Editing User:EnWikiAdmin/Essays/On neutrality, sources, and content (section)

====Neutrally counteracting alleged systemic suppression of counter-mainstream viewpoints====
The above can be summarized as (as [[User:Millipede|Millipede]] put it) "seeing what happens if you use a wider range of sources than Wikipedia does". However, we think there is another layer of consideration to this that we suspect [[Ikwipedia:Hypothesis of Ikwipedia|we won't be able to articulate without articulating substantially the encyclopedia itself]]. This probably also ties in to the synthesis/editorialization rule that we haven't fully defined yet. We accept, at least for the purposes of argument, that [[wikipedia:Wikipedia:Core content policies|Wikipedia's core content policies]] referenced above are being applied uniformly, in good faith, and so on, and that, therefore (to state it simplify) the coverage by Wikipedia and other tertiary sources merely reflects a "weighted average" of available secondary sources. However, according to some (conspiracy) theories, there might be a systematic tendency, promulgated through various mechanisms, against the inclusion of various counter-mainstream viewpoints in mainstream scientific, journalistic, and other publications. Such a suppressive effect might theoretically lead to a viewpoint being considered "fringe" by Wikipedia editors and treated as such, when, in the absence of that effect, it might be a "[[wikipedia:Wikipedia:fringe|significant-minority or majority]] view". Hypothetically, the existence of such a suppressive effect and the mechanisms by which it operates might itself constitute fringe theories and thus the information about the suppressive effect itself might be suppressed in mainstream sources and therefore in Wikipedia.

Furthermore, according to some conspiracy theories, the alleged targeted throttling (e.g., in mainstream media and social media) of certain non-mainstream-aligned views, such as certain [[false flag]] conspiracy theories, [[Covid-19 vaccine]] conspiracy theories, [[satanic ritual]] conspiracy theories, etc. — and the witness claims that support them — is ultimately, in some way, due in part to these views' being allegedly factually accurate (rather than due to their being exceptionally/egregiously false or malicious or due to their undermining public health, etc.), i.e. they allegedly correctly describe real conspiracies. If ''that'' is true, then a thorough article on the subjects of these claims would preferably lay out all the information and evidence from the theory as to why the claims are allegedly suppressed; it should explain in neutral language what is allegedly going on in order to show the "complete picture" — including the understanding of why there may be few or no sources on a given topic in the first place. For example, it might include citations to scholarly works by [[Conspiracy theory studies|researchers of conspiracy theory belief]] and also point out, ideally with support from [[Ikwipedia:acceptable sources|acceptable sources]], supposed [[Metacritique of conspiracy theory scholarship|shortcomings and blind spots in the researchers' analyses, failures to engage with the premises of a given conspiracy theory, alleged conflicts of interest stemming from personal and/or financial relationships with entities that may be subjects of the conspiracy theories, other allegedly unacknowledged or downplayed biasing influences, etc.]]. I guess what I'm saying is that we're implicitly open to these conspiracy theories about information presentation and dissemination itself, and that this may affect the tone of articles in ways we might not be able to articulate or even predict right now.

When a fringe claim is included in a Wikipedia article alongside claims based on reliable sources, such an article would probably be considered to have [[wikipedia:Wikipedia:FALSEBALANCE|false balance]] or to irresponsibly amplify the fringe claims — until and unless they becomes non-fringe. It appears, at least from the point of view of "the mainstream", that amplification of fringe views can't be helped in an encyclopedia that uniformly allows unverified claims. Even the existence of an article in the absence of reliable sources may be considered a violation of the notability and undue weight guidelines or "amplification". Referring to it as "amplification" in the [[Ikwipedia:Motivations for Ikwipedia|Motivations for Ikwipedia]] is kind of a pre-emptive acknoowledgement of potential criticism along those lines, an attempt to clearly state our intent, and part of a defense of what we think is the right course. Although this encyclopedia is intended in part to be a response (of a kind) to Wikipedia, we certainly do not intend to introduce a new bias to directly counteract Wikipedia's perceived biases.