Count Iblis (talk | contribs) Start a complete rewrite as an essay |
Count Iblis (talk | contribs) Let's start with this. I've cut away the philosophical nonsense about science and tried to make a no-nonsense descripton of what SPOV should mean and I explain why editors should stick to this |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Ombox |
|||
|type = notice |
|||
|image = [[Image:Red x.svg|30px|alt=Red X|link=]] |
|||
|text = '''A previous version was a [[Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#failed|failed]] proposal.''' [[Wikipedia:Consensus|Consensus]] in its favor was not established within a reasonable amount of time. Its past failure as a proposal may not reflect on its suitability as an essay. |
|||
|imageright = {{#if: | {{Ombox/Shortcut||||| }} }} |
|||
}}{{#ifeq:{{{categories}}}|no||[[Category:Wikipedia rejected proposals|{{PAGENAME}}]]}} |
|||
⚫ | |||
{{essay}} |
{{essay}} |
||
{{nutshell|Editors must write scientific articles using information from peer reviewed scientific sources with high [[impact factor]]s; while significant minority views expressed in peer reviewed scientific articles can be included with a proper [[WP:Weight|weight]], such views cannot be included if these are only found in non-scientific sources}} |
|||
Readers of a scientific article expect to find information that describes the topic in a way that is consistent with the existing scientific knowledge. To make sure this is indeed the case, editors are instructed not to engage in [[WP:NOR|original research]], and write articles using information from peer reviewed scientific sources with high [[impact factor]]s. |
|||
⚫ | |||
{{Shortcut|WP:SPOV}} |
|||
[[Wikipedia]] follows a [[WP:NPOV|neutral point of view]] (NPOV). According to Jimbo, this is non-negotiable. NPOV works best when applied to the [[social sciences]] such as articles on [[history]], and to controversial subjects. NPOV works less well when applied to the [[natural sciences]], when a '''scientific point of view''' (SPOV) is sometimes more appropriate (e.g. as employed by the [[Evowiki]] [http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/EvoWiki:Editorial_philosophy]). Nevertheless, NPOV can and needs to be applied to scientific articles as well, while SPOV shouldn't be applied to other articles. This is a discussion on the differences between NPOV and SPOV and how to write a scientific article in a NPOV-style. |
|||
== Definition == |
|||
An SPOV must be based on the [[philosophy of science]], which is somewhat complex. Science consists of [[fact]]s, [[theories]] and [[hypotheses]]. In accordance with the [[wikipedia:No original research|no original research]] policy, an SPOV reports the consensus of the [[scientific community]]. |
|||
SPOV holds that scientific views are correct, since they are defined by logic and reason. Defining SPOV in this context now becomes more difficult however, two possibilities exist: |
|||
# SPOV should be written ''to the exclusion of'' all others. |
|||
# SPOV should be written ''prioritised over'' all others. |
|||
<nowiki>#1</nowiki> violates the policy of [[Wikipedia:include all knowledge|including all knowledge]], as it deliberately leaves out all others. #2 is clearly better, and although each individual article must be taken into account, the SPOV is generally held to be the most important POV in NPOV. Where there are no other views NPOV is, of course, SPOV. |
|||
Note however, all secondary POVs must be held by a substantial enough number of individuals to be [[Wikipedia:significance|significant]] and [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|verifiable]] (this includes [[pseudoscience]]). |
|||
== Types of article == |
|||
There is a continuum of the amount of difference in POVs for different scientific subjects. There are three broad types of subject, identified here as "Uncontroversial", "pseudo-controversial" and "controversial". |
|||
# '''Uncontroversial'''; boring, bog standard subjects |
|||
# '''Pseudo-controversial'''; uncontroversial subjects within the [[scientific community]] that are nevertheless controversial outside of it (e.g. [[evolution]]) |
|||
# '''Controversial'''; controversial subjects within the scientific community, e.g. [[nature-nurture controversy]]. |
|||
== Paradigms, alternatives and pseudoscience == |
|||
Some concepts are more widely held than others, in fact there is a hierarchy of accepted ideas. The most widely held view (the [[paradigm]]) should be explained first, followed by alternative scientific theories, in turn followed by [[Wikipedia:patent nonsense|pseudoscientific nonsense]]. |
|||
Explanations should also be proportional to the level of acceptance, and if necessary split off into a [[Wikipedia:sub-article]]. |
|||
Pseudoscience is difficult to write about in an objective way because it is difficult to explain nonsense and most pseudoscience defies logical understanding. |
|||
As Wikipedia is reactive, not proactive, any [[paradigm shift]]s should be documented after they occur. |
|||
== See also == |
|||
* [[Scientism]] |
|||
It is allowed to use information from other sources than peer reviewed sources, if such information is known to be consistent with accepted scientific knowledge. Examples are textbooks, popular scientific magazines, preprints written by scientists with a good publication record, personal websites or blogs of such scientists. Such sources can be considered to be [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] for a scientific article, if the editors agree that what they can find in there is consistent with the existing scientific knowledge. |
|||
== Hints and tips == |
|||
==Consistency with [[WP:Neutral point of view]]== |
|||
# [[Wikipedia:Cite your sources|Cite your sources]]: credit concepts to their conceptualiser. Either do this in the main body or include a separate history section (especially if the concept is old). A history section should also contain historical criticisms within the scientific community that are no longer accepted. |
|||
This scientific point of view for science articles is consistent with the [[WP:Neutral point of view|neutral point if view]] policy. For a scientific topic to be presented in a neutral way requires one to stick to the scientific point of view as described in this essay. When there are widely held views that are inconsistent with the scientific point of view, then that can merit inclusion in a section of the article or in another article that is specifically about the non-scientific aspects of the topic. |
Revision as of 22:53, 15 June 2011
Readers of a scientific article expect to find information that describes the topic in a way that is consistent with the existing scientific knowledge. To make sure this is indeed the case, editors are instructed not to engage in original research, and write articles using information from peer reviewed scientific sources with high impact factors.
It is allowed to use information from other sources than peer reviewed sources, if such information is known to be consistent with accepted scientific knowledge. Examples are textbooks, popular scientific magazines, preprints written by scientists with a good publication record, personal websites or blogs of such scientists. Such sources can be considered to be reliable sources for a scientific article, if the editors agree that what they can find in there is consistent with the existing scientific knowledge.
Consistency with WP:Neutral point of view
This scientific point of view for science articles is consistent with the neutral point if view policy. For a scientific topic to be presented in a neutral way requires one to stick to the scientific point of view as described in this essay. When there are widely held views that are inconsistent with the scientific point of view, then that can merit inclusion in a section of the article or in another article that is specifically about the non-scientific aspects of the topic.