Ikwipedia:Motivations for Ikwipedia: Difference between revisions
EnWikiAdmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
EnWikiAdmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Ikwipedia was created with a hypothesis-based philosophy that explores several interrelated notions. One is that being counter to the mainstream narrative may negatively affect whether a viewpoint is included in mainstream publishers like Wikipedia. This hypothesis, while currently unproven and possibly unverifiable, seems to be supported by accounts of [[List of investigators who alleged negative consequences, up to and including deliberate retaliation, for espousing purportedly evidence-based non-mainstream-aligned theories|individuals, such as scientists and historians, who have allegedly faced retaliation for their counter-mainstream theories]] as well as whistleblowers or leakers involved in the alleged [[suppression_of_non-mainstream-aligned_theories_in_various_fields|narrative-suppression]] and/or [[retaliation_against_whistleblowers_and_witnesses_with_non-mainstream-aligned_claims|retaliation]] systems. | Ikwipedia was created with a hypothesis-based philosophy that explores several interrelated notions. One is that being counter to the mainstream narrative may negatively affect whether a viewpoint is included in mainstream publishers like Wikipedia. This hypothesis, while currently unproven and possibly unverifiable, seems to be supported by accounts of [[List of investigators who alleged negative consequences, up to and including deliberate retaliation, for espousing purportedly evidence-based non-mainstream-aligned theories|individuals, such as scientists and historians, who have allegedly faced retaliation for their counter-mainstream theories]] as well as whistleblowers or leakers involved in the alleged [[suppression_of_non-mainstream-aligned_theories_in_various_fields|narrative-suppression]] and/or [[retaliation_against_whistleblowers_and_witnesses_with_non-mainstream-aligned_claims|retaliation]] systems. | ||
== Hypothesis and bias == | |||
Our observation that many seemingly disparate conspiracy theories are often aligned and reconcilable suggests they may warrant more consideration in that light. Presenting them within a unified framework allows readers to more informedly see their ostensible coherence and evaluate their soundness in a fair encyclopedic presentation. This presentation is assisted in part by [[Ikwipedia:Manual of Style|organizing articles]] | The hypothesis posits the reality of such a bias that, in some people's perception, leads to a systematic disincentive to the inclusion of certain viewpoints and theories. If true, this disincentive may grow in proportion to the deviation from mainstream thought, resulting in the underrepresentation of minority perspectives. The hypothesized mechanism inhibits relatively credible witnesses from being seriously considered by secondary sources, particularly professional researchers who investigate published claims and accounts. | ||
== Underrepresentation of minority perspectives == | |||
The few testimonies that do gain traction may often go un-reviewed or unaggregated in publications like Wikipedia or scholarly articles, emphasizing a gap in critical evaluation. Presenting a more holistic view of the available information, therefore, logically requires counterbalancing this bias by amplifying certain narratives, testimonies, and theories that diverge from mainstream narratives or are aligned with those that do. This should provide a more comprehensive understanding of claims and worldviews that are not well-represented and/or perhaps inadvertently or deliberately misrepresented in mainstream discourse. | |||
== Coherence of conspiracy theories == | |||
Our observation that many seemingly disparate conspiracy theories are often aligned and reconcilable suggests they may warrant more consideration in that light. Presenting them within a unified framework allows readers to more informedly see their ostensible coherence and evaluate their soundness in a fair encyclopedic presentation. This presentation is assisted in part by [[Ikwipedia:Manual of Style|organizing articles]] to try to conciliate separate "mainstream theory" and "conspiracy theory" narratives of article subjects. | |||
== Terminology and presentation of conspiracy theories == | |||
Conspiracy theories will be titled and discussed as what they are - conspiracy theories, since we aim to live in the [[Ikwipedia:Terminology#"Conspiracy theory"|same terminological universe as Wikipedia]] - but with more articles on conspiracy theories and related obscure subjects than are allowed on Wikipedia due to the [[Ikwipedia:Acceptable sources|source guidelines]]. We intend for this presentation to illuminate the inherent validity, or lack thereof, of the respective conspiracy theories and of our [[Ikwipedia:Hypothesis of Ikwipedia|hypothesis itself]]. | |||
Latest revision as of 06:16, 12 November 2024
Ikwipedia was created with a hypothesis-based philosophy that explores several interrelated notions. One is that being counter to the mainstream narrative may negatively affect whether a viewpoint is included in mainstream publishers like Wikipedia. This hypothesis, while currently unproven and possibly unverifiable, seems to be supported by accounts of individuals, such as scientists and historians, who have allegedly faced retaliation for their counter-mainstream theories as well as whistleblowers or leakers involved in the alleged narrative-suppression and/or retaliation systems.
Hypothesis and bias
The hypothesis posits the reality of such a bias that, in some people's perception, leads to a systematic disincentive to the inclusion of certain viewpoints and theories. If true, this disincentive may grow in proportion to the deviation from mainstream thought, resulting in the underrepresentation of minority perspectives. The hypothesized mechanism inhibits relatively credible witnesses from being seriously considered by secondary sources, particularly professional researchers who investigate published claims and accounts.
Underrepresentation of minority perspectives
The few testimonies that do gain traction may often go un-reviewed or unaggregated in publications like Wikipedia or scholarly articles, emphasizing a gap in critical evaluation. Presenting a more holistic view of the available information, therefore, logically requires counterbalancing this bias by amplifying certain narratives, testimonies, and theories that diverge from mainstream narratives or are aligned with those that do. This should provide a more comprehensive understanding of claims and worldviews that are not well-represented and/or perhaps inadvertently or deliberately misrepresented in mainstream discourse.
Coherence of conspiracy theories
Our observation that many seemingly disparate conspiracy theories are often aligned and reconcilable suggests they may warrant more consideration in that light. Presenting them within a unified framework allows readers to more informedly see their ostensible coherence and evaluate their soundness in a fair encyclopedic presentation. This presentation is assisted in part by organizing articles to try to conciliate separate "mainstream theory" and "conspiracy theory" narratives of article subjects.
Terminology and presentation of conspiracy theories
Conspiracy theories will be titled and discussed as what they are - conspiracy theories, since we aim to live in the same terminological universe as Wikipedia - but with more articles on conspiracy theories and related obscure subjects than are allowed on Wikipedia due to the source guidelines. We intend for this presentation to illuminate the inherent validity, or lack thereof, of the respective conspiracy theories and of our hypothesis itself.