User:Tcncv/AGF Challenge 2 Exercise Answers

The following are my answers to scenarios and associated questions posed in User:Filll/AGF Challenge 2 Exercises. Prepared as requested in WP:Requests for adminship/Tcncv.

2.1 Taking a Leak

Jack Leak is an author who is frequently in the news for his controversial theory that oil and gas are not the result of millions of years of decomposition of organic material. Leak has published a series of books describing his theories. Leak is a prominent faculty member at an Ivy League university. He believes that oil and gas are the result of inorganic processes deep within the earth's crust.

The faculty in Leak's department have put a statement on the department webpage stating they disagree with Leak's theory. Surveys of other scientists in his field show that over 99% of them think his theory is unscientific and contradicted by the evidence.

Almost every review of Leak's books by other scientists is negative. His work is quite popular among the public, however, who do not want to believe that the supply of fossil fuels is finite, and that we might run out of oil. Leak has testified as an expert witness during several legal trials where environmentalists were trying to block deep offshore drilling or drilling in the arctic. The opposing side in these trials has always ripped Leak's testimony to shreds, ridiculing him. However, he remains very popular with the majority of the public.

An article about one of Leak's books, Earth Juices, on Wikipedia includes links to several negative reviews. One prominent Wikipedia editor demands that these negative reviews be removed, since they violate WP:BLP. The claim is that anything negative about these books in the reviews reflects negatively on Leak's work, and on Leak himself, and therefore violates WP:BLP.

In addition, several editors on Wikipedia have objected to statements in Leak's biography on Wikipedia stating that the "scientific community disagrees with his theories". They claim that one cannot measure what the scientific community believes, so that this statement does not belong and is not valid.

Questions:

• Do the negative reviews of Leak's work constitute a WP:BLP violation? No. In my opinion, the person is separate from his works.
• Can Wikipedia link to these negative reviews? If the reviews are part of peer-reviewed sources that satisfy WP:RS, yes.
• Can Wikipedia state that the "scientific community" agrees or disagrees with his theories? I think it would be better to qualify the statement with "many" or "some" to avoid presenting a blanket conclusion, which might be considered WP:SYNTH. Again, a unqualified statement may be acceptable if such statements are present in referenced reliable sources and are not in conflict with opposing or more guarded statements present in other reliable sources of similar stature.
• Are articles on this author's ideas WP:FRINGE theories since most of the public subscribes to them? No. Although not accepted by the broad scientific community, the theory is presented in a serious manner and has sufficient independent coverage to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia.
• What does WP:NPOV state about how these ideas should be presented on Wikipedia? It is useful to present and reference both points of view. In an article specific to the theory, full coverage may be given to all points of view. In articles on fossil fuels, a brief mention and link is appropriate, but more might be considered WP:UNDUE emphasis.
• How many hours of editor time should Wikipedia spend to deal with this? Good question. The best answer I have is, "As much as necessary, but no more." A better question would be, "How can we minimize editor time spent to deal with this?" To that, my answer would be to focus on taking the conflict to the discussion page and finding a compromise consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. An RfC might be appropriate, but hopefully it would not escalate further than that. (In my personal opinion, much time would be saved if editors would (1) state their position and reasoning, (2) listen and consider what others have to say, (3) refrain from continuously restating one's own opinion, and (4) refrain from refuting every opposing opinion.)