 | This is anessay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one ofWikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not beenthoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
 | This page in a nutshell: That phrase doesn't mean what you think it means. |
Well-meaning Wikipedians, fully aware of ourcore content policies and our guideline aboutfringe theories and covering them only withdue weight, sometimes innocently suggest that we "teach the controversy" when presented with a real-world conflict inreliable sources.
"Teach the controversy" isnot a general statement to apply to remaining neutral about a subject of social or research conflict. It's the catchphrase of a specific group of anti-evolution lobbyists, theDiscovery Institute, to promotefalse balance by injectingcreationism into the curricula of American public schools.
Even if it weren't a misappropriated slogan oftheocratic pseudo-science, the idea is off-base anyway, for multiple reasons.
Wikipedia does, indeed, have a duty toaccurately reflect what the reliable sources are telling us, including when real-life experts are in sharp disagreement. This is not Wikipedia "teaching" anything –Wikipedia is not a textbook, guide, tutorial, handbook, or how-to of any kind.
Nor is every such conflict in the sourcing a "controversy"; the assumption that there is one is consideredoriginal research. Often it's simply a factor of having looked at only two sources, one of them more current or more authoritative than the other. We have to givedue weight to more reliable sources.
If there is in fact a genuine controversy in the field in question, which we might write about as a controversy, sources from and about that field will tell us that this is the case. If they do not, then simply note the conflict ("According to.... However, according to...."), and bring it up on the article's talk page. Chances are, some other editors know where to get more information, and a consensus discussion can determine the weight that particular sources should be afforded. If there's an accuracy dispute between scholars, it isdescribed by Wikipedia withouttaking part in the dispute, or manufacturing a controversy.