Work done by professionals of a field that is not directly related to the field itself does not reflect on the field as a whole.

User talk:Tcaudilllg/Esoterism in Academics

I request attention for a proposal to clarify Wikipedia guidelines with respect to "attempted takeovers" of non-esoteric fields of study by proponents of esoterism and other fringe theories. This issue recently became a matter of grave import on the socionics article ( see talk) and has now come to Arbcom's attention. However, Arbcom has no guidelines by which to rule. It is a frequent occurrence in academia, especially these days, that a person will do the work to get a PhD, making an actual contribution to their field along the way, and then use the authority associated with having a PhD as a megaphone to push far out, outlandish ideas ( WP:Fringe), among them esoteric speculations. In socionics this has indeed happened, and a person who obtained a PhD from the reigning authority in the field has taken it upon themselves to create their own institute with the apparent intention of pushing the notion that socionics, an offshoot of analytical psychology, is a form of esoterism. A user on here took it upon himself for a time to advocate that position at the expense of the socionics article's quality. Although that dispute has been resolved between him and the disputing users (including myself and an official spokesman for the field, User:Rick DeLong), it is still possible that another user might be taken in by the esoterism rumors. Further, it is unclear that the user in question will abstain from reinserting said rumors indefinitely, and if he does then Arbcom is without recourse because he apparently really believes he's right about it. It's a case of delusion overcoming sanity.

Aside from the esoterism issue, this user has made many constructive edits. I don't believe they should be singled out; rather I think what is necessary is that we clarify our stance. User:Rick DeLong offered the approach of merely observing that some socionists had done research on esoteric subjects. I think we could extend that principle and argue that when a scientist does notable research that is outside of the purview of their field, then that research should be noted only as having been done by individual practitioners of that field, without carrying any connotations that the field is itself to be defined in such terms. This is especially true for esoterism. Tcaudilllg ( talk) 14:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Aims

This proposal prohibits collusion between Wikipedia users and "rouge" professionals who are attempting to mislead the public about the nature of their field. As it stands, a user can cite pseudo-reliable sources -- meaning sources that are reliable by Wikipedia's guidelines, but not reliable for their content -- as a means of POV pushing. Admins are powerless before this behavior because 1) the user can always assert good faith, and 2) Wikipedia has no policy on sources that are pseudo-reliable. The use of these sources for purposes of misleading the public is damaging to the integrity of Wikipeida, and must be stopped. Tcaudilllg ( talk) 17:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC) reply