On Thu, 1 Jan 2004, Ray Saintonge wrote:
[ ...] I find it difficult to deal with those that want to suppress all knowledge that has nothing to do with their unique visions of just what an encyclopedia is.
There are of course many of these that are really user pages. Wouldn't it be simpler if the material were just moved to the relevant user page, and a notice were left at the page where the autobiography was to say something like, "The material formerly here was autobiographical material. It has been moved to [[User:....]]". Most will accept this change. Those that don't agree may restore the material. That's OK. They then need to understand that it may then be subject to merciless editing to an extent that would not happen on a user page. With enough merciless editing they may get the point. Blanket deletions of such pages only provokes animosities.
A bit of communicative sugar always helps. Unfortunately, there are people who act as if anything except unqualified agreement with them as vicious harassment. I'll admit I have no clue of how best to deal with these people.
The recently written "No original research" provision appears to focus on science, and "new scientific theories" and completely ignores other areas of study. The most disturbing aspect is that it uses Jimbo's comments from the mailing list as though he were speaking "ex cathedra". Jimbo has on several occasions stated that he avoids editing articles to avoid a misperception that he is exercising his dictatorial powers.
Interesting. I've been attempting to apply this rule to those articles on history that I have encountered -- as well as any topic that it fits. While this does tend to give a historiographical slant to articles (that is, writing a history of the history of the subject -- ugh), I think it takes at least one step towards the ideal of NPOV.
And it is applicable. Take a look at the various articles on Chronology of Ancient History (e.g., [[Egyptian Chronology]], [[Chronology of Babylonia and Assyria]]): either we have assertions that the current chronological structure is untenable (without a clear explanation why), or the results of calculating eclipses into the 3rd millenium BC without any explanation why (or how) they are important; in one case we have a problem with NPOV, in another, it's clearly original research. (Perhaps I'm revealing my own bias in this manner, since I believe these articles should *explain* how the chronology was determined, rather than put forth one -- or more -- different chronological schemes.)
The fact that some use Jimbo's comments as the final word is disturbing, but my feeling is that this usage occurs when a point has been debated to death, yet one person or a small group simply refuses to understand & let the matter drop. (Wikipedia does not seem to have any other way to end debate.) If Jimbo's opinions are used in any other way, then it is wrong.
Using Jimbo's mailing list opinion as a technique for imposing a particular POV does not address the issue. That article does appear to give objective criteria for determining when a scientific article is to be viewed as original research. It gives no reason for why these articles should be excluded other than "Jimbo says so." It is completely silent about original research in fields outside of "science", and how to identify it In one sense every article in Wikipedia is original research except those that plagiarize another source.
As I understand it, the intent of this rule is to discourage the use of Wikipedia as a means to ``publish" one's discoveries, be it concerning Faster Than Light travel, one's proof that Brooklyn was founded by the Atlanteans, etc. An article should be reporting or summarizing material that appears in printed sources -- any published sources. This guarrantees that it is part of the history of ideas in at least some small way, & not the isolated rantings of some lone individual in a basement apartment, eager for the attention & approval of an imagined audience.
(Hmm. That last comment could apply to myself, except that I own my house.)
An example of something that clearly violates the ``No Original Research" rule can be seen in the article [[Heberite]]. From the text, I have no idea whether this describes an idea held by anyone except its author. For all I know, this is what is taught in Moscow Public schools -- in which case it belongs in Wikipedia; and it asserts a number of items without providing any proof. (It should probably be placed on VfD, but I will recuse myself from further action concernign this artilce for reasons that are clear in the Talk: section.)
The fact is that the history of science is strewn with these false steps and original ideas which led nowhere. Their historical value is what makes them encyclopedic, not their content and not their theories. Their dubious value to science needs to be remarked but not ridiculed, and not obsessively disproved. (Remember, the burden of proof for any scientific theory rests with its proponent; if he hasn't carried that burden it is sufficient to say that as simply as possible.) Most of these ideas can be adequately covered in a single page, and take much less space than what is used arguing about them. Why should contemporary crackpots be viewed with any less regard than those from the last century?
I simply want proof that they have some effect on the history of thought, at least in some small way. The requirement of the use of printed sources is a small hurdle that keeps most of the unsuitable material out, although this rule may handicap in the writing of articles regarding computers or Internet folklore.
Geoff