[WikiEN-l] original research, sources, and verification

[Tony Sidaway]

steven l. rubenstein said:
> This concerns the exchanges between SlimVirgin and others on policing
> POV  and the quality of sources.
>
> It seems that most people, including Jimbo, are committed to the quasi
> anarchic aspect of Wikipedia in which a large community of diverse
> editors  are always available to edit or comment on controversial
> articles.  I share  this commitment and agree that when editors come
> into conflict over content  or sources, the first thing to do is to
> invite others to look and comment,  and to give this process time so
> that as many people who might want to  comment as possible, do.
>
> But we all recognize that sometimes these informal processes are not
> sufficient, which is why we have mediation and arbitration mechanisms.
>
> I think SlimVirgin is calling attention to another situation where
> these  informal processes are not sufficient, but I don't think that
> our mediation  or arbitration mechanisms as currently conceived are of
> help.  I have two  points I'd like to make.
>
> If I understand her correctly,  SlimVirgin is pointing out that in some
>  cases concerning content, one must have special knowledge in order to
> identify and evaluate bias (or POV), and to evaluate the quality of
> sources.  This is especially important when there is division over the
> repute of sources.  Our "official policy" of "cite sources" explains
> that  claims should come from reputable sources, but there is not clear
> standard  of what a reputable source is -- nor do I think we can come
> up with one,  clear, inclusive explanation, it varies so much from
> field to field.  In  some cases, our normal procedures work fine (I am
> thinking specifically of  a fellow a couple of years ago who thought he
> had proven Einstein wrong;  enough folks here know enough about physics
> and the world of physicists  that over time it was clear that there was
> an informed consensus to revert  what this fellow had been adding.  In
> other cases, however, this does not  happen.  There may be different
> reasons why -- my sense is that even now  there are far more people who
> regularly contribute to Wikipedia who know a  lot about computers, than
> about ancient Near Eastern history.  Also, I (as  an outsider to this
> world) get the sense that there are lots of people who  really are
> quite expert in matters concerning computers, even if they do  not have
> PhD's in computer science and don't teach in Universities.  But  there
> may be some topics where the gulf in knowledge and understanding
> between experts and laypeople is immense.
>
> My first point is that the standard (and in my opinion ideal) process
> for  dealing with edit-conflicts is biased to work very well in some
> areas, and  less well in others.  In areas where there are very few
> editors
> knowledgeable enough to evaluate accuracy and the reputation of
> sources, we  often end up with edit wars that go in circles for weeks
> if not months.
>
> My second point is that we don't really have a good mechanism for
> resolving  conflict in these cases.  I have a high regard for our
> mediation and  arbitration processes, but in my experience mediators
> and arbitrators  usually focus on violation of behavioral guidelines.
> We do not have a  comparable mechanism for dealing with violations of
> content guidelines.  On  the guidelines and policies page we do
> distinguish between behavioral and  content guidelines, and there are a
> variety of policies in each
> category.  But we have institutional recourse for one category, and not
> the  other.
>
> I think we should either expand the brief of the mediation and
> arbitration  committees to enforce content guidelines or, if those
> committees prefer  having a more limited brief, form some other clear
> process to resolve  conflicts over content and enforce content
> policies.
>
> I believe very strongly that any mechanism we come up with should be a
> last  resort.  I believe it should be employed only when it is clear
> that the  ordinary anarchic way of dealing with such problems is not,
> even given  considerable time, working.  But I do think we need some
> mechanism.
>
> Steve
>
> Steven L. Rubenstein
> Associate Professor
> Department of Sociology and Anthropology
> Bentley Annex
> Ohio University
> Athens, Ohio 45701
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l