I have two comments concerning the most recent discussion on original research. First, can I include information if it comes from an interview I conducted. I think the answer has to be no. This is "original" research in the clearest sense -- raw data prior to any interpretation or analysis (I think most of our discussion has centered on, can we provide our own interpretation or analysis in articles? Again I think the answer is no, but this seems to be a more complex issue for many people). I think this is a very easy question to answer, given our policy. I have to say, I have some regret that the answer is no. One of the primary ideals of academic research is making raw data available to allow new interpretations or analysis, but the way academic research is actually published severely limits this. One of the great things about the internet is its potential to make a great deal of raw data available to the general public, which is a great thing. Still, I can think of three reasons why Wikipedia should not be in the business of making raw data available. First is methodological (this doesn't apply to this particular question, which I think has to do with a rock band, but applies to most scientific research): can we assert some reasonable degree of confidence that the data was produced through appropriate (e.g. scientific -- but in courts, the equivalent would be "following the rules of evidence") means? Peer-reviewed journals and books published by academic presses make this claim, and it is in part based on peer-review and evaluating the credentials of the author. We won't be doing that. As I said, this doesn't hold for interviewing a musician, but I think it is something to bear in mind. My second and third reasons however may be relevant to the question at hand: publishing information involves legal and ethical responsibilities. Here we may be better off comparing ourselves to newspapers. Aside from having legal staffs that can and often do check stories before they are published, journalism schools and newspapers are supposed to cultivate a common set of ethical principles to guide journalists. And journalists still often act unethically! If journalists, who as part of their profession may have spent a good deal of time talking about ethics of reporting screw up, how much more likely is it that someone somewhere along the line on the internet will screw up? It is safer for us not to try to act as reporters. The second comment has to do with credibility. I agree 100% with Jimbo's point that what makes Einstein's theories more credible than aunt Gertie's is not crude popularity but that physicists give more credence to Einstein's theories (about physics by the way -- Aunt Gertrude may be more of an authority on needlepoint or, so as not to be sexist, repairing a carburetor, than Einstein). But what about controversial topics like flouridation or ESP? Well, in the first case an article can say that there are debates among scientists and among politicians, and give accounts of both kinds of views (the obvious model is global warming: all atmospheric scientists agree that global warming is occurring; some scientists debate whether it is anthropogenic or whatever the term is; many politicians debate it). In the second case -- or let's just say, other cases, we can say that there is not only debate over what is going on; there is debate over who is a credible authority: some people say x, others say y ..." In other words, I don't see this as an NPOV problem; I just see it as another layer of NPOV -- in some (probably very few) cases there is debate over who's views are most authoritative/credible, and if so we should provide some account of this debate. Steve Steven L. Rubenstein Associate Professor Department of Sociology and Anthropology Bentley Annex Ohio University Athens, Ohio 45701