Shane King wrote:
I've been thinking about this for a few days, and I can't get around one basic issue: we haven't solved the problem. We've shifted the burden of evaluating the credibility of the theory to evaluating the credibility of the sources. I see no reason to believe we're any better at evaluating the credibility of sources than of theories.
Oh, I think it is a lot easier to evaluate the credibility of sources than the credibility of theories. If you offer me your personal theory of "Liquidity, Efficiency, and Bank Bailouts" then it's going to be quite hard for me to judge whether you are an economics crank or someone with an interesting theory. But if you point me to an essay of that title in _American Economic Review_, I can feel comfortable that it is at least credible.
Heck, I see no reason why we should even care whether something is credible. The NPOV policy says we shouldn't, as I read it.
I think you're misreading it, then.
Here's a line I use in public talks which always gets a laugh. "NPOV does not mean that we have to say 'some say the moon is made of rocks, some say cheese'." We absolutely do care that a theory is credible, as it's essential to a neutral presentation of any topic.
In fact, I largely see the NPOV policy and the "no original research" policy as being in conflict. We have to report neutrally on all views, yet we exclude views that experts don't deem credible. Am I the only one who sees a contradiction in that?
Sometimes we exclude views, but more commonly we move them to where they belong -- in an article about theories that are not widely accepted.
--Jimbo