Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science/Workshop: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Enric Naval (talk | contribs) m →Sourcing: fix indentation and note that it's not a literal quote |
|||
Line 309:
:: Fortunately scientific consensus is not 'marketing ideas'. Wikipedia reports scientific consensus. What's the problem? [[User:Peter Damian|Peter Damian]] ([[User talk:Peter Damian|talk]]) 19:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
:::That is my understanding. I am not sure why others feel the need to battle over facts. Just spell them out, and if anybody is behaving unreasonably, use [[WP:DR|dispute resolution]] to stop them from disrupting. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup> 22:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
::::I lurked through the cold fusion ARB process, and what the issue is is that people disagree over what the actual facts are. The CF discussion pretty much boiled down to "That's not a reliable source", "Yes it is", "No it isn't"....There was a lot of [[WP:IDHT]] on both sides. For me, my hope is that we can figure out how to handle fringe sources on fring subjects. I would hate for WP to become like those "documentaries" about the Loch Ness Monster that leave viewers thinking it might actually exist.
===Debunking - STRUCK===
| |||