Why Wikipedia cannot claim the Earth is not flat

Role of Wikipedia vs. Fringe Beliefs

• Several comments stress that Wikipedia is a tertiary reference, not a debate forum or a protector of society from bad ideas. Its job is to mirror “accepted knowledge” from reputable sources, not to arbitrate ultimate truth.
• Others argue that giving any platform to thoroughly debunked ideas (like flat earth) risks legitimizing them, and that some claims are so disproven they should simply be excluded or very explicitly labeled as false.
• Some see value in neutral summaries of fringe beliefs (e.g., flat earth) so readers can understand the phenomenon without advocacy, and worry about a paternalistic “protect the gullible” stance.

Fringe Beliefs, Progress, and Evidence

• There is extended debate over “all progress starts as a fringe belief”:
  • Critics say this is logically and empirically wrong; many advances are obvious or evidence-backed from the start, whereas fringe beliefs typically lack evidence.
  • Others note that some once-fringe ideas later turned out partly true, but truth-seeking and delusion are tightly intertwined.
• Disagreement over definitions of “fringe” and “evidence,” with examples like caloric theory used to argue for epistemic humility and the provisional nature of scientific models.

Policies, Bias, and Citogenesis

• Some argue Wikipedia’s sourcing rules are “good enough” and have produced an extraordinarily useful reference; others highlight vulnerabilities:
  • Citogenesis/circular reporting, where false claims seeded outside Wikipedia are then cited back in.
  • Low-quality sources and blogs sometimes accepted in practice despite policies.
• Discussion of WP:BIASED and reliability lists: critics claim systemic ideological skew (e.g., conservative outlets rated less reliable than some state- or faction-aligned media).

Gaza/Israel Example and Political Controversies

• The renaming and framing of the Gaza conflict (e.g., “genocide”) is used as a case study:
  • One side says Wikipedia simply followed evolving legal and scholarly consensus.
  • Others see mainstream media bias, which Wikipedia then mirrors by design.
• There are conflicting narratives about coordinated editing: some describe large-scale pro-Israel propaganda efforts; others claim pro-Palestinian campaigns and note bans on multiple editors from that side.
• Underlying tension: being “reality-focused” can appear politically one-sided when factions diverge sharply from facts.

Asymmetry of Nonsense vs. Refutation

• Multiple comments emphasize Brandolini’s law: it is cheap to produce baseless arguments and very expensive to refute them rigorously.
• This fuels pessimism about public discourse and fears of regression toward superstition and zealotry, especially in an age with fewer immediate “reality checks” for bad beliefs.