On Fri, 26 Sep 2003, Jimmy Wales wrote:
Well, it's against my role as 'the Jimbo'
around here to call people
crackpots, so I'll avoid that word here. But you'll all know what I
mean anyway. ;-)
Isn't it the policy of Wikipedia NOT to include original research?
In other words, if someone has made a discovery concerning relativity,
schizophrenia, the existence of jesus Christ, et cetera, et cetera,
Wikipedia is not the proper place for these findings, but rather the
relevant Usenet group or peer-reviewed journal?
It has been my long experience, too, that there are
many, uh, creative
minds, who are drawn to theorizing about the puzzles and mysteries of
physics. Their struggles against the tyranny of the mainstream are
romantic and lonely; they are voices of reason, crying out in the
wilderness.
I think this presents challenges for our NPOV policy, but not
_special_ challenges. As with any controversial subject, and many
uncontroversial ones, there are mainstream views, minority views, and
singular views.
I'm wondering if the proper crieria for inclusion/exclusion is the
fact that any theory, beit mainstream, minority or other, is whether
or not it is available in print. And I'm willing to be generous in
defining what exactly is meant by "print" as being any book or periodical
since 1960 with an ISBN number -- but not needing said ISBN number
before 1960.
(Why do I insist on an ISBN number? Anyone who seriously attempts to sell
a book -- be it through a for-profit publisher or self-published --
will obtain one for her/his publication. Unfortunately, they aren't all
that common before -- I'm guessing -- around 1960.)
I'm sorry, but a post to Usenet or a statement on a webpage just isn't
convincing enough for little old me. But that's my POV. ;-)
Geoff