of sources that directly dispute them. Care should be taken not to mislead the reader by implying that, because the claim is actively disputed by only a few, it is otherwise supported. Particularly harsh criticism should be attributed – "Philosopher A. C. Grayling dismisses intelligent design as 'a little driblet of childish ignorance; a mark of mankind's infancy.'" – while simple facts – "humans and chimpanzees evolved from a common ancestor" – are best left stated simply as facts rather than recast as opinions. Be careful not to use in-text attribution carelessly to imply that only the named sources would agree. A careful use of words and the adoption of a disinterested tone will ensure that a reader is not spoonfed opinions as facts and vice-versa.

• WP:ONEWAY

Маргинальные теории могут быть упомянуты в текстах других статей только если независимые авторитетные источники связывают их предметы существенным и значимым образом. Тем не менее, даже такая связь показывает только возможность включения упоминания маргинальной теории в других статьях, но никак не обязательность этого. Если упоминание такой теории в другой статье придаёт ей непропорциональный вес, рассмотрение её там может быть ограничено, или вообще опущено. Если никакие независимые авторитетные источники не связывают данную маргинальную теорию с мэйнстримной, тогда даже ссылки на неё из раздела «См. также» быть не должно, кроме случая страниц разрешения неоднозначностей coatrack.

Occasionally, uncontroversial ideas will need to be referred to in relation to fringe theories. Such ideas should be sourced by reliable mainstream sources. Links to non-fringe articles in fringe articles can also help aid the reader in understanding and remove the threat of creating a walled garden. In contrast, many mainstream articles do not link to articles about fringe theories. This is the principle of one-way linking for fringe theories.

Examples:

• Astrology – There are plenty of reliable sources which describe how astronomy is not astrology, and so a decent article on the former may mention the latter.
• Autodynamics – There are no reliable sources about special relativity which also mention autodynamics, and so a decent article on special relativity should not mention autodynamics.

Note, however, that the mainstream scientific subjects are discussed and linked to in both of the articles above that are about the fringe subjects.

Sufficiently notable for dedicated 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 courts of law give the idea itself more than adequate notability to have articles about it on Wikipedia.
• Moon landing conspiracy theories – Conspiracy theories which aim to show that the moon landings were fake, while probably not held as true by very many people, have generated enough discussion in books, television programs, debunking statements from NASA, etc., that they deserve an article on Wikipedia.
• Paul is dead – a famous urban legend alleging that Paul McCartney of The Beatles died in 1966 and was replaced by a look-alike, sound-alike duplicate named William Campbell. Denied by all four Beatles (including McCartney, who is alive and well на 2011 год), this conspiracy theory was 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.

Not sufficiently notable for dedicated articles:

• Theories of Booth's escape – The page on John Wilkes Booth includes descriptions of conspiracy theories contending that Booth eluded his pursuers and escaped. However, they are not notable enough for a dedicated article.
• Reptoid hypothesis – The page on conspiracy theorist David Icke describes his claim that many world leaders are actually shape-shifting reptilians from the constellation Draco. This conspiracy theory is not notable enough for a dedicated article.

• Wikipedia:Be neutral in form
• Wikipedia:Coatrack
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science
• Wikipedia:Scientific consensus
• Wikipedia:Snowball clause
• Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia cannot claim the earth is not flat
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative Views
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Rational Skepticism

ru:Википедия:Маргинальные теории