Wikipedia:No Virtual Majority

This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference.
Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump.

I am proposing a policy that would partially resurrect the idea of scientific POV. I know, that the objectives could be reached using WP:NPOV, but the definitions in there are too vague, and in my opinion, a more specific approach is needed, because the editors that gather around these articles usually don't accept mainstream science as a reliable source/ Otherwise, the virtual majority of pro-CAM editors wins, because no seriously working person has the time and strength to be edit warring with a group of believers forever.

In articles related to health care, the majority viewpoint of health professionals should be used as the backbone of the article. Minority viewpoints can be represented in separate sections.

Per WP:NPOV, the majority viewpoint shloud be the backbone of the article and the notable minority viewpoints should be mentioned in the article. Quote:

From Jimbo Wales, paraphrased from this post from September 2003 on the mailing list:

If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

Other section of NPOV relating to this proposal is WP:NPOV#Pseudoscience. It is clearly stated in that section, that the task of the editor is to present majority view. However, this doesn't always happen. I have no other examples than this one: the articles about Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) are often written from the minority (pro-CAM) POV, because the supporters and practitioners of these professions/methods are more keen on presenting their POV on Wikipedia. However, even though there might be a slight majority of patients in the US [1] who would try alternative medicine in combination with regular medicine (note: prayer is included as a CAM method, that might misrepresent the results), the majority of health care professionals don't view the CAM methods as effective, although there might be exeptions. ^{[citation needed]}

The problem with wikipedia is, that even though that in the real world, the majority viewpoint is skeptical towards these methods, the articles, for instance Orthomolecular medicine are written in the minority (ie pro-CAM) POV, with short "Criticism" section representing the majority POV, that is usually cut down to minimum in 10 subsequent edits in the first 24 hours after it's been added (see the edit history of the article). The supporters and practitioners of these methods gather around the article and reach their consensus about what is true and what is not, usually using only CAM authors as sources. After they have reached consensus, they don't allow any edits that are not "NPOV" i.e. that are contradictory to what they have written, or, if the edits are heavily sourced, they cut them down to two sentences. Moreover, even government agencies are not reliable sources for these editors, if they don't correspond with their beliefs [2]. Another example is Homeopathy. This article has gone through too much wars and disputes already (check the talk page), it is messy and it doesn't have a chance to be really usable - ever. It might aswell be deleted because it really serves as a chatroom like in WP:WIACHR.

By gathering around these articles, and by spending a lot of time editing them and monitoring / reverting the changes, the pro-CAM editors create a virtual majority, by insisting on some minimal level[3] of research, scholarship, familiarity or consistency. This majority only exists on Wikipedia, and not in the real world, as I already pointed out in the discussion [4].

ackoz 13:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)^[5][6][7][8][reply]

Note: The heaviest edit activity on Orthomolecular Medicine occurred between DocJohnny & 69.178... over ~50 edits between 9 & 26 Jan 06 [9], [10]). DocJohnny seemed to enjoy himself and we amicably resolved our differences. Ackoz notified DocJohnny & InvictaHOG of his disputes, among others, but got no support for his demands.--69.178.41.55 18:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]