On Fri, Jan 02, 2004 at 12:33:30AM +0000, wikien-l-request(a)Wikipedia.org wrote:
The recently written "No original research"
provision appears to focus
on science, and "new scientific theories" and completely ignores other
areas of study. The most disturbing aspect is that it uses Jimbo's
comments from the mailing list as though he were speaking "ex cathedra".
Jimbo has on several occasions stated that he avoids editing articles
to avoid a misperception that he is exercising his dictatorial powers.
There are times when he has opinions like any others of us and should
have a right to express them without creating a big splash in the wading
pool.. From my perspective, the degree of authority with which he
speaks should depend on how close the subject is to the core values of
the general undertaking and its operational necessities. His
recognition that other projects within the family will develop their own
policies based on an infinite range of parameters speaks to that.
That was added to "What Wikipedia is not" way back in January 2003. It
has recently been modified to state "no *primary* research", which is a
better description of what the rule was intended to cover.
Using Jimbo's mailing list opinion as a technique
for imposing a
particular POV does not address the issue. That article does appear to
give objective criteria for determining when a scientific article is to
be viewed as original research. It gives no reason for why these
articles should be excluded other than "Jimbo says so." It is
completely silent about original research in fields outside of
"science", and how to identify it In one sense every article in
Wikipedia is original research except those that plagiarize another source.
See above. Yes, this rule has problems for areas not covered by
academic journals, but so far these kind of disputes have not come up
that often in such areas.
As far as "Jimbo says so", I think you'll find that this rule has wide,
though not necessarily universal, support, for very good reasons. One
is that original research has not yet gone through the peer review of
experts in the field and is thus unverified and possibly unverifiable.
It is therefore an excellent tool for weeding through patent nonsense.
The fact is that the history of science is strewn with
these false steps
and original ideas which led nowhere. Their historical value is what
makes them encyclopedic, not their content and not their theories.
Their dubious value to science needs to be remarked but not ridiculed,
and not obsessively disproved. (Remember, the burden of proof for any
scientific theory rests with its proponent; if he hasn't carried that
burden it is sufficient to say that as simply as possible.) Most of
these ideas can be adequately covered in a single page, and take much
less space than what is used arguing about them. Why should
contemporary crackpots be viewed with any less regard than those from
the last century?
If a crackpot theory attracts enough attention, Wikipedia should write
about it - case in point, [[Timecube]]. Until that attention is gained
through other means, we shouldn't.
If the Wikipedia had existed back in the 1530's and
user:Copernicus had added a piece on [[Sun-centred universe theory]] we
would have been perfectly correct to delete the article after listing on
VfD and suggest that he first publish his work elsewhere.