2) A classification system that combines multiple attributes to define a group is not a claim that all the attributes that define one group are equivalent to each other. It's a measure of correlation.
"Endorsing" might be too strong a word, but they're certainly highlighting it.
None of the issues the article author (User:HaeB) has with the study's classification really manage to rebut it. They bring up a 2012 study (pointing out its methods were dubious) - but that was over a decade ago, and before the reforms to NPOV enforcement as the article and paper define them.
The author says it may not "generalize to other countries", but that just means we're talking specifically about American "conservatism" (and "liberalism"). Likewise, there's the anecdote about applying the general principles to the Republican Houses of Congress, where anti-Trump is the fringe, but the comparison there only really holds with the implicit admission that in Wikipedian politics, non-liberals are the fringe among the people making the decisions.
> As readers might have noticed above, the author includes political coordinates in his conception of "fringe" ("more supportive of conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, and conservatism") and "anti-fringe" ("anti-conspiracy theories, anti-pseudoscience, and liberal"). This is introduced rather casually in the paper without much justification...
I don't want to quote the whole thing, but its worth a read.
This article briefly addresses this inclusion of the political-leaning in the definition of fringe later on.
https://twitter.com/ndrew_lawrence/status/105039166355267174...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Orb%C3%A1n#Criticism_an...
It's only unfortunate in that it legitimizes groupthink. Varying degress of conservatism with a small C should ideally be allowed and encouraged, the same as varying degrees of novelty-seeking vs risk-aversion (value freedom vs value safety), tolerance for confrontation or debate, logic vs emotion, etc, etc.
It's interesting to see Wikipedia publication so readily admit that, rightly or wrongly, its "Neutral Point of View" considers [American] conservatism a "fringe" (implicitly, counterfactual) belief.
The "politics" section further down touches on this, but doesn't actually deny it. Like I said, interesting, since it's something that I've seen conservatives whine about, but I assumed Wikipedia's official position was the "NPOV" meant politically neutral.