JAYJG wrote:
Well, as I noted on the list a couple of days ago, policing for original research seems equally difficult, when even long time editors consider original research to be "simple facts" or "simple deductive reasoning." Perhaps the [[Wikipedia:No original research]] page needs to be updated with examples which make that point that if it really is that simple, someone else will have done the work for you already, and all you need to do is quote them.
Are you talking about situations where such a committee might have to police the quality of the research? Okay, I grant that sometimes this can be difficult. But it isn't insurmountable. If the committee works, like ArbCom, by attending to a complaint and giving people opportunities to provide evidence, I think in most cases they will then be able to see the difference between an appropriate and inappropriate source, or a reputable or disreputable source.
However, there is another way the committee could work. It could simply ask a user, "what research did you do? What are your sources?" Anyone who has done any amount of research can answer this easily, and then the committee might just recommend that the sources used by cited more clearly, end of problem.
This may sound like a little thing, but I think it is vitally needed. When I was in conflict with CheeseDreams about the Cultural and Historical background of Jesus, one of my major problems was that she seemed not to have done any research whatsoever. I asked her, many, many times, what her sources were and she ignored me. Now, in that particular case Wikipedia was lucky enough that CD's own behavior consistently undermined her, until she was banned. But what if there is a user who strictly adheres to all behavior policies, but who nevertheless thinks of an article as if it were his/her own blog? The thing is, CD never answered my simple question, what was her source -- and I could not compel her to answer, and there was no sanction for her not answering. What if someone very well-behaved acts just as recklessly in their contributions? Here is one place where I see the value of a committee that is empowered to ask "what are your sources" or "what kind of research did you do" and, if the answer is silence or something that just doesn't hold up, can impose a sanction.
I do of course agree that the NOR policy needs improvement. There has been work on a new draft, which perhaps you can help, and which I think should be merged with the current policy soon.
You know, a new committee with clear procedural rules will itself begin generating clearer ideas about how to deal with disagreements over what constitutes original research, too,
Steve
Steven L. Rubenstein Associate Professor Department of Sociology and Anthropology Bentley Annex Ohio University Athens, Ohio 45701