On 4/7/08, Philip Sandifer <snowspinner(a)gmail.com> wrote:
An article
that provides that for people is a really useful resource.
An article that offers a Wikpedian's original research isn't, even if
happens to be accurate.
Well, it's still useful. The problem with an article that offers
accurate original research is that it's not presenting a NPOV
perspective. Our articles shouldn't say what "is" about the world -
they should provide attributed accounts of the important accounts of
the world. Which, to say again (and hopefully this time it will stick
and people will stop responding to claims I'm not making), we strive
to provide accurate information, but the only information we strive to
provide is accounts of what other people think.
It's not just a question of failing NPOV. An article full of OR fails
on every level.
We were discussing Kant's [[Critique of Pure Reason]] on WT:NOT. It's
pure OR. Only one secondary source cited for one small point.
Otherwise, it's a Wikipedian's (or several Wikipedians') understanding
of Kant, apparently based only on their reading of the Critique
itself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critique_of_Pure_Reason
Most of it is probably right, but because it's OR, it's close to
useless. Someone knowing nothing about Kant will be mystified, and
there's no attempt to make it even a little clear for someone at that
level. Someone knowing a little about Kant is left not knowing how to
find out more, or how to find out whether the WP article is an
accepted interpretation. Someone who knows a lot will have no
interest, because there's no complexity.
There's no context, no history, no understanding shown of why Kant
felt the need to write it, no information about its reception or its
influence. No information about what the key points are, and how
different people have interpreted them, and why those are the key
points, and who the key people are.
As accurate as it might be, it fails in its mission to be educative.
Sarah