> I'd tend to agree that the sources removed are representing a fringe idea and that the Wikipedia process has been followed normally
I agree with the article which made the case that they are not "fringe", if you mean "unreliable" with "fringe". If you mean "unpopular", then yes, they are, but opinions can be unpopular despite strong evidential support, as we have seen in the history of science.
> I think people from both sides of the issue/argument/debate are making such edits, like with every issue.
I agree with the article which made the case that they are not "fringe", if you mean "unreliable" with "fringe". If you mean "unpopular", then yes, they are, but opinions can be unpopular despite strong evidential support, as we have seen in the history of science.
> I think people from both sides of the issue/argument/debate are making such edits, like with every issue.
There is strong political polarization among the most active Wikipedia editors, meaning that people from one side are overwhelmingly more likely to win such a disagreement: https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/2024/09/wikipedia-editors-and-p...