Original research: our secret pleasure? - WikiEN-l

26 May 2007


      Consider, for a moment, this edit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Addams_Family_%28pinball%29&am...
It is a minor modification to our description of "The Addams Family" 
pinball machine. Because I happen to own one of those machines, I know 
that this edit is partly right but almost certainly partly wrong. 
However, I haven't played it much lately, so my first instinct was to 
commit the grievous sin of original research by playing a few games.
In thinking about this further, there are whole classes of article just 
like this one, full of uncited information that is probably original 
research. The unifying characteristics seem to be:
1. If the article is somewhat inaccurate, there is little risk of
      real-world harm,
   2. The topic is of relatively low importance,
   3. Having something on the topic is a net benefit to our readers, and
   4. There is a wide enough base of people with knowledge of the topic
      that the article can generally be verified from collective
      personal experience.
Personally, I think these articles are worth keeping. Our readers get 
information they want. It also seems like a good place for newbies to 
contribute: it's a topic they are interested in, there is plenty for 
them to fix, and if they don't get it exactly right they won't 
immediately be reverted and slapped with a talk page notice containing 
eight links to policy shortcuts as they would on, say, [[Evolution]].
As far as I can tell, though, there is no written policy or guideline 
for this kind of thing. Is that the case? It's probably for the best, 
honestly, as they are doing fine without it, and I imagine creating a 
special exception for this kind of thing would lead to all sorts of 
disruptive wikilawyering.
Regardless, I thought it was interesting how much has been built in the 
outskirts of our metropolis. Not up to our building codes, but not a big 
problem, and better than nothing.
William