User:Azeranth

Interest

This user is primarily interested in Wikipedia's place in relation to documenting current events, modern politics, and controversial subjects. To that end, this page has been dedicated- at least for now- to a compilation of thoughts on the challenges and principles related to doing so.

Fringe Theory

Articles about fringe theories exist in a difficult and complicated intersection of many of Wikipedia's principles. In general, articles on the subject follow a fairly narrow pattern, source from similar materials, and read similarly. The articles emphasize the wrongness of the theories, frequently label the content as wrong and debunked, and address the fringe claims separately from the facts about the real event. This usually leads to a pretty thick tone that clear states "The only people who would consume this nonsense are all very obviously stupid, lets laugh at them".

Vulnerability

Articles about fringe topics by definition do not attract much attention, and the attention they do attract is typically extreme. Extreme in more ways that the typical "this guy is a loon and is basically vandalizing the page", but they also attract users who are generally more active on Wikipedia. People who are getting into Wikipedia rarely start on fringe sites, and if they have a single point of entry through a fringe topic, they don't tend to gravitate towards more fringe topics, they gravitate in as they accumulate experience. The result is that the people who end up curating these pages are small groups of Wikipedia native who are necessarily insular about anyone who wants to come and kick the hive.

It is not a disparagement of the admins and experience editors who traffic in niche pages, instead its a recognition that there is a reason these pages and their surrounding community is the way it is and understanding that is a prerequisite to change, especially positive change.

Purpose

What is the purpose of a Wikipedia article about a fringe theory? Well there are a few possible answers. The first and most obvious one is "to document the existence of a notable fringe theory" but thats not where it ends. There are other principles at work, and it is worth the effort to suss them out.

Inform Reader of The General Consensus

Perhaps it goes without saying, but one of the biggest things that an article about a fringe theory does is establish for the user that the theory is in fact fringe, and more or less what the "correct" answer is.

Debunking

The purpose of the Wikipedia article is not to debunk or discredit. That falls plainly under Wikipedia:Original research.

Promote The General Consensus

Often Wikipedia articles on fringe topics use the existence of opinion pieces about the topic, particular ones which claim to (and very may well do) debunk the associated claim, as a source for claiming the theory is debunked. The New York Times is a reliable source, and the New York Times claims to have debunked the theory, so, there it is, its been debunked. Lets put that in the article.

This is however a sort of idea laundering. The editor hasn't removed their voice, and maintained a neutral POV, they've just simply found someone else to express their opinion for them. This gets tricky when their opinion is very obviously correct. There's an inherent conflict with Due Balance. As the editor we know vaccines don't cause autism and the earth isn't flat, but that's not the purpose of the article. How do you make a clear distinction between the facts contained in a reliable source, and the conclusion of that article, when you know that the article has drawn the correct conclusion. More importantly, how do you do that without over representing the potential validity of the fringe theory.

Here's a tricky knot to untie. Vox runs a piece about a study saying that vaccines don't cause autism. Its a rigorous and well conducted study, and it has a clear conclusion: "Vaccines do not cause autism". So Vox runs a story with the headline "Vaccines don't cause Autism" and reference the study in their article. What is the difference between "vaccine's don't cause autism" and "study concluded vaccines do not cause autism".

The problem is that technically, the first one is an opinion. Its a well sourced opinion, but its not the purpose of Wikipedia to source opinions. The article should read the second.

To Be Coherent and Articulable

A big problem with fringe theories is that by they're very nature they're nonsensical and incoherent. If they were internally and externally consistent with reality, they wouldn't be a fringe theory. Thus, documentation about the theory, and thus implicitly its arguments are in a rhetorical pickle. You can construct the argument in such a way that it conform most closely with the characterization provided by a mainstream source, which is susceptible to being a straw-man; or you can construct an iron-man argument, which focuses exclusively on verifiable facts which will grow dangerously close to synthesis.

The trouble comes down to the availability of a reliable source- there isn't one. There is an inherent contradiction in a reliable source which provides advocacy for a fringe theory. A source is made mainstream by the fact that it contravenes the fringe theory. Then you get into the issue of did the article being cited produce a straw-man argument. Where did this article source its characterization of the fringe theory's arguments? Is that source reliable? Are the writers of the article sufficiently authoritative to make a claim about what the fringe theory believes?

I think there is a real issue in documenting these things which arises from a limited level of quality of source. And then, the other side of the problem is just as bad. Do you source from a Stormfront article about Jews controlling the media? Set aside the moral implications, you have to now parse a bunch of completely fabricated facts, mixed with half truths, and some full truths. Set aside that there may not be an intelligible argument to extract that doesn't rely on obvious falsehood, how do you connect that with factual sources? Its our old friend synthesis again.

Not to mention, that takes you back to square one of "Does this Stormfront article actually represent the theory at large?" Its a nightmare.

Larger issue of "What am I even writing about?"

Which of the many versions is the Clinton Kill List? What combination of 50 something names do you write? Do you write them all? What about the ones that appear most frequently in the most primary sources? (Starting to sound like synthesis again) What about the names that appear in the most mainstream articles about the topic? (Still sounds like synthesis, AND now you've introduced editorial bias).

Part of the problem with writing about conspiracy theories is that in addition to being incoherent, they're mutable. They change with each retelling, they have local and cultural variations, and blend seamlessly with other nonsense. Where this ouroboros begins is unspecified. Each answer has its own downsides, so the question becomes what downsides do we want to accept.

More To Come

Ill write more about this late, probably. I want to get into a detailed pro con, but I feel like I'm fairly satisfied with how I've written up the issue thus far. Please leave feedback in the talk page.