[phnofive]

It's an extreme example, and therefore does invite a tendency to easily dismiss non-mainstream thought, but that's intentional within Wikipedia.

The 'how to reply' sections make it clear what most fringe theories try to rely on to convince editors, but Wikipedia is not a place for convincing - it is a catalog of what's currently, broadly accepted.

[DataWorker]

It intends to be what’s currently broadly accepted. It’s success in achieving that goal relies on a labor model that may or may not be well suited towards that end.

[jabretti]

>Wikipedia is not a place for convincing - it is a catalog of what's currently, broadly accepted.

That's true, and it should be the case. But how do we distinguish between "that which is currently broadly accepted" and "that which is currently the leading theory but other theories are also quite widely accepted" and "that which is probably the leading theory, by a narrow margin, but then again might not be, because nobody does polls on this stuff, so we're basically just going by what wikipedia editors reckon"?

What, for instance, should we do if 80% of people believe theory A and 20% of people believe theory B? (Suppose this is one of those rare cases where we're fortunate enough to have actual polls).

[cooper12]

You present both, as long the 20% one is actually represented by reliable sources, and then you balance the article appropriately. There're quite a few subjects on Wikipedia for which there is yet no scholarly consensus but different viewpoints exist.