I have two comments concerning the most recent discussion on original
research. First, can I include information if it comes from an interview I
conducted. I think the answer has to be no. This is "original" research
in the clearest sense -- raw data prior to any interpretation or analysis
(I think most of our discussion has centered on, can we provide our own
interpretation or analysis in articles? Again I think the answer is no,
but this seems to be a more complex issue for many people). I think this
is a very easy question to answer, given our policy. I have to say, I have
some regret that the answer is no. One of the primary ideals of academic
research is making raw data available to allow new interpretations or
analysis, but the way academic research is actually published severely
limits this. One of the great things about the internet is its potential
to make a great deal of raw data available to the general public, which is
a great thing. Still, I can think of three reasons why Wikipedia should
not be in the business of making raw data available. First is
methodological (this doesn't apply to this particular question, which I
think has to do with a rock band, but applies to most scientific research):
can we assert some reasonable degree of confidence that the data was
produced through appropriate (e.g. scientific -- but in courts, the
equivalent would be "following the rules of evidence")
means? Peer-reviewed journals and books published by academic presses make
this claim, and it is in part based on peer-review and evaluating the
credentials of the author. We won't be doing that. As I said, this
doesn't hold for interviewing a musician, but I think it is something to
bear in mind. My second and third reasons however may be relevant to the
question at hand: publishing information involves legal and ethical
responsibilities. Here we may be better off comparing ourselves to
newspapers. Aside from having legal staffs that can and often do check
stories before they are published, journalism schools and newspapers are
supposed to cultivate a common set of ethical principles to guide
journalists. And journalists still often act unethically! If journalists,
who as part of their profession may have spent a good deal of time talking
about ethics of reporting screw up, how much more likely is it that someone
somewhere along the line on the internet will screw up? It is safer for us
not to try to act as reporters.
The second comment has to do with credibility. I agree 100% with Jimbo's
point that what makes Einstein's theories more credible than aunt Gertie's
is not crude popularity but that physicists give more credence to
Einstein's theories (about physics by the way -- Aunt Gertrude may be more
of an authority on needlepoint or, so as not to be sexist, repairing a
carburetor, than Einstein). But what about controversial topics like
flouridation or ESP? Well, in the first case an article can say that there
are debates among scientists and among politicians, and give accounts of
both kinds of views (the obvious model is global warming: all atmospheric
scientists agree that global warming is occurring; some scientists debate
whether it is anthropogenic or whatever the term is; many politicians
debate it). In the second case -- or let's just say, other cases, we can
say that there is not only debate over what is going on; there is debate
over who is a credible authority: some people say x, others say y ..."
In other words, I don't see this as an NPOV problem; I just see it as
another layer of NPOV -- in some (probably very few) cases there is debate
over who's views are most authoritative/credible, and if so we should
provide some account of this debate.
Steve
Steven L. Rubenstein
Associate Professor
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Bentley Annex
Ohio University
Athens, Ohio 45701