steven l. rubenstein wrote:
Boy do I disagree with Shane. Yes, it is true that relying on previously published source sshifts the burden. But that doesn't mean there is no difference. I can see a difference between our assuming the burden, and editors of journals and publishers assuming the burden. First, most academic articles and books go through a peer-review process. This process has its flaws, but it does mean that authors are held accountable to experts in the field on which they are writing. Second, published books and articles are authored and authors are accountable. This is not the case in Wikipedia where, as a collaborative project, articles have no authors. Problems with wikipedia articles are likely to be debated on talk pages, which may lead to changes in articles -- an original, innovative, and interesting process I am happy to participate in. But when scholarly books and articles are published, professional researches in the field often go out and try the experiments over, or re-check sources, or try to apply theories to other situations, and then publish more articles or books which carry research further. Our articles can report on this process and the debates within academic fields it engenders, but we cannot be a substitute for it.
That's not what I meant by "shifting the burden". I meant it shifts OUR burden. Instead of evaluating theories, we're now evaluating sources (who, as you point out, have evaluated the theories). I don't see any fundamental difference between these activities: we're still making judgment calls that we may not be equipped to make.
One of the big problems with peer-review is, as Shane points out, that it excludes ideas and research that peers do not find credible. There certainly should be a venue for such indiosyncratic and potentially ground-breaking work. The internet already provides a venue for publicizing such work. I do not think the internet needs one more such venue. There are, thanks to the WWW, now an almost infinite space for people to present such fringe research. The question is, do we report on it. I still say: no. If such fringe research has merit I truly believe it will end up in a book or peer-reviewed journal. We all know how much of what is our there is crap. I just don't think we should waste reader's time with crap, and I think to include it in our encyclopedia articles demeans the whole project. How do we decide what is crap? We don't -- we let professional editors of journals and presses do that, because that is their business. Wikipeida's strength is that it is an amateur's venture, and that is indeed it is a strength. It is also a weakness, and I see no reason why, in this one case, we can't rely on the pros.
Sure, it will eventually turn up elsewhere. But we're an online encyclopedia. Why should we tie ourselves to the old, slow methods? Part of the beauty of wikipedia is that it is (or at least can be) up to the minute up to date. To wait for things to appear offline reduces our capacity to do that. I for one don't want that. If I wanted and out of date encyclopedia, I'd buy Britannica. :)
Shane.