Sample Page

When proponents of fringe viewpoints on matters of contention such as climate change, medicine or politics face backlash for what they say or do, they may frame themselves (or be framed by their supporters) as dissidents who are being silenced by authority figures merely for disagreeing with them on such topics, just as Italian astronomer Galileo Galilei was punished for promoting a worldview that the authorities of his own time disapproved of.

In the early 17th century, Galileo published multiple works and theories via which he promoted the Copernican model, which the Roman Catholic Church had rejected as heresy at the time. After Dominican friar Tommaso Caccini denounced Galileo, his associates and other mathematicians and astronomers in a 1614 sermon, one of his fellow Dominicans, Niccolò Lorini, acquired a copy of Galileo’s letter to Caccini and brought it to the attention of the Roman Inquisition, which in 1616 ordered Galileo to stop promoting heliocentrism. That same year, the Congregation of the Index banned all books that advocated for heliocentrism, including Copernicus‘ De revolutionibus, of which a corrected version was subsequently published in 1618.

Galileo later authored the 1632 book Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems which portrayed its geocentrist character Simplicio as intellectually inept.^[a] This negative portrayal of geocentrists caused Galileo to lose the support of Pope Urban VIII (who succeeded Pope Gregory XV in 1623) and others in Rome who had defended him up to this point. The following year, Galileo was found guilty of heresy, ordered to renounce heliocentrism, put under house arrest for the rest of his life, and was banned from having any more of his works published.

Galileo’s conflict with the Roman Inquisition can be divided into four stages:

1. He promoted an unpopular worldview: Galileo promoted the notion that the Sun sits still at the center of the cosmos and that the Earth and other planets revolve around it.
2. He was ordered to stop promoting it: The Roman Inquisition regarded the Copernican model as a scientifically indefensible heresy and gave him an injunction to abstain from writing in favor or defense of it.
3. He disobeyed those orders: Despite the Inquisition’s injunction, Galileo continued to write in favor of heliocentrism. The negative portrayal of geocentrists in his 1632 book caused him to get in trouble again.
4. He was revoked of his speech privileges: For the rest of his life, Galileo was put under house arrest, had his previous books banned, and was no longer allowed to have any more books published.

A person with a Galileo complex may be able to draw analogous parallels between Galileo’s life and that of either themselves or one or more ostracized individuals that they sympathize with.

In the 21st century, many conspiracy theorists, denialists,^[b] whistleblowers and other commentators have:

1. said and/or done things that their employers and/or social media moderators have considered unacceptable,
2. been reprimanded for their actions and warned that they could lose their job or have their social media accounts suspended if they persist in the offending behavior,^[c]
3. continued to engage in such behavior regardless of warnings from their employers or moderators (who may be vilified to garner sympathy for the person in trouble), and
4. been fired, discredited, and/or deplatformed as a consequence for their behavior.^[d]

If there are rules that prohibit people from making or disseminating unsubstantiated claims about certain topics (e.g. vaccines) and that prohibition is enforced against violators, a person with a Galileo complex may consider those cases to be clues that the prohibited information may be true, even if evidence strongly suggests otherwise. They may argue that, if a certain claim is false, then the establishment shouldn’t perceive a need to punish those who spread it, as members of the public will realize that it’s false and stop erroneously presenting it as a fact regardless of whether or not they would have been punished for continuing to do so.

If someone can’t be convinced that a claim is false, they may perceive prohibitions on its dissemination as violations of their freedom of speech and may assume that whoever enforces such prohibitions is doing so on behalf of one or more powerful establishments that purportedly consider the public’s belief in that claim to be an inconvenience (at best) or a threat (at worst) to their interests.

A person with a Galileo complex may regard punished violators as heroes who are willing to spread (what they consider to be) the truth in defiance of authority figures that would want to persecute them for doing so.

A holder of a fringe viewpoint can be said to have a Galileo complex if they interpret the consequences they (or those they agree with) face for what they say or do as a form of retaliatory persecution by authority figures for disagreeing with them on one or more controversial issues. They may hope that people who “do their research” or “notice patterns” will come to the same conclusions as they have.

On Wikipedia, a contributor with a Galileo complex might complain that:

• Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines are used as gatekeeping mechanisms to justify excluding information that hasn’t been approved by established institutions.
• Those who revert or block them are silencing them for attempting to put the truth on Wikipedia.

Example of an interaction involving a user with a Galileo complex:

Editor A: *Adds unsubstantiated claims to articles*

Editor B: *Reverts Editor A’s edits*

[Editor A gets into edit wars with Editor B]

Editor C, an administrator: *Blocks Editor A for edit warring*

User with a Galileo complex: *Claims that Editor C blocked Editor A just for having a different worldview*

If it seems like editors are trying to kick you off of Wikipedia because of what you believe, it may be because of how you have behaved:

• If you’ve been accused of edit warring, stop trying to reintroduce your preferred version(s) of one or more Wikipedia articles. Instead, discuss what you want to do on each article’s talk page, and be civil. Keep in mind that Wikipedia articles are supposed to reflect what is said in reliable sources, and that user-generated content is considered generally unreliable due to the fact that anyone can publish it themselves with little to no editorial oversight. Some sources have a reputation for publishing false or misleading information and may be deprecated. If other users still don’t approve of your revisions and you aren’t able to compromise with them, it would be best for you to concede the dispute and move on.
• If you’ve been accused of making personal attacks or casting aspersions against other users, take a look back at your own comments and try to recall the mood you may have been in when you made them. If something puts you in the mood to leave a snarky remark about someone, you should give yourself time to think it through before you decide whether to publish it or not. That way, if you conclude that your potential comment might hurt your standing or reputation with other contributors, you can be glad that you hesitated and saved yourself from getting in further trouble.
• If you’ve been reported to ANI and/or blocked for expressing that you’re a neo-Nazi or a Confederate revanchist, or saying/doing things considered racist, queerphobic or hateful in any other way, you may be out of luck. These views are unwelcome because the point of each of them is that people of certain ethnicities, sexual orientations, gender identities or other classifications are unwelcome. If you personally have such views, you should avoid disclosing them on-wiki and not let them affect your decision-making as you edit.

If you try to garner people’s sympathy by equating adverse on-wiki consequences (e.g. getting reverted or blocked) with, for example, being “silenced” by an authoritarian government, you would be making a false equivalence.