User talk:Valjean/Essay/How to increase Wikipedia's credibility

Critique

I have invited a number of quality editors and welcome their critique here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:58, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

• @Valjean: - I take issue with how Be anti-fringe repeats quotes from Research of credibility factors. I think there is no need. starship.paint (exalt) 02:26, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Starship.paint, I have removed them. Take a look. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:49, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
    • Yeah, okay. I mean, it’s your essay, so I’d leave it at that. starship.paint (exalt) 02:54, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

• Nice essay. I enjoyed reading it. Nice work. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:33, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Suggestions are welcome. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:49, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Mention COVID articles?

Since you mentioned Veracity of statements by Donald Trump, you might also consider something like Statistics of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States, considering especially how many people in the early pandemic believed the virus was entirely a hoax and did not trust government health agency reporting or predictions (see section: "Death projections"), though there was indeed credible information to be had, which is something Wikipedia helped with, IMO. Tuckerlieberman (talk) 00:00, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Opening sentence

A small style suggestion: Begin with a brief description of the problem, even if only one sentence? For example, using material that's currently in the 3rd paragraph, you could start the essay with: "Falsehoods, pseudoscience, and conspiracy theories damage Wikipedia's credibility." Then the reader will have more context for understanding your solution. Tuckerlieberman (talk) 00:09, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done Excellent suggestion. Thanks. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:10, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I think this was a good suggestion, but I would modify it slightly. I think the overall article should begin with more broad statements, and then narrow down to a description of the precise problem. As in most essays, we have to bring our readers (editors) in to agree with the major premises before we start laying out the logic.

So I would modify from:

Falsehoods, pseudoscience, and conspiracy theories damage Wikipedia's credibility, and research shows that Wikipedia gains credibility by being an active fact-checker and anti-fringe. When fringe editors leave Wikipedia it becomes more trustworthy. Our articles should leave no doubt as to what is factual and what is false or unproven. Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia and always strives to report facts as found in reliable sources (RS).

to:

Research shows that Wikipedia gains credibility by being an active fact-checker and anti-fringe. Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia and always strives to report facts as found in reliable sources (RS). Our articles should leave no doubt as to what is factual and what is false or unproven. Falsehoods, pseudoscience, and conspiracy theories damage Wikipedia's credibility, and when fringe editors leave Wikipedia it becomes more trustworthy. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:14, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Sweet! I'll use that. I like your thinking. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:32, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I would also add some citations to some of these statements, because i agree with them, but we want to make sure they're able to convince others as well, especially those who may initially disagree. So here's some citations I would add:

• Research shows that Wikipedia gains credibility by being an active fact-checker and anti-fringe.

• Falsehoods, pseudoscience, and conspiracy theories damage Wikipedia's credibility

Sources

— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:33, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Now added. I hope I did it right. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:04, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

The opening line makes me want to spam tags in: Research shows that Wikipedia gains credibility by...

According to the footnote, the answer is "people who aren't 99% of our readers". Is gaining credibility with a tiny minority (e.g., professional journalists) the goal? Or do we want to seem credible to most readers? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:16, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, we want all readers to expect, recognize, and respect credibility at Wikipedia. We want criticism to be limited to purely fringe sources. Journalists, news sources, and researchers use and study this stuff, but ordinary readers also recognize it.

Do you have some concrete wordings that would improve this? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:49, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

It's not really about "wording". The problem is that what signals credibility to scientists and journalists is not what signals credibility to non-scientists and non-journalists.

For example: Let's say that a scientist looks for impressive academic journals in the citations. ("How do I know that this article about the common cold is trustworthy? Because they cited Prof. IM Portant's paper in J. Impressive.") A layperson looks for something that acknowledges the beliefs they held about the subject before they arrived at the article. ("How do I know that the article about the common cold is trustworthy? Because it says that this home remedy is popular, and my family uses that exact home remedy.") Lay readers are also looking for information that is consistent across multiple sites. So, for example, if we [correctly] say that Dextromethorphan is basically useless as a cough suppressant, but Mayo Clinic, WebMD, and Healthline all say that it is a valuable drug that everyone should consider, then we will be perceived as less credible. Credibility doesn't correlate as closely with being correct as one might wish.

Also, lay readers aren't really looking for credibility. They're looking for utility. A site (any site) could be completely non-credible and still be useful to the reader (e.g)., by mentioning the name of that thing I can't remember right now, and now that I've got the name, I can search for the information I'm really after).

I think it could be valuable to do a Five whys exercise on why you think Wikipedia should be credible. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:38, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Why? Ultimately, the only reason Wikipedia should not be considered a RS is that it's crowdsourced, never because any information is inaccurate. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:56, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

As you imply, accurate information is not necessarily NPOV when it's crowdsourced by ill-informed editors. Article content can be accurate but still present misleading and unreliable narratives.

It strikes me that this essay is currently dealing with many distinct issues without really identifying how they impact credibility or how the enforcement of our content and behavioral PAGs intersect. It is a huge subject that's endlessly discussed at Village Pump and the NPOV and V talk pages. Perhaps invitations at those venues would bring some additional contributors to this page. SPECIFICO talk 17:11, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

NO! Please don't mention this there. This is kept on my user page for a reason. It's still too early for wider discussion. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:22, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Valjean, if you had to choose between "Wikipedia being correct" and "Wikipedia being perceived as credible", which would you choose?

Why should Wikipedia prefer credibility, specifically, when there are other values that editors might find equally or more compelling, like being accurate, comprehensive, useful, fair, transparent, trustworthy, etc.? Credibility is about whether people believe you, regardless of whether the should. Why is that more important than other values? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:35, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

My starting point here is that research. Credibility is one metric, and an important one. Without it, nothing else matters. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:28, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

"Trust" might be a better framing of the metric we care about. Wikipedia has a high degree of trust because of its accuracy and fairness and transparency. We want to increase trust as a metric because we know that accuracy and fairness and transparency should ladder up to increased trust. Andre🚐 20:00, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

That sounds good. Use that word more. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:04, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

There are many associated terms that we want for Wikipedia: credibility, trustworthy, accurate, transparent, fair, etc. Feel free to sprinkle them around. The main focus here may be credibility/trustworthiness, but that does not detract from the value of the other concepts. Let's work with open minds. As I (usually futilely) explain to homophobes and transphobes, giving others more rights does not mean you have fewer rights. You already have more rights than they have. They just want equal rights. IOW, it is not wrong to write an essay or article that tends to focus on one concept. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:24, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Final sentence of lead

Thanks for writing this, Valjean. I have a question about the final sentence of the lead section, "Administrators should act quicker to protect Wikipedia from these editors." Reading that, I expected to find something below about administrators and how sometimes they don't act quickly enough, in general or specific terms. But admins are actually not mentioned again. How/When should they act more quickly? Bishonen | tålk 01:23, 22 June 2023 (UTC).

Bishonen, there I violated the rules for a lead, even though this is an essay. I guess I could develop that theme. Do you have any suggestions? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:32, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's for admins to take a leading role with respect to fringe content, or that they rate a specific mention at all. The rest of the essay is purely about the result we all need to work for, and in general about how to achieve it (be factual, "hobble" fringe editors), and not about our particular roles. If admins should act in a particular way, how about talking about what experienced editors should specifically do, what ArbCom should do, and so on? It's not that kind of essay. Consider losing the "admins" sentence. See also Hob Gadling's point below. Bishonen | tålk 07:38, 22 June 2023 (UTC).

I find your comments compelling and have just gotten rid of that (only) mention of admins. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:49, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

As a side note I have seen admins being very responsive and quite attentive of late when it comes to these issues. Andre🚐 19:57, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Quicker

Administrators should act quicker to protect Wikipedia from these editors. This is not a sustainable wording. After admins accelerate this sort of protection (because of this essay or for other reasons), the essay should not tell them to act even faster than that, and faster the next day, and so on, because it still says "quicker!" It should be Administrators should act fast to protect Wikipedia from these editors. An alternative would be to regularly measure the average admin's hobbling speed and replace the sentence as soon as the desired value has been achieved, but that would be a bit silly.

Otherwise, I cannot find fault. Nice essay. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:49, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I got rid of that (only) mention of admins. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:50, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

After seeing Talk:Children's Health Defense#Is "propaganda" neutral/best word to use?: Is "propaganda" not also one of the terms we should accept when RS use them? --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:56, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Editors are neutral in relation to the RS when their edits are aligned with them. Our job is to relay the message from RS. We state the facts and attribute their opinions. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 06:22, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Hob Gadling, I mention falsehoods, pseudoscience, and conspiracy theories. Other loaded terms like "propaganda" and "disinformation" could also be mentioned. The research mentioned "debunked myths and controversies". Loaded terms that are easily seen as very biased are often used by RS, so when a source uses such terms, so can we. When in doubt, just attribute it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:59, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Significant development

I have added quite a bit more. Take a look. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:30, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Facts and opinions are not the same, and facts must win.

I think this sentiment is good but the wording could be refined. Facts should win out but it's not that opinions are losing either. Just facts need to override and take precedence. Right? Andre🚐 17:25, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Good point. Also, mainstream opinions that are most aligned with the facts have more due weight. Politically speaking, at just this time in American history, left-wing opinions fill that role, largely due to Trump capturing the GOP and right-wing media and dragging it all beyond the reach of facts and truth. He has built a bubble that keeps them in the dark.

At another time in history it could be the left that abandons truth. Politics is more wedded to power, and neither the right nor left have a patent on truth. Neither is immune to leaders who manipulate them and lie to them.

Feel free to develop all those thoughts into a coherent section and install it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:52, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Good point. Central to this is that Wikipedia is written by amateurs who may dabble in many fields, but we must be good and studious reference librarians when we refer to the academic consensus and the best expertise based on their commitment to fact-checking and authoritative reputations. So we have to resist the urge to engage in armchair analysis and make sure to defer the opinions to the experts, based on their peers' and other experts vetting those experts. That is the underpinnings of modern rationality and science, namely, that since things are sufficiently complex for any one person to know everything, we will find the best expertise from the sources in every field and represent them proportionately to their prominence. I've always thought the wiki-jargon word prominence was a reference to reliability and weight and not simply quantity of references, as well. Andre🚐 22:37, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I started User:WhatamIdoing/Subjectivity in Wikipedia articles a little while ago, because we're tolerably bad at differentiating between "facts" and "opinions". WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:18, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I think this essay addresses a real problem but I think we could use some examples that bring it closer to home with American politics examples, where a big issue is editors coming along and saying "this is not a fact but an opinion" for things which are facts, e.g. that international law condemned and forbade Putin's invasion of Ukraine. That's not an opinion, but there's a fringe group of people questioning that fact. Or that Trump won the 2020 election. That is a false statement being offered as an alternative fact, but there are no alternative facts. The example in this essay is relatively simplistic. Subjectivity and objectivity are good topics to unpack but I think we aren't bringing it to the more controversial and complex examples. Andre🚐 19:45, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Open for editing, but just here

My intentions with these discussions are to bulletproof the essay enough for it to be removed from my userspace and go public. Let's keep improving it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:45, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Now that we have a solid group of mainstream editors here, I trust their collective wisdom to allow more direct editing, so go for it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:06, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Alternate titles

• Wikipedia's credibility (current)
• Wikipedia is mainstream and anti-fringe

Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:56, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I do prefer the latter if only for an interim title under the rationale that it's more descriptive. Because central to the essay is not Wikipedia's credibility but more like Wikipedia's commitment to neutrality and mainstreamness. It's similar to the principle of least surprise and WP:LEADNOTFOLLOW Andre🚐 22:34, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

We already have several pages with titles similar to the second, or at least ones that could just as well have exactly that title without changing much. This one differs from them by pointing out that such efforts improve Wikipedia's credibility and quoting research to that effect. So, it emphasizes a new aspect that could be hidden from readers if it is not in the title. I fear that people will think, "oh, it's just another one of those skeptic essays" and not read it. Maybe combine both: "Mainstream focus and Wikipedia's credibility" or something like that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:23, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Good point. Increasing credibility is the main point, and the method is a commitment to neutrality and mainstreamness. So Wikipedia:How to increase Wikipedia's credibility might be better. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 13:37, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I like that one. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:39, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done (but still in user space.) -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:04, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Seems like an improvement. Andre🚐 17:06, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, "How to increase Wikipedia's credibility" is the focus. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:11, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Spade

There's a WP:SPADE essay, which I just linked to, but you've also got a link to the Call a spade a spade article. I left it as is but I did see that after I added it Andre🚐 18:41, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Hobble and control Oppose

I worry about the "hobble" and "control" language. I think it's likely that editors citing this essay could have the terms tossed back at them. "You think other editors should be hobbled and controlled?" Essay-space is definitely a place for metaphor, but I think the section would be stronger with plain reference to our blocking policy, guidelines like WP:DE, and other essays like WP:POVPUSH. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:54, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I do admit that tact has never been my strong point. Other language would probably be better. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:09, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I have used the word "oppose". -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:17, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

As perhaps a fellow traveler when it comes to bluntness in lack of sugarcoating things, while the original language didn't bug me, I can see FFF's point. I do like the idea that you want to "nip it in the bud" and not let obvious bad actions and activities fester (while AGF if there is nothing discernably amiss). Actually, I think today's admins are better at that then they were 5 years ago. So perhaps we can strengthen it a bit without making it explicitly about kneecapping and crippling people even though we do kind of want to cripple fringe POV-pushing editors' range and ability to push misinformation. What about "stridently oppose"? Andre🚐 04:17, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

More thinking: how about saying something like:

As our blocking policy says, "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia". Beyond just disrupting individual articles and talk pages, research shows that fringe editors damage the overall credibility of Wikipedia.

Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:29, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I have added "stridently". FFF, I like your wording, so feel free to install it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:40, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

For me, the use of the word "strident" hits the wrong note. It's almost like saying that being incivil to fringe POV pushers is acceptable without limits, that it's the preferred method of dispute resolution, and that nobody should ever be sanctioned for it so long as they are on the anti-fringe side. There are few editors who feel more strongly than I do that we have no place for lunatic charlatans, but I'm still someone who has told multiple wiki-friends to take it down a notch at ANI. (And someone I like very much just recently got indeffed for being too strident.) "Firm", "confident", and "resolute" are all words that hit a better note than "strident". --Tryptofish (talk) 21:11, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Feel free to tweak it accordingly. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:14, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Am also fine with firm, confident and resolute Andre🚐 21:28, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Nutshell

I have added "A dominance of anti-fringe editors causes pro-fringe editors to leave, and their loss is a benefit to the project and directly boosts its credibility."

This should be a goal of the opposition. Make fringe editors understand our sourcing policies and source vetting practices. If that doesn't work, then push them out. Disruptive editors are most destructive on talk pages by wasting everyone's time and damaging the project's credibility. They amount to insurrectionists who work from the inside to damage articles and create endless discussions. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:34, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, we are biased against fringe ideas

We need a section that deals with:

1. Define "fringe editors"
2. List some scientifically fringe ideas
3. List some medically fringe ideas
4. List some politically fringe ideas

My definition of "fringe editor" has nothing to do with fuzzy ideas like biases, POV, or the number of people who believe an idea. It has to do with their dubious relationship to our RS policy and their incompetency to vet sources for reliability. That makes the label "fringe editor" policy-based and a legitimate label to use here.

Fringe editors are editors who get their information from unreliable sources and then reveal this fact by (1) derailing/disrupting discussions and (2) seeking to undermine reliably-sourced content and labels in articles. They advocate their ideas, often without citing their sources, likely because they know that those sources are not considered reliable by the Wikipedia community. Note that their disruption is mostly on talk pages, and it is a serious timesink. Disruption on talk pages should be dealt with just as severely and promptly as disruption of articles.

I want to make it clear that we should not label fringe editors as such in talk page discussions, as that can be seen as a personal attack that unnecessarily personalizes things. OTOH, we could do so in drama board situations where accusations are allowed. In those cases, we should be careful to define what we mean.

"Fringe" ideas can be scientific, medical, and political (maybe other topics). Many examples of the first two are found in Guy Macon's great essay User:Guy Macon/Yes. We are biased.

The latter should also be mentioned. My first thoughts on this go to Trumpism and all of his lies that touch on many topics.

Politically fringe ideas:

• Denials of Russian hacking and election interference
• Attacks on the Special counsel investigation
• Claiming the Steele dossier triggered the Crossfire Hurricane investigation
• Claims dossier is fake or Russian disinformation (the FBI and Horowitz rejected those ideas)
• Conspiracy theories directed at Biden and Clinton
• Conspiracy theories directed at Ukraine and for Russia
• Claims that Trump won the election
• Claims of election fraud and a stolen election
• Ideas based on the words Spygate, Russiagate, and Obamagate

Those are just a few. Please comment and add more.

BTW, anyone who hasn't made their views known yet should do so at Talk:Veracity_of_statements_by_Donald_Trump#Requested_move_17_June_2023. A more accurate title will improve the situation.

Controversial subjects

1. Fringe theories and pseudoscience
2. Economics/Money
3. Fact vs Opinion
4. Politics
5. Religion
6. Sexuality

Template {{WP:ACDST}} lists all controversial topics.

Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:28, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Some interesting stuff in my talk page and archives:

• Partisan editors, voter suppression, and "verifiability, not truth"
• Litmus test in the AP2 arena

According to these sections - #A caution issued elsewhere and #Fringe beliefs - fringe editors (partisan editors who get their info from unreliable sources) fail basic competency in several ways, pointing out the need for an official Wikipedia litmus test for competency in the AP2 political arena. There are some facts that are simply too clear to be denied. If an editor fails, then they get topic banned from that arena. We have abundant articles, backed by myriad RS, on this stuff, and they should read and agree with them and their sourcing. They should know better than to edit or disagree with reliably-sourced content.

1. If they believe Trump is the rightful current president, they fail.
2. If they believe the election was stolen from Trump, they fail.
3. If they believe that GOP "election security" measures are anything other than poorly-disguised attempts to suppress the ability of minorities to vote, they fail.
4. If they believe the Steele dossier was the trigger for the Russian interference investigation, rather than Papadopoulos and Trump's own actions and misdeeds, they fail.
5. If they believe Trump is the victim of a witch hunt, rather than the target of justified investigations of him shooting himself in the foot as a blatant national security risk and useful idiot for Russian, anti-American, interests, they fail.
6. If they believe Trump can remain completely honest in no more than 4-5 sentences of his own creation, they fail.

They are simply too ignorant of the facts and do not vet sources well enough to know the difference between mainstream reliable sources and fringe, partisan, sources. They are putting political spin above what RS say, and that's a dangerous violation of our most basic RS/verifiability policy. They are not qualified to edit in the AP2 arena or any other controversial area. Either block them or topic ban them and let them be WikiGnomes in other areas. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:07, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:37, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Scientific method and how we update inaccurate info

The Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory allegation of a Biden-Ukraine quid pro quo has been debunked, IOW we should never leave the impression it might be true or even personally think so. It's not just an unconfirmed allegation (like the peetape allegation) where some lingering doubt may be allowable. This is where we can see how Wikipedia-policy-thinking is similar to scientific skepticism, IOW critical thinking that follows the scientific method. We, like scientists, are obligated to follow the evidence/RS. Until we have better evidence, we continue to believe that the theory of gravity is correct. Until we have better sources and more knowledge, we believe that Biden acted appropriately and that the allegation is just part of Trump's counterfactual cover-up efforts.

Tim Minchin has a great beat poem on critical thinking that contains this quote:

"Science adjusts its views based on what's observed.

Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."

Minchin is both funny and deadly serious. He packages some profound truths in that beat poem. It's worth listening to several times. He contrasts scientific/progressive thinking with unscientific/faith/religious/magical/conservative thinking. SNL is comedy and satire, like The Onion, so we expect truth to be mixed with exaggeration and other comedic tricks. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:30, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Citing a professional comedian about science is not a way to increase Wikipedia's credibility. It might work as in-group signalling ("I'm the kind of person who likes what this relatively obscure person says"), but it won't work outside the limited group. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:44, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Comedians are society's truth-tellers and this truth is no different. Andre🚐 18:47, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Being correct and being credible are not the same things. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:56, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I already told the IP not to come back, but they are trolling us. Now WhatamIdoing, what should I do with you? I don't think you're really trolling us, but you aren't being very constructive, although I know you can be. This essay is about credibility, so stick to that topic and try to improve it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:33, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I think WAID has a constructive point, I just don't really agree with her, but definitely not a troll. Andre🚐 19:35, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Definitely not a troll, but this is about one topic, so concentrate on improving it. WAID can create their own essay if they don't agree. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:40, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I am not sure that the subject you've chosen (credibility) is the subject that you actually care about. For example: You say that you want credibility, but you cite a non-credible source (a comedian) who happens to be correct. If credibility were your North Star, you wouldn't cite a comedian; you'd cite a credible source instead. But you chose the comedian. Would you rather reject the comedian, or reject credibility? (I suppose "be self-contradictory, because humans are like that" is the third option.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:30, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

This is an essay, and Minchin makes a good point. Maybe you really shouldn't be commenting here since you're just being an obstructionist. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 06:46, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't see a contradiction in citing a social criticism made by a comedian. A comedian is not a reliable source for the atomic weight of cesium, or for whether some quack cure is good medicine, but Wikipedia's credibility with the public can be manifested in comedy. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:26, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Using Minchin as a source for scientific questions in an article would violate WP:RS, but this is not even a Talk page of an essay yet, so the rules are three times less strict. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:54, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

For the specific purpose of using a nice and funny sound-byte to summarize how an aspect of the scientific method works, the quote works fine in an essay. This is not a scientific paper or a Wikipedia article, although this sound-byte is actually quoted in Wikipedia articles as Minchin is a notable skeptic, not just any comedian. His comedic stuff reveals a deep thinker who deliberately and carefully uses comedy to explain how science and scientific skepticism work. That's the red thread running through much of his comedy.

Some of the most authoritative university professors and subject matter experts use humor in their teaching and writing, and that does not undermine their authority or credibility. On the contrary. Parity of sources applies to fringe topics, and this essay definitely deals with fringe topics, so using Minchin is perfectly appropriate. Those who have no sense of humor, or who can't understand serious matters being illustrated with humor, are welcome to ignore it. I see no reason for me to compromise for the sake of those whose humor comprehension is impaired. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:11, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Just a little bit playing devil's advocate, I think Minchin is a very approachable and accessible introduction to such concepts, but he also lacks rigor. So while I agree it's illustrative to look at him for inspiration, we can also do the hard research and anchor his thoughts in Bertrand Russell or Popper or whoever the hell actually has some rigorous basis for the conceptual underpinnings of Minchin's bit. I had a very smart, PhD, Los-Alamos-alum chemistry professor who would always do a lesson with Tom Lehrer. As you say it doesn't detract from the seriousness. We can do both though. Andre🚐 19:35, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:08, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Please delete and block all comments by IP 95.12.119.26

Everyone here, please delete future comments by this IP. We don't need their trolling here. They have been deleted from other places because of this. Their only "value" here is to demonstrate how disruptive and ignorant fringe editors can be. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:36, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Unreliable

Trump bashing makes the essay seem partisan. Once readers see a chip on the author's shoulder, it's hard to take the content seriously. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:39, 12 July 2023 (UTC)