Wikiversity:Original research/Fringe sciences

Common usages
Consider: "In common usage, the term fringe science covers everything from novel hypotheses which can be tested by means of the scientific method to wild ad hoc hypotheses and mumbo jumbo. This has resulted in a tendency to dismiss all fringe science as the domain of pseudoscientists, hobbyists, and cranks. " from Dave Braunschweig.


 * The cite web error can be gotten around, for example, by <:ref><:/ref> without using cite.
 * For Wiktionary definitions where the author is determinable an author line can be included without using |author=.
 * Using the quote from David Bell is more appropriate.
 * Suggestions to lecture text are to be made on the Discuss page. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 02:44, 29 December 2017 (UTC)


 * The article is misleading as titled and needed clarification. Wikiversity main space pages are public pages. Your history of reverting good faith contributions that improve Wikiversity has become problematic. If it continues, we will need to ask the community for guidance. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 05:44, 29 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Just to be clear, you deleted my bold, good-faith and specifically accurate edit serving as an introduction and replaced it with an off-topic, unrelated description of alleged 'fringe science', a public policy issue, without discussing it here first nor apparently realizing that there exists a real science that its authorities have termed fringe science, precisely because it is the science of fringes. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 07:22, 30 December 2017 (UTC)


 * If I may ask you the same question as Michael Umbricht, can you cite for me any publications you have on Google Scholar? There are many D. and Dave Braunschweigs, but none affiliated with Harper college. As an IT specialist, perhaps you've published in appropriate trade journals not readily available on GS. My reason for asking is simple: you seem far more familiar with alleged 'fringe science' than say the physics of fringes, whereas except for your intervention here, you haven't commented on the real science or physics of fringes which this lecture is about. If you want to prepare a lecture or resource on alleged 'fringe science', you are free to do so elsewhere. The public policy statement by David Bell sums things up sufficiently here. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 16:02, 30 December 2017 (UTC)


 * The response and question appear to completely misunderstand the situation. The only resource necessary to understand the issue is Fringe science. It defines, by its very nature, the common usage of the term. To define it otherwise departs significantly from the mainstream, making this a fringe science article on the science of fringes. It is misnamed, and also apparently out of scope. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 16:27, 30 December 2017 (UTC)


 * While you are probably aware of the following, I'll put a copy here: "Wikipedia is not a dictionary, or a ["common usage" redirects to] usage or jargon guide." From What_Wikipedia_is_not. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 20:20, 9 March 2018 (UTC)


 * FYI, the journal Nature contains no refereed articles or letters on the public policy topic 'fringe science' but does have some 23 "Comment and Opinion", "News", "Books and Arts", and "Reviews" that focus on it. All of these start in 1977. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 20:20, 9 March 2018 (UTC)


 * As we have both pointed out "Wikiversity is not Wikipedia". The two authors who included the two-word phrase: "Fringe science" in the titles of their articles did so with the approval of each 'mainline science' journal's editor-in-chief and editorial board so they are by definition describing mainstream, notable and real, fringe science so there's no misunderstanding on my part and there is objective understanding of this science of fringes. Authors often use dictionaries and occasionally science encyclopedias so this lecture is not out of scope here on Wikiversity but definitely not a Wikipedia candidate. And, alleged 'fringe science' does not belong in this lecture and is out of scope here. I've already addressed the matter of scope referred to by Michael Umbricht so please refrain from reverting my bold and well-informed edits without discussing it here first. The "courses" suggestion is welcome and I'm working on that. But, you refrained as you are free to do, of course, from citing even one of your publications and Wikipedia is not one on its own. You are already aware of mine. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 17:11, 30 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I encourage you to focus on content and approach rather than contributors. The content is inappropriately titled and appears to be out of scope, and the approach is "disruptive" and "a serious violation of policy". . -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 17:39, 30 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I concur with Dave that the page title and content here is very misleading and confused. You are using terminology that differs from common usage without clarification. "No research activities are excused from the need to be aware of existing relevant knowledge and past published research results." You can't just make up a term and pretend that it is legitimate without thorough justification. What are the educational objectives of this page? Educational resources are expected to clearly define the learning objectives and you must "be very open about the objectives of your research." This page fails to clearly state those objectives and is therefore outside the scope of Wikiversity's mission as defined by our policies and guidleines. --mikeu talk 15:54, 29 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Actually, the term as used here is the original, accurate, and correct term. The alleged 'fringe science' is a public policy knock-off. Maker fringes, e.g., date to a Phys. Rev. Lett. article from 1962 and birefringence of which these fringes pertain is from the late 1800s. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 07:22, 30 December 2017 (UTC)


 * "If you edit Wikiversity webpages outside of the restrictions of NPOV policy, you should expect your work to be subjected to peer review. If your methods depart from the scholarly practices outlined by Wikiversity research guidelines, you may be asked to either adapt your materials/methods - or your materials may be removed from Wikiversity. If you repeatedly ignore the sound advice of your peers, and there is general consensus for this, you may be disqualified from participating in scholarly studies or any activities at Wikiversity." --mikeu talk 16:03, 29 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Actually, the real science of fringes is NPOV, where clearly the public-policy knock-off is POV! --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 07:22, 30 December 2017 (UTC)


 * To clarify: There are numerous problems with this page. The title and misleading description at the top portray the topic as if it is a commonly accepted discipline name and it is confusingly named with a phrase that has a very different meaning. Dave made a good faith effort to correct this which you reverted. This pattern of reverting is especially troubling when it is an involved editor. It is alarming when done by someone with admin rights. We expect our staff to show better judgment and set an example for the community. Wikiversity is a place where we collaboratively edit to generate educational content. When peers review material and find it unclear - contributors need to communicate and work together to improve the resource.


 * The Fringe_sciences section is almost entirely composed of quotes from a source with no additional context given. Just because an author picks a quirky paper title that includes the phrase "fringe science" this does not imply that they are defining a new science of studying fringes. A resource on the study of diffraction fringes could be within our scope if renamed (perhaps The science of diffraction fringes or something else) and if it also included well defined learning objectives. The page appears to be the product of a search for the phrase "fringe science" that pulls unrelated reference quotes together as if they are a single coherent topic.


 * There is no doubt that the page includes some science related to interference fringes but a newcomer to wikiversity would be very confused about what this page is about and what they might be expected to learn from it. I've categorized this page per this definition: "Fringe science is an inquiry in an established field of study which departs significantly from mainstream theories in that field and is considered to be questionable by the mainstream." because this resource describes a legitimate topic in science in a way that almost no experts would agree with. I have similar concerns with Category:Fringe sciences. Classifying and organizing content is a group effort. You do not get to unilaterally define terms like Sciences in a collaborative learning environment. --mikeu talk 22:09, 29 December 2017 (UTC)


 * FYI, the word "quirky", per Wiktionary is applied to people: "Given to quirks or idiosyncrasies; strange in a somewhat silly, awkward manner, potentially cute. : She has a quirky laugh." Or, "characterized by peculiar or unexpected traits : her sense of humor was decidedly quirky." from my computer dictionary. That a published paper title happens to include a pun, as two 'mainstream' reviewers have indicated, does not disqualify it from publication. Ditto, for a lecture title. But, using "quirky" may be considered a personal attack by the authors referenced in the lecture describing a 'mainstream' science. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 19:32, 9 March 2018 (UTC)


 * By the way, thank you for acknowledging, "There is no doubt that the page includes some science related to interference fringes". --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 19:39, 9 March 2018 (UTC)


 * So far these are scientifically sound examples of the real science of fringes. Those many published scientists who've used or specifically studied, for example, the physics of fringes, do not like others using the accepted and legitimate name of a science for New Age mumbo-jumbo. If you have some additional examples that will help Wikiversity students and learners come to learn about real fringe science, you are welcome to include them, or suggest them and I will be happy to do so. The definitions of sciences come from many sources. I specifically label mine as theoretical definitions. As I've mentioned on your talk page, I have many publications benefiting from fringe sciences. May I ask how many and which ones you have? There may be "Cold shield effectiveness in MWIR cameras", authored by Yifal J. Shaham, M. Umbricht and Stephen F. Rudin - Proc. SPIE 2269, Infrared Technology XX, 438 (October 17, 1994); doi:10.1117/12.188675, at url=http://proceedings.spiedigitallibrary.org/proceeding.aspx?articleid=971435. Author affiliation: M. Umbricht, Gencorp Aerojet (USA). But if this is not you, then even if you have published theses, they are not current enough or accessible enough to be retrieved by Google Scholar, whereas nearly all (well over 95 %) of mine are. While it is uncertain what issues appear to be causing apparent conclusions as "The title and misleading description at the top portray the topic as if it is a commonly accepted discipline name and it is confusingly named with a phrase that has a very different meaning." I will be happy to try and address them if you can be specific as to the issues. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 01:19, 30 December 2017 (UTC)


 * This lecture offers a collaborative environment for the creation, sharing, and discussion of open educational resources, open research and open academia regarding the real fringe science as studied in different sciences. This lecture welcomes learners of all ages. This lecture does not grant any degrees. This lecture strives to be a learning project corresponding to all real fringe sciences at accredited educational institutions and any other topics that are of interest to Wikiversity community members. Providing for learning communities to develop, modify and use the materials on Wikiversity, itself constitutes a way in which research included here by the presence of hypotheses could be done as an activity on Wikiversity. This lecture is dynamic and continues to improve. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 07:22, 30 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I suspect that the name "fringe science" for the theory of fringes is, to some extent, a joke, similarly to the name "pointless topology" for the point-free topology (the theory of locales). Boris Tsirelson (discuss • contribs) 10:27, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Scope
I have restored the Scope template removed by User:Marshallsumter at. Based on Help:Lectures, this is not a lecture. Lectures are subpages of courses. This article appears to be incorrectly named and out of scope. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 15:14, 30 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Per "What links here", no Wikiversity policy or suggested policy links to . Unless you know of one that is as yet unlinked, anyone can remove or emplace this template. As such there is no justification for an accusation of any contentious editing at least by me. Do you know of any such policy that would be missed by "What links here"? --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 18:13, 30 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I've explained that at your talk page. If you feel that the scope tl is unwarranted the process is to take it to WV:RFD. Scope implies all of our policies and the approved project proposal. Please stop wikilawering and address the merits of the questions about the page. I'm currently looking at Research_guidelines (among others)


 * "'All original research projects on Wikiversity must be conducted in an open and transparent fashion so as to facilitate independent and objective verification of methods and results by others. All research projects must fully document the methods, original motivations (see disclosures), and hypotheses. Research in progress must be clearly labeled as such with the appropriate templates. The research templates will place research-related pages in the 'Research' category.'"


 * This is not original research! The method is clearly to cover the lecture topic from the archival literature. Hypotheses have been included and additional ones may be. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 20:18, 30 December 2017 (UTC)


 * We've asked a number of fundamental questions about the "original motivations" and "hypotheses" of this page. We've also noted that it appears to be original research from a POV that is unclear and undisclosed, yet the page is not clearly labeled as such. This is misleading. The page presents an idiosyncratic interpretation as if it is a mainstream learning resource.


 * These are just a few elaborations on the prior comments made above. --mikeu talk 19:02, 30 December 2017 (UTC)


 * All criteria for Wikiversity have been met, and I have no desire to take anyone to USA federal district court, which does not qualify for "wikilawyering", but is approaching something else. It should be clear to both you and Dave that this lecture does not pertain to alleged 'fringe science', so right now we have a standoff, no consensus for any deletion. The original motivation is also clear: students and others have a right to learn about the sciences or physics of fringes, the real science. That is NPOV. The only apparent "confusion" appears to rest with the title. While there is no apparent consensus and no official or suggested policy that links to or describes the appropriate use and removal of this template, all we appear to be left with are two editors apparently attempting to force their version of non-consensus, unlinked policy, but I hope this is incorrect as that may be grounds for steward intervention. So, I have suggested other titles and am creating course inclusion. Any suggested or implied deadlines are moot per no consensus. If you have precise questions pertaining to exact issues or title suggestions, please add them. Each of you is free to remove the  template per no consensus. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 19:56, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Just FYI, but the adjective "idiosyncratic" is a personal attack! Please refrain from personal attacks and stick to the issues or you may be blocked. If you unblock yourself that calls for direct and immediate steward intervention as has unfortunately been necessary before. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 20:18, 30 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Stewards will not intervene, but if they do, you likely won't like the results. Mention of "court" can lead to a knee-jerk reaction. Long experience, Marshall. My suggestion: don't just suggest a different title, trying to gain approval, act on the idea. Don't just suggest a move to user space, as one example, do it! Create what should enjoy consensus, no matter how "wrong" others might seem to be. I dealt with this many times. Now, back to our regular programming.... --Abd (discuss • contribs) 20:04, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I found a discussion on. It is here. It was agreed to by many, including this, "Removing the template yourself shouldn't cause a problem, but it's a good idea to link to the page from a topic or school (or two). I'd rather this template was only used on entirely non-controversial deletions of pages that really belong somewhere else (such as another wiki or the bitbucket), are not adding aything to Wikiversity, but were brobably good faith attempts at pages, and thus should not be speedy deleted. If there is anyone that still wants the page deleted, then point them at RfD. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 06:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)" This also confirms that the person requesting deletion be pointed to RfD. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 12:28, 31 December 2017 (UTC) This is copied and presented to clarify for all concerned (1) removal of the template in the mentioned quote "shouldn't cause a problem", (2) "I'd rather this template was only used on entirely non-controversial deletions of pages that really belong somewhere else (such as another wiki or the bitbucket), are not adding aything to Wikiversity, but were brobably good faith attempts at pages, and thus should not be speedy deleted.", and (3) was approved during this Colloquium discussion by some 8 wikiversitans. They also stated assume goodfaith and if there really is a problem, fix it! --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 00:24, 1 January 2018 (UTC)


 * According to What links here, this lecture is included in Sciences/Courses. Are there any objections to removal of the  template? --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 03:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Peer review responses
"I suspect that the name "fringe science" for the theory of fringes is, to some extent, a joke, similarly to the name "pointless topology" for the point-free topology (the theory of locales). Boris Tsirelson (discuss • contribs) 10:27, 30 December 2017 (UTC)" copied from above in Common usages --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 23:12, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

":But I disagree with Guy Vandegrift's position at one point: "I believe the success of Wikipedia was due in part to the policy of having only one article per subject." As I wrote more than once on talk pages of Wikiversity, this "no content forking" policy of Wikipedia nearly prevents it from being helpful to students, at least in hard science, and probably in other topics. Indeed, in real world we have a lot of textbooks on every topic. Surely you understand, why. A single textbook cannot satisfy all students. Whether an encyclopedic article can? A good question; maybe not; but for textbooks, lectures, explanatory essays and other learning resources the problem is much harder. Boris Tsirelson (discuss • contribs) 21:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Some quotes from Wikipedia talks:
 * "... we have to avoid injecting our own perspective and vision into articles we write here. But that perspective and vision is exactly what would be necessary to give a good course on a topic. We aren't trying to give a course here, though, just a reference." Carl 13:09, 20 October 2017


 * "I do think that there is a difference between presenting a reference on a topic and presenting a textbook or expository essay. This difference is somewhat captured by the quote "The purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts, not to teach subject matter." from WP:NOT." Carl 20:21, 24 October 2017


 * "Wiki seems to be a bad medium for writing textbooks or preparing learning materials ... the great courses and textbooks are about personal touches and visions." Taku 23:46, 29 October 2017
 * Boris Tsirelson (discuss • contribs) 22:05, 2 January 2018 (UTC)" Copied over from Wikiversity talk:Community Review/Fringe research. I would have also copied over Guy vandegrift's comments as well so feel free to check the page. I'm a bit confused about what he's proposing, but I believe he genuinely wants to help. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 23:27, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

"You have fairly and squarely identified me and some of my research. This was the best title pun I ever published, and I’m quite proud of it.  But the fact that some real fringes lend themselves to scientific study, albeit minor phenomena, doesn’t change the desire to expose or illustrate those things out on the real edges of science.  Unfortunately, such terms do tend to get usurped." J.E. Armstrong, Prof. of Botany Emeritus, by return email. I can provide a copy of the email if needed. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 21:55, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

There may still be one more peer review comment coming. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 23:27, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

The author Steve B. Howell, NASA, of the other journal article with "Fringe science" in the title has not responded to my email. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 03:48, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

":::Well, I havent studied the programe to the depth, but it started with lectures. I havent find out, why lectures in main ns are problem. Thats why, we have categories to sort them out, or sort them as lectures. So I can just guess, what was the problem with lectures. If the problem is that they occupy certain page name, there are more solutions, how to fix it. The solution of its own namespace, should be used as the last one. It important to notice, that if something recive new namespace, we can set a special property to that namespace. e.g. on Czech Wikipedia we also have lectures and the creater created for them two different skins, or modes: presentation and desktop. Desktop mode is the normal look of wiki page, presentation mode is the look as PowerPoint presentation. The disadvantage is, that every person, who would like to use presentation mod, should firstly copy to his namespace the script, which handle such mod. So if cs.wv would have ns for lectures, its ns could have an advance characteristic mods for special way of presenting/display.
 * But maybe it was all about the completition status of the lecture pages, but I havent find out more about it. Just a link to Wikipedia and what it does with Wikiversity. Non completed pages are all around, why it is a problem now?--Juandev (discuss • contribs) 09:12, 13 March 2018 (UTC)" from Wikiversity_talk:Requests_for_Deletion. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 16:10, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * "The Scope template on Draft:Fringe sciences reads "An editor has expressed concern that this article may not fit into the scope of Wikiversity." User Juandev's comments above do not echo this concern about any Main Page "Lectures", which includes Draft:Fringe sciences. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 03:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)" from Wikiversity_talk:Requests_for_Deletion. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 00:04, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Plagiarism and copyright violation check
Pass. WMF copyvio tool using TurnItIn. Short phrases or sentences such as "Attractive features of flowers are adaptations for biotic interactions, and a few floral adaptations are for interactions...." were similarly used in external pages, quoted and referenced here, but are not regarded as plagiarism or copyright violation. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 18:58, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Scope of Wikiversity
I am going to try to match up points from the resource and approved points regarding the scope of Wikiversity to see what needs to be added or removed from the resource, including from comments made above. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 17:37, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

What Wikiversity is

 * A repository of free, multilingual educational resources.
 * A network of communities to create and use these resources
 * A group effort to learn. Which may or may not be led by an instructor, who may or may not be an expert on the topic.

From What Wikiversity is not: If "you want to learn about this topic [Fringe sciences], you can do so at Wikiversity. Learning materials will be created and used on Wikiversity".

Edits adding content are "In common usage, the term fringe science covers everything from novel hypotheses which can be tested by means of the scientific method to wild ad hoc hypotheses and mumbo jumbo. This has resulted in a tendency to dismiss all fringe science as the domain of pseudoscientists, hobbyists, and cranks. " and "However, in physics, fringes are bands of contrasting brightness or darkness produced by diffraction or interference of radiation with a measurable wavelength. The science of studying these fringes is also called fringe science. This resource describes the science of fringes rather than "fringe science"." The first is in the Policy section and the second is in the lede sentence. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 21:58, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

What Wikiversity is not

 * A duplication of other Wikimedia projects.
 * 1) It "will not simply duplicate their content."
 * 2) "There may be some overlapping, but each project will maintain its own focus."
 * A degree or title granting institution: Wikiversity will not confer degrees or any other academic qualifications, nor will it entitle people to call themselves "professors", if they are not professors.

"Wikiversity resources and activities should promote learning above any personal opinions, beliefs, or biases that you may have. If you wish to express your personal take on someone or something, please do so in a way that is open, respectful, inclusive of academic participation, and informs participants on the issues that matter to you. Critical analyses and academic lectures are two possible ways to do this." from What Wikiversity is not.

While I did not expect nor anticipate the apparent firestorm of responses in the above sections, my goal is to give students and others an opportunity to learn about the real and respected science of fringes; i.e., real fringe sciences. At the conclusion of reading and studying this lecture students and others should have a well-rounded understanding of the sciences that benefit from the study of fringes. I also agree with Prof. J.E. Armstrong: "But the fact that some real fringes lend themselves to scientific study, albeit minor phenomena, doesn’t change the desire to expose or illustrate those things out on the real edges of science. Unfortunately, such terms do tend to get usurped." The goal of this lecture is not "to expose or illustrate those things out on the real edges of science." Rather oddly the term 'fringe sciences' appears to be extended to psychology and economics, and medicine, biology, archaeology, and paleontology, see the lecture Policy section. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 18:50, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Mainstream science
"Mainstream science is scientific inquiry in an established field of study that does not depart significantly from orthodox theories.  In the philosophy of science, mainstream science is an area of scientific endeavor that has left the process of becoming established. New areas of scientific endeavor still in the process of becoming established are generally labelled  protoscience or fringe science. A definition of mainstream in terms of protoscience and fringe science can be understood from the following table:

By its standard practices of applying good scientific methods, mainstream is distinguished from pseudoscience as a demarcation problem and specific types of inquiry are debunked as junk science, cargo cult science, scientific misconduct, etc." From Mainstream science. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 22:27, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

The following facts establish that the term "fringe science" or "fringe sciences" as used in the titles of publications, including citations to these specific publications, or in context of publications about the science of fringes is accepted by the mainstream of these sciences:
 * 1) Title: "Fringe Science: Defringing CCD Images with Neon Lamp Flat Fields"
 * 2) The journal "Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific" had Paula Szkody as its EDITOR, and eight members in its PUBLICATIONS COMMITTEE, more than half of whom approved having "Fringe science" in the article title.
 * 3) "Fringe Science: Defringing CCD Images with Neon Lamp Flat Fields" Cited by.
 * 4) "Fringe Science: Defringing CCD Images with Neon Lamp Flat Fields" Cited by.
 * 5) "Fringe Science: Defringing CCD Images with Neon Lamp Flat Fields" Cited by . --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 05:07, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 6) "Fringe Science: Defringing CCD Images with Neon Lamp Flat Fields" Cited by.
 * 7) "Fringe Science: Defringing CCD Images with Neon Lamp Flat Fields" Cited by.
 * 8) "Fringe Science: Defringing CCD Images with Neon Lamp Flat Fields" Cited by . --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 19:39, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 9) "Fringe Science: Defringing CCD Images with Neon Lamp Flat Fields" Cited by.
 * 10) "Fringe Science: Defringing CCD Images with Neon Lamp Flat Fields" Cited by.
 * 11) "Fringe Science: Defringing CCD Images with Neon Lamp Flat Fields" Cited by.
 * 12) "Fringe Science: Defringing CCD Images with Neon Lamp Flat Fields" Cited by.
 * 13) "Fringe Science: Defringing CCD Images with Neon Lamp Flat Fields" Cited by.
 * 14) "Fringe Science: Defringing CCD Images with Neon Lamp Flat Fields" Cited by . --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 02:25, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 15) "Fringe Science: Defringing CCD Images with Neon Lamp Flat Fields" Cited by.
 * 16) "Fringe Science: Defringing CCD Images with Neon Lamp Flat Fields" Cited by.
 * 17) "Fringe Science: Defringing CCD Images with Neon Lamp Flat Fields" Cited by.
 * 18) "Fringe Science: Defringing CCD Images with Neon Lamp Flat Fields" Cited by.
 * 19) "Fringe Science: Defringing CCD Images with Neon Lamp Flat Fields" Cited by . --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 03:22, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 20) The authors citing the above article did not declare "The article is misleading as titled and needed clarification."
 * 21) Context: In the image on the right is a time-frequency "map of frequency peaks detected by the search algorithm [...] applied to C7 dark fringe science mode data segments (black). There were 61516 frequency peaks above the [signal to noise resolution] SNR threshold, corresponding to 772 different frequencies. This reduces to 155 persistent ones [...], and finally reduces to 71 lines candidates (plus 18 50Hz harmonics) after merging nearby frequencies."
 * 22) Title: "Fringe Science: are the corollas of Nymphoides (Menyanthaceae) flowers adapted for surface tension interactions?"
 * 23) The "American Journal of Botany" has an Editorial Board of some 58 members, more than half of whom approved of the phrase "Fringe science" in this article title. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 23:01, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 24) "Fringe Science: are the corollas of Nymphoides (Menyanthaceae) flowers adapted for surface tension interactions?" Cited by.
 * 25) "Fringe Science: are the corollas of Nymphoides (Menyanthaceae) flowers adapted for surface tension interactions?" Cited by.
 * 26) "Fringe Science: are the corollas of Nymphoides (Menyanthaceae) flowers adapted for surface tension interactions?" Cited by.
 * 27) "Fringe Science: are the corollas of Nymphoides (Menyanthaceae) flowers adapted for surface tension interactions?" Cited by.
 * 28) "Fringe Science: are the corollas of Nymphoides (Menyanthaceae) flowers adapted for surface tension interactions?" Cited by.
 * 29) "Fringe Science: are the corollas of Nymphoides (Menyanthaceae) flowers adapted for surface tension interactions?" Cited by.
 * 30) "Fringe Science: are the corollas of Nymphoides (Menyanthaceae) flowers adapted for surface tension interactions?" Cited by . --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 05:05, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 31) "Fringe Science: are the corollas of Nymphoides (Menyanthaceae) flowers adapted for surface tension interactions?" Cited by.
 * 32) "Fringe Science: are the corollas of Nymphoides (Menyanthaceae) flowers adapted for surface tension interactions?" Cited by.
 * 33) "Fringe Science: are the corollas of Nymphoides (Menyanthaceae) flowers adapted for surface tension interactions?" Cited by.
 * 34) "Fringe Science: are the corollas of Nymphoides (Menyanthaceae) flowers adapted for surface tension interactions?" Cited by.
 * 35) "Fringe Science: are the corollas of Nymphoides (Menyanthaceae) flowers adapted for surface tension interactions?" Cited by.
 * 36) "Fringe Science: are the corollas of Nymphoides (Menyanthaceae) flowers adapted for surface tension interactions?" Cited by.
 * 37) "Fringe Science: are the corollas of Nymphoides (Menyanthaceae) flowers adapted for surface tension interactions?" Cited by.
 * 38) "Fringe Science: are the corollas of Nymphoides (Menyanthaceae) flowers adapted for surface tension interactions?" Cited by . --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 06:45, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 39) The authors citing the above article did not declare "The article is misleading as titled and needed clarification."
 * 40) Title: "Fringe Science: Creating a STIS CCD Fringe Flat Field" . --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 23:45, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 41) "Fringe Science: Creating a STIS CCD Fringe Flat Field" Cited by . --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 07:06, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 42) The authors citing the above article did not declare "The article is misleading as titled and needed clarification."
 * 43) Context: "Andreas Quirrenbach is a Professor of Physics and member of the Center for Astrophysics and Space Sciences at the University of California, San Diego. He became fascinated with the concept of milli-arc-seconds as an undergraduate student while attending a summer school at the Max-Planck-Institut für Radioastronomie (MPIfR). After completing his thesis at MPIfR and obtaining a PhD in astronomy from the University of Bonn, he decided to do "fringe science" at shorter wavelengths and joined the optical interferometry group at the Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, DC, which gave him the opportunity to spend 200 nights on Mt. Wilson observing with the Mark III Interferometer." --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 01:57, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 44) Context: The "technique of Very Long Baseline Interferometry has been going for four decades. It was developed as a concept in the 1960's and the first fringes were detected in 1969 (Broten et al. 1967; see also the historical review by Clark 2003). The science followed very quickly in the 1970's as compact, extragalactic radio sources were resolved and shown to exhibit superluminal expansion (Whitney et al. 1971; Cohen et al. 1971), which had previously been predicted by (Rees 1966)." [Section title:] "More Fringe Science" "A much-publicized result (Fomalont & Kopeikin 2003) is the measurement of the gravitational deflection of a background quasar by Jupiter, an effect about a thousand times smaller than the solar deflection (for which VLBI produces about the best measurement to date of the post-Newtonian parameter γ in the Robertson expansion of the metric tensor). Although this is undoubtedly a technical tour de force, the interpretation of this result has proven rather controversial. The authors claim that this shows that gravitational effects propagate at the speed of light. It seems to me, though, that there can only be one frame-independent speed in physics and so the answer is, in some sense, already guaranteed by the formalism in which the experiment is usually interpreted." --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 04:12, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 45) About the journal Nature: "Nature is a weekly international journal publishing the finest peer-reviewed research in all fields of science and technology on the basis of its originality, importance, interdisciplinary interest, timeliness, accessibility, elegance and surprising conclusions."
 * 46) Since its first issue the journal Nature has published 8774 research articles focused on or including fringes.
 * 47) The journal Nature is in the mainstream of "all fields of science and technology", including those focused on or using fringes.
 * 48) The journal Nature contains no refereed research articles or letters on the public policy topic 'fringe science' as described in Wikipedia:Fringe science but does have some 23 "Comment and Opinion", "News", "Books and Arts", and "Reviews" that focus on it. All of these start in 1977. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 02:25, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 49) Since 25 February 2018, when put into Draft: space, the lecture has been viewed by 386 without comments such as: "The article is misleading as titled and needed clarification." --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 15:59, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 50) Thanks to contributors, the lecture does include a section on Policy that describes alleged 'fringe science'. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 17:52, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 51) Since 25 February 2018, when put into Draft: space, the lecture has been viewed by 434 without comments. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 17:52, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 52) Since 25 February 2018, when put into Draft: space, the lecture has been viewed by 464 without comments. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 02:11, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 53) Since 25 February 2018, when put into Draft: space, the lecture has been viewed by 496 without comments. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 07:08, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 54) Since 25 February 2018, when put into Draft: space, the lecture has been viewed by 533 without comments. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 14:46, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 55) Since 25 February 2018, when put into Draft: space, the lecture has been viewed by 535 without comments, now after a full 30 days. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 14:21, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 56) "There are many stand-alone main page resources at Wikiversity apparently designed and/or designated as lectures. Examples include Sciences, Fringe sciences, Art, History, Humanities, etc.", "* Keep as is - No changes are necessary. - option removed by consensus", "* Delete - Delete the resource. - option removed by consensus", and "Draft: Namespace -  Support 7,  Oppose 3". From Requests_for_Deletion.
 * 57) "I havent find out, why lectures in main ns are problem. Thats why, we have categories to sort them out, or sort them as lectures. So I can just guess, what was the problem with lectures. If the problem is that they occupy certain page name, there are more solutions, how to fix it. The solution of its own namespace, should be used as the last one.", "But maybe it was all about the completition status of the lecture pages, but I havent find out more about it. Just a link to Wikipedia and what it does with Wikiversity. Non completed pages are all around, why it is a problem now?--Juandev", "From reading user Juandev's comments above, there is no support for a mandatory Draft namespace. I would like to ask each user who voted for a mandatory Draft ns to reconsider and support a voluntary Draft namespace. With Juandev's comments above only 63 % agree with a mandatory Draft ns. What do you think?", "Support -- Andrew Krizhanovsky", and "Any decision to disallow a page in main space is independent of whether or not a draft space exists.  For that reason, any discussion  of "mandatory draft space" would refer to a decision by the community to publish an article in draft space against author's objection.  In this scenario, the author would prefer deletion, while the community wants it kept, but in draft space.  This is not a good case for such a discussion because nobody is demanding that the resource be placed in draft space."--Guy vandegrift From Wikiversity_talk:Requests_for_Deletion. That is at worse 5:6 for mandatory draft ns. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 15:15, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 58) "Components / stand-alone resources: Lessons - Articles - Lesson plans - Discussions - Events - Essays - Glossaries - Lectures - Papers - Quizzes - Blogs - Media" From the template "Things you can make on Wikiversity"  included in Help:Lecture. Also in Help:Lecture is "Use a subpage for your lecture - i.e. entitle your lecture "name of course/name of lecture" or "name of course/lecture 1" (with a slash in the middle)." But, Help:Lecture is included in the Category:Consensus requested so apparently it never received consensus. There is no consensus restricting lectures to a subpage.  has been contributed to by four suggesting consensus approval of that template without exception and two more on its Discuss page with comment on its title: "Rtnav". --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 21:01, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Fringe science
"The only resource necessary to understand the issue is Wikipedia: Fringe science. It defines, by its very nature, the common usage of the term. To define it otherwise departs significantly from the mainstream, making this a fringe science article on the science of fringes."

"Fringe science is an inquiry in an established field of study which departs significantly from mainstream theories in that field and is considered to be questionable by the mainstream." From Fringe science. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 22:32, 5 March 2018 (UTC) See Draft:Fringe_sciences

What Wikipedia is not
"Wikipedia is not a dictionary, or a ["common usage" redirects to] usage or jargon guide." From What_Wikipedia_is_not. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 23:04, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

"Both dictionaries and encyclopedias contain definitions. Encyclopedia articles should begin with a good definition and description of topic (or a few largely or completely synonymous or otherwise highly related topics ), but the article should provide other types of information about that topic as well. An encyclopedic definition is more concerned with encyclopedic knowledge (facts) than linguistic concerns. " From Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 23:04, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion
All quotes are from Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion unless indicated otherwise.

"A term should be included if it's likely that someone would run across it and want to know what it means."

"Compounds and multiple-word terms such as post office." And, fringe science or fringe sciences.

"“Attested” means verified through
 * 1) clearly widespread use, or
 * 2) use in permanently recorded media, conveying meaning, in at least three independent instances spanning at least a year (different requirements apply for certain languages)."

All Google has about 219,000 results for "fringe science", about 32,700 results for "fringe sciences". Google scholar has about 1,440 results for "fringe science", about 178 results for "fringe sciences". These are primarily the policy term "fringe science".

Included are the following mainstream science usages:
 * 1) Title: "Fringe Science: Defringing CCD Images with Neon Lamp Flat Fields"
 * 2) Title: "Fringe Science: are the corollas of Nymphoides (Menyanthaceae) flowers adapted for surface tension interactions?"
 * 3) Title: "Fringe Science: Creating a STIS CCD Fringe Flat Field"
 * 4) Context: In the image on the right is a time-frequency "map of frequency peaks detected by the search algorithm [...] applied to C7 dark fringe science mode data segments (black). There were 61516 frequency peaks above the [signal to noise resolution] SNR threshold, corresponding to 772 different frequencies. This reduces to 155 persistent ones [...], and finally reduces to 71 lines candidates (plus 18 50Hz harmonics) after merging nearby frequencies."
 * 5) Context: "Andreas Quirrenbach is a Professor of Physics and member of the Center for Astrophysics and Space Sciences at the University of California, San Diego. He became fascinated with the concept of milli-arc-seconds as an undergraduate student while attending a summer school at the Max-Planck-Institut für Radioastronomie (MPIfR). After completing his thesis at MPIfR and obtaining a PhD in astronomy from the University of Bonn, he decided to do "fringe science" at shorter wavelengths and joined the optical interferometry group at the Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, DC, which gave him the opportunity to spend 200 nights on Mt. Wilson observing with the Mark III Interferometer."
 * 6) Context: The "technique of Very Long Baseline Interferometry has been going for four decades. It was developed as a concept in the 1960's and the first fringes were detected in 1969 (Broten et al. 1967; see also the historical review by Clark 2003). The science followed very quickly in the 1970's as compact, extragalactic radio sources were resolved and shown to exhibit superluminal expansion (Whitney et al. 1971; Cohen et al. 1971), which had previously been predicted by (Rees 1966)." [Section title:] "More Fringe Science" "A much-publicized result (Fomalont & Kopeikin 2003) is the measurement of the gravitational deflection of a background quasar by Jupiter, an effect about a thousand times smaller than the solar deflection (for which VLBI produces about the best measurement to date of the post-Newtonian parameter γ in the Robertson expansion of the metric tensor). Although this is undoubtedly a technical tour de force, the interpretation of this result has proven rather controversial. The authors claim that this shows that gravitational effects propagate at the speed of light. It seems to me, though, that there can only be one frame-independent speed in physics and so the answer is, in some sense, already guaranteed by the formalism in which the experiment is usually interpreted."

"We do not quote other Wikimedia sites (such as Wikipedia), but we may use quotations found on them (such as quotations from books available on Wikisource)."

This shoots down the policy apparent definition in Fringe science.

"Conveying meaning"

The above three article titles and context convey meaning, especially about the real sciences of fringes. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 15:52, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

"For languages well documented on the Internet, three citations in which a term is used is the minimum number for inclusion in Wiktionary."

The above three article titles and three additional article contexts in which a term is used, especially about the real sciences of fringes, should meet the minimum number for inclusion in Wiktionary.

"Spanning at least a year"

The above titles and contexts are from (2012, 2002, 1997) and (2006, 2001, 2005), respectively. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 17:03, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

"Idiomaticity"

"This criterion is sometimes referred to as the fried egg test, as a fried egg generally means an egg (and generally a chicken egg or similar) fried in a particular way. It generally doesn't denote a scrambled egg, which is nonetheless cooked by frying."

A fringe science in mainstream science means a science: the disciplines or branches of learning, especially those dealing with measurable or systematic principles, the collective disciplines of study or learning acquired through the scientific method; the sum of knowledge gained from such methods and discipline, in a particular way: regarding fringes in the natural world. It generally doesn't denote a policy 'science', or a superstition, pseudoscience or protoscience, which are defined.

"In rare cases, a phrase that is arguably unidiomatic may be included by the consensus of the community, based on the determination of editors that inclusion of the term is likely to be useful to readers."

"The straightforward sarcastic use of irony, understatement and hyperbole does not usually qualify for inclusion. This means, for example, that big should not be defined as “(ironic) small”, “(understatement) gigantic” or “(hyperbole) moderately large”. Common rhetorical use can be explained in a usage note, a context tag (such as (usually sarcastic)) or as part of the literal definition. Terms which are seldom or never used literally are not covered by this rule, and can be included on their own merits."

Two reviewers have referred to 'fringe science' in the title of a refereed journal article as like a joke or pun. This includes one author. But, the pun is within each science like 'pointless topology' referring to the topology of locales or neighborhoods rather than discrete points. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 18:58, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Two reviewers at Wiktionary have agreed that the two-word phrase "fringe science" does not meet inclusion in Wiktionary as the "scientific study of fringes" or the "science of fringes" by apparently not being attested. And, the "common usage" on Fringe science also fails Criteria for inclusion.

A search on Google found no source for a definition of the two-word term "fringe science", although many websites mirrored the Wikipedia description. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 02:54, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Popularity - Fringe sciences
Wikiversity:Statistics/2019/08
 * ranking. 0 Fringe sciences

Wikiversity:Statistics/2019/07
 * ranking. 1 Fringe sciences

Wikiversity:Statistics/2019/06
 * ranking. 7 Fringe sciences

Wikiversity:Statistics/2019/05
 * ranking. 0 Fringe sciences

Wikiversity:Statistics/2019/04
 * ranking. 1 Fringe sciences

Wikiversity:Statistics/2019/03
 * ranking. 14 Fringe sciences

Wikiversity:Statistics/2019/02
 * ranking. 2 Fringe sciences

Wikiversity:Statistics/2019/01
 * ranking. 30 Fringe sciences

Popularity
Firefox, Local

Wikiversity:Statistics/2020/01-09
 * ranking.,ranking. 269, Draft:Original research/Fringe sciences

Popularity - Draft:Fringe sciences
Wikiversity:Statistics/2019
 * 938.,range. 2004,range Draft:Fringe sciences

Wikiversity:Statistics/2019/12
 * ranking. 461 Draft:Fringe sciences

Wikiversity:Statistics/2019/11
 * ranking. 287 Draft:Fringe sciences

Wikiversity:Statistics/2019/10
 * ranking. 62 Draft:Fringe sciences

Wikiversity:Statistics/2019/09
 * ranking. 78 Draft:Fringe sciences

Wikiversity:Statistics/2019/08
 * ranking. 25 Draft:Fringe sciences

Wikiversity:Statistics/2019/07
 * ranking. 15 Draft:Fringe sciences

Wikiversity:Statistics/2019/06
 * 939. 215 Draft:Fringe sciences

Wikiversity:Statistics/2019/05
 * ranking. 33 Draft:Fringe sciences

Wikiversity:Statistics/2019/04
 * ranking. 174 Draft:Fringe sciences

Wikiversity:Statistics/2019/03
 * 721. 324 Draft:Fringe sciences

Wikiversity:Statistics/2019/02
 * ranking. 164 Draft:Fringe sciences

Wikiversity:Statistics/2019/01
 * ranking. 166 Draft:Fringe sciences

Popularity - Draft talk:Fringe sciences
Wikiversity:Statistics/2019/08
 * ranking. 25 Draft talk:Fringe sciences

Wikiversity:Statistics/2019/07
 * ranking. 37 Draft talk:Fringe sciences

Wikiversity:Statistics/2019/06
 * 909.,815. 225,268 - Draft talk:Fringe sciences

Wikiversity:Statistics/2019/05
 * ranking. 11 Draft talk:Fringe sciences

Wikiversity:Statistics/2019/04
 * ranking. 18 Draft talk:Fringe sciences

Wikiversity:Statistics/2019/03
 * 941.,749. 260,304 - Draft talk:Fringe sciences

Wikiversity:Statistics/2019/02
 * ranking. 56 Draft talk:Fringe sciences

Wikiversity:Statistics/2019/01
 * ranking. 37 Draft talk:Fringe sciences