On 6/6/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
it was never intended. When it is pointed out that obvious arguments will be cited *somewhere*, the response is that some things are so obvious (e.g. "like the fact that the sun rises in the east") that it would actually be hard to find someone specifically stating them!
Hm. I'm the only person in recent memory who has made such a claim, so should I be offended that you appear to be binning me in with crackpot theorists?
For the record, I've never been a party to a content dispute on wikipedia.
I've discussed NOR because I believe it's a fundamentally weak idea at its core but it functions as a bandaid to solve many problems *now*... but long term we need process in place to accept and reject new research in a way which keeps out most of the crackpots (or at least mitigates their harm) and doesn't break NPOV.
Already wikipedia has become a better (more complete, more neutral, more verified and reviewed) corpus than some of the sources we cite, simply because our process are our contributors pretty good for some things... or alternatively, because other places are so bad. :) In any case we're weaving an odd world where wikipedia will become a default source of reliable general material... but to insert something new you must first publish it someplace less reliable.
... The point is that in the process of reinventing the encyclopedia we are also reinventing peer review. The logical conclusion is that while the encyclopedia should not be a repository for original research (because it's an encyclopedia), we will ultimately end up building such a repository because our process is superior and because we will eventually need it as a reference once we've put everyone else out of business. ;) Which is why I proposed wikiviews as a first cautious step in that direction.