When the most accurate and concise summary of a particular philosophical position I can find...

Them

...is on TV Tropes.

I have a couple not-necessarily-simultaneously-true inklings as to why this is. First, because while such positions are relevant to TV Tropes' purpose they are not integral to it, and so such beliefs can be classified and described with less risk of open flames that would lead to an increasingly standardized perspective shared by the entire community as dissenters give up and jump ship; and second, because I'm already a hopeless vigilante taxonomist.

RedEyedAbyss

Eh, I'd rather use RationalWiki for such a thing (with the discussion page at hand, of course). Usually Tvtropes's social commentary is hackenyed and agenda-driven (the gender tropes most prominently in my mind; Action Girl is a pretty useless trope if any female who ever fights gets the label. Also their anti-intellectualism in response to so-called art snobs).

MillerCross

I vote second.

Myrmidon

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Rupert_Sheldrake

This is why I don't trust Rational Wiki.

captainbrass

^ Because the article's inaccurate, because it's biased or because this person is irrelevant to the wiki's remit?

Them

I vote "because it's biased, blatantly so, and not very informative beyond that". RationalWiki expresses its philosophical preferences right in the title.