User:Enigmaman/AGF Challenge 2 Exercise Answers

2.1 Taking a Leak

The negative reviews are not a BLP violation at all. Wikipedia can link to those reviews, per WP:NPOV. In this case, each position should receive the weight that it is due. Given that a survey shows that less than 1% put any stock at all in Leak's theory, it should not receive much coverage on Wikipedia at all, outside of his own article.

However, I don't think one can state that the "scientific community" agrees or disagrees. How large was the sample size for the surveys taken of scientists in his field? Was it a representative sample? In fact, unless the surveys were covered by reliable sources, I think it's best to ignore them and focus on what we know recognized scientists have said about Leak and his theories.

In the end, the applicable theories are WP:RS, WP:V, WP:UNDUE, and WP:NPOV. The article should try to represent all recognized viewpoints and be as balanced as possible. If Leak's viewpoints are popular with the public, that should be stated and cited.

WP:FRINGE states:

In order to be notable enough to appear in Wikipedia, a fringe idea should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory.

Even debunking or disparaging references are adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents.

Finally, Wikipedia is a collection of editors and a monolith. It cannot decide how many hours of editor time to allocate to anything whatsoever. Even if it could, I lack context to make a decision about the number of hours to spend on this issue.

2.4 How long is yours?

What's reasonable and fair is for Wikipedia to stick to the 75 minute length, because it appears that 75 minutes is the length stated in all reliable sources found for this. Wikipedia:No original research would preclude the individual from changing the article merely on his own say-so.

WP:IAR cannot be used to justify this addition, and there is patently no such thing as a "violation of IAR", as it would then be a rule unto itself.

Finally, Wikipedia is a collection of editors and a monolith. It cannot decide how many hours of editor time to allocate to anything whatsoever. Even if it could, I lack context to make a decision about the number of hours to spend on this issue.

Pass on 2.2, 2.6, and 2.8.