Jimmy Wales wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
The lawsuit here is not a matter of having been so
unfortunate as to be
caught driving drunk pure and simple. The issues relate to how Langan
presents himself to the world in relation to those issues and
organizations which make him encyclopedic and/or notable. The
references to the judgements may very well havew come from his opponents
in the case, but that is not the same as systematically sifting through
court records to find dirt on the guy
This is exactly what makes it original research. You have looked at his
life story, and looked at this lawsuit, and drawn the original
conclusion (perhaps plausible, perhaps even correct!) that the case
reflects negatively on him, showing perhaps something bad about how he
presents himself to the world, etc.
I can draw the conclusion that the case reflects negatively on the
person on the mailing list, but that does not imply that this would need
to be said in the article. There, to avoid original research, we can
say that he lost the case, and beyond that we are limited to what is on
the face of the decision. The matter of how he presents himself to the
world was there to distinguish this from a drunk driving charge. One
relates to his public persona, the other strictly to his private life.
That might mean that the lawsuit would make a fine
basis for original
research, to be published as investigative journalism in a newspaper,
magazine, or book.
But it certainly means that it is original research: a novel conclusion
being drawn from primary sources.
If one is using the case to draw novel conclusions then yes, it should
not be used that way.
I've taken
time to think about this before answering, and I keep
arriving at the conclusion that it is not correct to suppress this
information.
Wikipedia is in no position to "suppress" information. It is in the
public record.
It is that, nothing more, nothing less.
Should someone who is working at an institution which
is
properly tasked with doing original research want to do so, they are
welcome to do so at any time, and we do not stand in their way.
No problem there.
But the fact still remains that this sort of thing is
unquestionably
original research of _precisely_ the kind that we need to avoid for the
obvious reasons having to do with what makes an encyclopedia an
encyclopedia, what kind of resources we have to vet such things, and
what kind of door we open to crackpots, cranks, and POV pushers, if we
came to the conclusion that original research is allowed in Wikipedia,
in case we don't like the person involved. (!)
It seems that the one common difference to this exchange is one of
whether we can separate the document itself from the conclusions that
some may draw from it
I had never
heard of Langan before this came up. Going
through the long talk page attached to his article I get the impression
that this guy is a streetfighter who is ready to do whatever it takes to
win his point.
Your not liking him is not a good reason for us to throw out one of our
fundamental policies so that people with an axe to grind can dig up
negative information about him.
I've never said whether I liked him or not. I've drawn a preliminary
conclusion from reading the material in the least few days, but I could
probably draw the same conclusion about his opponents. Disagreeing on
what a fundamental policy means or should mean says nothing about
throuwing out that policy. It is also inappropriate to impute any
motives that I may have to dig up negative information about Lnagan. I
very much prefer to be radically neutral in these kinds of situations.
Ec