Hi everyone, I have been following the this thread with interest, but am confused as to to what the term 'original research' means. As a writer of history I take it to mean searching the literature and archives and writing a new, properly referenced, article about topic which may well not have appeared in any other place than Wikipedia. Certainly there is a great deal in my field which is not to be found anywhere on the Web, and Wikipedia is an excellent means of getting it there.
Others seem to define 'original research' as a new scientific theory which has not been published elsewhere.
If we are going to have a blanket ban on 'original research' we ought to be more precise as to what it actually means, perhaps re-wording the phrase. Any ideas?
Tony Woolrich (User: Apwoolrich) Canal Side, Huntworth, Bridgwater, Somerset UK Phone (44) 01278 663020 Email apw@ap-woolrich.co.uk
The phrase orginated primarily as a practical means to deal with physics cranks, of which of course there are a number on the web.
The basic concept is as follows: it can be quite difficult for us to make any valid judgment as to whether a particular thing is _true_ or not. It isn't appropriate for us to try to determine whether someone's novel theory of physics is valid, we aren't really equipped to do that. But what we _can_ do is check whether or not it actually has been published in reputable journals or by reputable publishers. So it's quite convenient to avoid judging the credibility of things by simply sticking to things that have been judged credible by people much better equipped to decide.
The exact same principle will hold true for history, though I suppose the application will in some cases be a bit different and more subtle.
apw@ap-woolrich.co.uk wrote:
Hi everyone, I have been following the this thread with interest, but am confused as to to what the term 'original research' means. As a writer of history I take it to mean searching the literature and archives and writing a new, properly referenced, article about topic which may well not have appeared in any other place than Wikipedia. Certainly there is a great deal in my field which is not to be found anywhere on the Web, and Wikipedia is an excellent means of getting it there.
Suppose for example you've come up with a novel historical theory which appears in no peer reviewed journals and which is contradicted by prominent authorities in the field, and you prove your theory through original research into primary sources, archives, etc.
I am thinking of a particular example, and I'll give that to illustrate my point. Michael Bellesiles published a book by a reputable publisher in 2000 with the surprising thesis that contrary to popular understanding, guns were quite rare in the early years of the United States. This book generated a firestorm of controversy and it was later determined by an outside panel of investigators hired by his University to investigate fraud charges that he was "guilty of unprofessional and misleading work".
It took a fair amount of time (2 years) for this process to work itself out, and juding the validity of Bellesiles claims involved a lot of scholarly work *of the type that we are poorly equipped to carry out*.
Suppose Bellesiles had attempted to publish his novel historical thesis at wikipedia, rather than in traditional primary sources? We would quite properly have rejected it as original research, because we are ill-equipped to judge the validity of such things.
If we are going to have a blanket ban on 'original research' we ought to be more precise as to what it actually means, perhaps re-wording the phrase. Any ideas?
I think the phrase is just fine, but I do agree with you that we need to explore more carefully what it means. In many cases, the distinction between original research and synthesis of published work will require thoughtful editorial judgment.
--Jimbo
I would think that valid Wikipedia articles can indeed be considered "original research" by others outside Wikipedia, as articles should arise from the gathering of information from various sources (a process called research?) with the result of an article unique to Wikipedia.
On Wikipedia though, the term has been hijacked to some degree to include a much narrower category of work - namely those consisting of original conclusions, original theories, etc. By and large though, such work falls into a category that common sense would dictate shouldn't be on Wikipedia, for the reasons outlined by Jimbo.
I think this is probably the reason for any confusion over the term "original research". I could be wrong of course!
Zoney
On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 02:34:03 -0800, Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
The phrase orginated primarily as a practical means to deal with physics cranks, of which of course there are a number on the web.
The basic concept is as follows: it can be quite difficult for us to make any valid judgment as to whether a particular thing is _true_ or not. It isn't appropriate for us to try to determine whether someone's novel theory of physics is valid, we aren't really equipped to do that. But what we _can_ do is check whether or not it actually has been published in reputable journals or by reputable publishers. So it's quite convenient to avoid judging the credibility of things by simply sticking to things that have been judged credible by people much better equipped to decide.
The exact same principle will hold true for history, though I suppose the application will in some cases be a bit different and more subtle.
apw@ap-woolrich.co.uk wrote:
Hi everyone, I have been following the this thread with interest, but am confused as to to what the term 'original research' means. As a writer of history I take it to mean searching the literature and archives and writing a new, properly referenced, article about topic which may well not have appeared in any other place than Wikipedia. Certainly there is a great deal in my field which is not to be found anywhere on the Web, and Wikipedia is an excellent means of getting it there.
Suppose for example you've come up with a novel historical theory which appears in no peer reviewed journals and which is contradicted by prominent authorities in the field, and you prove your theory through original research into primary sources, archives, etc.
I am thinking of a particular example, and I'll give that to illustrate my point. Michael Bellesiles published a book by a reputable publisher in 2000 with the surprising thesis that contrary to popular understanding, guns were quite rare in the early years of the United States. This book generated a firestorm of controversy and it was later determined by an outside panel of investigators hired by his University to investigate fraud charges that he was "guilty of unprofessional and misleading work".
It took a fair amount of time (2 years) for this process to work itself out, and juding the validity of Bellesiles claims involved a lot of scholarly work *of the type that we are poorly equipped to carry out*.
Suppose Bellesiles had attempted to publish his novel historical thesis at wikipedia, rather than in traditional primary sources? We would quite properly have rejected it as original research, because we are ill-equipped to judge the validity of such things.
If we are going to have a blanket ban on 'original research' we ought to be more precise as to what it actually means, perhaps re-wording the phrase. Any ideas?
I think the phrase is just fine, but I do agree with you that we need to explore more carefully what it means. In many cases, the distinction between original research and synthesis of published work will require thoughtful editorial judgment.
--Jimbo
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Zoney wrote:
I would think that valid Wikipedia articles can indeed be considered "original research" by others outside Wikipedia, as articles should arise from the gathering of information from various sources (a process called research?) with the result of an article unique to Wikipedia.
On Wikipedia though, the term has been hijacked to some degree to include a much narrower category of work - namely those consisting of original conclusions, original theories, etc. By and large though, such work falls into a category that common sense would dictate shouldn't be on Wikipedia, for the reasons outlined by Jimbo.
I think this is probably the reason for any confusion over the term "original research". I could be wrong of course!
Well, I'd expand the ban on "original research" slightly further than just that. An article that makes no new low-level claims, but nonethless synthesizes work in a non-standard way, is effectively original research that I think we ought not to publish. This comes up most often in history, where there is a tendency by some Wikipedians to produce novel narratives and historical interpretations with citation to primary sources to back up their interpretation of events. Even if their citations are accurate, Wikipedia's poorly equipped to judge whether their particular synthesis of the available information is a reasonable one.
A better approach, IMO, is to report more generally what syntheses are accepted by people working in the field. In the common case where there are multiple competing narratives, then we ought to report that as well.
-Mark
Delirium wrote:
Well, I'd expand the ban on "original research" slightly further than just that. An article that makes no new low-level claims, but nonethless synthesizes work in a non-standard way, is effectively original research that I think we ought not to publish. This comes up most often in history, where there is a tendency by some Wikipedians to produce novel narratives and historical interpretations with citation to primary sources to back up their interpretation of events. Even if their citations are accurate, Wikipedia's poorly equipped to judge whether their particular synthesis of the available information is a reasonable one.
I agree completely.
I think in part this is just a symptom of an unfortunate tendency of disrespect for history as a professional discipline. Some who completely understand why Wikipedia ought not create novel theories of physics by citing the results of experiments and so on and synthesizing them into something new, may fail to see how the same thing applies to history.
--Jimbo
As a person who is prone to original research, I think you have it about right. To put together an article using references from published material is not original research. Advancing ideas that you can find no published source for is. If you are doing it you generally know it.
Fred
From: Zoney zoney.ie@gmail.com Reply-To: Zoney zoney.ie@gmail.com, English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 15:03:57 +0000 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Original research
I would think that valid Wikipedia articles can indeed be considered "original research" by others outside Wikipedia, as articles should arise from the gathering of information from various sources (a process called research?) with the result of an article unique to Wikipedia.
On Wikipedia though, the term has been hijacked to some degree to include a much narrower category of work - namely those consisting of original conclusions, original theories, etc. By and large though, such work falls into a category that common sense would dictate shouldn't be on Wikipedia, for the reasons outlined by Jimbo.
I think this is probably the reason for any confusion over the term "original research". I could be wrong of course!
Zoney
On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 02:34:03 -0800, Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
The phrase orginated primarily as a practical means to deal with physics cranks, of which of course there are a number on the web.
The basic concept is as follows: it can be quite difficult for us to make any valid judgment as to whether a particular thing is _true_ or not. It isn't appropriate for us to try to determine whether someone's novel theory of physics is valid, we aren't really equipped to do that. But what we _can_ do is check whether or not it actually has been published in reputable journals or by reputable publishers. So it's quite convenient to avoid judging the credibility of things by simply sticking to things that have been judged credible by people much better equipped to decide.
The exact same principle will hold true for history, though I suppose the application will in some cases be a bit different and more subtle.
apw@ap-woolrich.co.uk wrote:
Hi everyone, I have been following the this thread with interest, but am confused as to to what the term 'original research' means. As a writer of history I take it to mean searching the literature and archives and writing a new, properly referenced, article about topic which may well not have appeared in any other place than Wikipedia. Certainly there is a great deal in my field which is not to be found anywhere on the Web, and Wikipedia is an excellent means of getting it there.
Suppose for example you've come up with a novel historical theory which appears in no peer reviewed journals and which is contradicted by prominent authorities in the field, and you prove your theory through original research into primary sources, archives, etc.
I am thinking of a particular example, and I'll give that to illustrate my point. Michael Bellesiles published a book by a reputable publisher in 2000 with the surprising thesis that contrary to popular understanding, guns were quite rare in the early years of the United States. This book generated a firestorm of controversy and it was later determined by an outside panel of investigators hired by his University to investigate fraud charges that he was "guilty of unprofessional and misleading work".
It took a fair amount of time (2 years) for this process to work itself out, and juding the validity of Bellesiles claims involved a lot of scholarly work *of the type that we are poorly equipped to carry out*.
Suppose Bellesiles had attempted to publish his novel historical thesis at wikipedia, rather than in traditional primary sources? We would quite properly have rejected it as original research, because we are ill-equipped to judge the validity of such things.
If we are going to have a blanket ban on 'original research' we ought to be more precise as to what it actually means, perhaps re-wording the phrase. Any ideas?
I think the phrase is just fine, but I do agree with you that we need to explore more carefully what it means. In many cases, the distinction between original research and synthesis of published work will require thoughtful editorial judgment.
--Jimbo
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- ~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds... _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote:
The basic concept is as follows: it can be quite difficult for us to make any valid judgment as to whether a particular thing is _true_ or not. It isn't appropriate for us to try to determine whether someone's novel theory of physics is valid, we aren't really equipped to do that. But what we _can_ do is check whether or not it actually has been published in reputable journals or by reputable publishers. So it's quite convenient to avoid judging the credibility of things by simply sticking to things that have been judged credible by people much better equipped to decide.
I've been thinking about this for a few days, and I can't get around one basic issue: we haven't solved the problem. We've shifted the burden of evaluating the credibility of the theory to evaluating the credibility of the sources. I see no reason to believe we're any better at evaluating the credibility of sources than of theories.
Heck, I see no reason why we should even care whether something is credible. The NPOV policy says we shouldn't, as I read it. In fact, I largely see the NPOV policy and the "no original research" policy as being in conflict. We have to report neutrally on all views, yet we exclude views that experts don't deem credible. Am I the only one who sees a contradiction in that?
If it was up to me, "no original research" would mean precisely what it looks like it does. You can't write new stuff directly to wikipedia. However, if someone else has written it somewhere, it's fair game, without the need for credibility evaluation.
I think the real purpose of the rule is about not misrepresenting things on wikipedia, and making crackpots' ideas seem more mainstream than they are. But if we write with intellectual honesty (ie call minority opinions minority opinions when they are) and cite our sources, I don't see any need for the no original research rule as it's currently formulated.
One of the best things about wikipedia is that it has the ability to report on the bizarre that would never make it above the radar of a normal encyclopedia. I find that to be perhaps the most entertaining part of reading wikipedia. I think it's unfortunate that we have a rule that restricts that without providing any real benefit that I can see.
Shane.
Shane King wrote:
I've been thinking about this for a few days, and I can't get around one basic issue: we haven't solved the problem. We've shifted the burden of evaluating the credibility of the theory to evaluating the credibility of the sources. I see no reason to believe we're any better at evaluating the credibility of sources than of theories.
Oh, I think it is a lot easier to evaluate the credibility of sources than the credibility of theories. If you offer me your personal theory of "Liquidity, Efficiency, and Bank Bailouts" then it's going to be quite hard for me to judge whether you are an economics crank or someone with an interesting theory. But if you point me to an essay of that title in _American Economic Review_, I can feel comfortable that it is at least credible.
Heck, I see no reason why we should even care whether something is credible. The NPOV policy says we shouldn't, as I read it.
I think you're misreading it, then.
Here's a line I use in public talks which always gets a laugh. "NPOV does not mean that we have to say 'some say the moon is made of rocks, some say cheese'." We absolutely do care that a theory is credible, as it's essential to a neutral presentation of any topic.
In fact, I largely see the NPOV policy and the "no original research" policy as being in conflict. We have to report neutrally on all views, yet we exclude views that experts don't deem credible. Am I the only one who sees a contradiction in that?
Sometimes we exclude views, but more commonly we move them to where they belong -- in an article about theories that are not widely accepted.
--Jimbo
Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote:
Oh, I think it is a lot easier to evaluate the credibility of sources than the credibility of theories. If you offer me your personal theory of "Liquidity, Efficiency, and Bank Bailouts" then it's going to be quite hard for me to judge whether you are an economics crank or someone with an interesting theory. But if you point me to an essay of that title in _American Economic Review_, I can feel comfortable that it is at least credible.
But your comparison there is hardly fair: you've picked a (potentially) hard theory to judge but an easy source to judge. There are plenty of other sources that aren't clear cut, there are plenty of theories that are clear cut. The issue of judging source credibility is a real problem that has been discussed at length on [[Wikipedia:Forum for Encyclopedic Standards]], as well as various other places.
If judging the credibility of a source is so easy, why are there still millions of people who think FOX News really is "fair and balanced"? ;)
I think you're misreading it, then.
Here's a line I use in public talks which always gets a laugh. "NPOV does not mean that we have to say 'some say the moon is made of rocks, some say cheese'." We absolutely do care that a theory is credible, as it's essential to a neutral presentation of any topic.
Well, I'm reading what's there on the page. There's only one mention of "credible", and it's in a context that we should report on views even if they aren't credible:
How are we to write articles about pseudoscientific topics, about which majority scientific opinion is that the pseudoscientific opinion is not credible and doesn't even really deserve serious mention?
If we're going to represent the sum total of "human knowledge"--of what we believe we know, essentially--then we must concede that we will be describing views repugnant to us without asserting that they are false. Things are not, however, as bad as that sounds. The task before us is not to describe disputes fairly, on some bogus view of fairness that would have us describe pseudoscience as if were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view, and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly.
It seems to me from this single mention that credibility doesn't matter. If it's not credible, we report on others saying so and leave it at that, we don't make the judgement ourselves. The idea of whether those people are credible is not even mentioned and is hence a non-issue by the NPOV policy. Instead of credibility, we're asked to judge popularity instead (minority/majority views). That may not have been your intention when developing the NPOV policy, but that's how it stands now. I urge you to clarify it if it's not how it should be.
Sometimes we exclude views, but more commonly we move them to where they belong -- in an article about theories that are not widely accepted.
Which is still biasing towards "credibility", and hence not compatible with the NPOV as written. I quote: "The neutral point of view policy states that one should write articles without bias, representing ALL views fairly" (my emphasis on the ALL). I fail to see how shunting some views to seperate articles and not others counts as "fair".
Maybe since you developed the NPOV policy, it has an implicit meaning to you that I'm not seeing because I'm only reading the words explicitly written on [[WP:NPOV]]?
Shane.
Sometimes we exclude views, but more commonly we move them to where they belong -- in an article about theories that are not widely accepted.
Which is still biasing towards "credibility", and hence not compatible with the NPOV as written. I quote: "The neutral point of view policy states that one should write articles without bias, representing ALL views fairly" (my emphasis on the ALL). I fail to see how shunting some views to seperate articles and not others counts as "fair".
Wikipedia couldn't possibly represent ALL views, nor should it. There are 6 billion people in the world, each with their own view on a limitless array of topics. Even if we limit ourselves to the much smaller (though still overwhelming) number of views that are, say, published on websites, NPOV does not demand that we say "according to Einstein e=mc^2, but according to my Aunt Gertie [www.relativityaccordingtogertie.com], e=mc^3"
JAY JG wrote:
Wikipedia couldn't possibly represent ALL views, nor should it. There are 6 billion people in the world, each with their own view on a limitless array of topics. Even if we limit ourselves to the much smaller (though still overwhelming) number of views that are, say, published on websites, NPOV does not demand that we say "according to Einstein e=mc^2, but according to my Aunt Gertie [www.relativityaccordingtogertie.com], e=mc^3"
Actually, from [[WP:NPOV]]:
Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views. We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by only a small minority of people deserved as much attention as a majority view. That may be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. If we are to represent the dispute fairly, we should present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. None of this, however, is to say that minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can possibly give them on pages specifically devoted to those views. There is no size limit to Wikipedia. But even on such pages, though a view is spelled out possibly in great detail, we still make sure that the view is not represented as the truth.
So while we don't necessarily have to give Gertie a spot besides Einstein, the NPOV policy says that:
a) We only give Einstein more space in the main article because his view is more popular, not because it's more credible; and b) Gertie can (and should) be given space if someone's willing to write the article.
Now that may seem ridiculous to you, but that's what the policy page says! If that's not actually what we want to be doing, then we should change the policy, not ignore it. It seems to me Wikipedia has a whole lot of policy that if you read it closely doesn't describe how things are actually done at all. I want to fix that: either by getting people to follow the policy, or getting the policy changed.
Shane.
NPOV page says:
If we are to represent the dispute fairly, we should present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties.
Shane (mis)understands this as:
a) We only give Einstein more space in the main article because his view is more popular, not because it's more credible; and
Not "more popular" -- "in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties" -- credibility is an inherent part of this judgment.
--Jimbo
--- "Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales" jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Not "more popular" -- "in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties" -- credibility is an inherent part of this judgment.
--Jimbo
This becomes more and more difficult in controversial subjects, like water floridization (sp?) for example, or ESP. Who are the 'experts' on the subject? Mark
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo
Mark Richards wrote:
This becomes more and more difficult in controversial subjects, like water floridization (sp?) for example, or ESP. Who are the 'experts' on the subject?
I don't really see what the difficulty is. I'm not trying to be dense here, but to me this is quite simple.
Our current article on Extra-Sensory Perception, for example, is quite bad. And the reason is precisely the lack of _credible_ sources. These exist, but the current article appears to be written by people who would prefer for these not to be named.
--Jimbo
--- "Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales" jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Mark Richards wrote:
This becomes more and more difficult in
controversial subjects, like
water floridization (sp?) for example, or ESP. Who
are the 'experts'
on the subject?
I don't really see what the difficulty is. I'm not trying to be dense here, but to me this is quite simple.
Our current article on Extra-Sensory Perception, for example, is quite bad. And the reason is precisely the lack of _credible_ sources. These exist, but the current article appears to be written by people who would prefer for these not to be named.
--Jimbo
I think we may be at cross purposes. I think the difficulty is in identifying who the credible sources are, and with whom they are credible when you are dealing with things that some people think are pseudoscience and others think are suppressed truth. The only way to go I suppose is the 'he said / she said' model of article like 'Moon hoax'. Mark
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Mark Richards wrote:
I think we may be at cross purposes. I think the difficulty is in identifying who the credible sources are, and with whom they are credible when you are dealing with things that some people think are pseudoscience and others think are suppressed truth.
Why is it difficult in this case? Are there articles in journals which meet standard practices of peer-reviewed academic research? Credible. Are there articles in the National Enquirer? Not credible.
Are there books published by respectable acacemic presses? Credible. Are there books published by "New Age" publishers who appear to publish anything which will sell? Not credible.
With ESP, the question is often framed in terms of statistical probabilities that thus-and-such could have been the result of chance or not. While we may not be qualified to directly assess the statistical evidence itself, we are qualified to look at such questions of: what is the training of the author? Does this person have a PhD in statistics from a reputable University? Does this person publish work in peer-reviewed journals?
I don't see any difficulty at all here, as long as we abandon the idea that neutrality requires epistemological nihilism.
In most cases, it is sufficient to simple state the unconversial facts in a reasonably complete manner. "A study conducted by Professor Smith at Harvard University and published in _Review of Statistical Psychology_ found thus-and-such. While this reflects the broad consensus of the scientific community, it is also true that a vast popular literature continues to promote..."
--Jimbo
On Friday 10 December 2004 16:06, Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote:
I don't see any difficulty at all here, as long as we abandon the idea that neutrality requires epistemological nihilism.
This notion of "credible" reminds me of "confidence" discussed in the 3rd bullet below in light of global climate change:
http://goatee.net/2003/01.html#_13mo °03.01.13.mo | The Politics of Science and Vice Versa ... I want to understand to what degree, if any, something can be commonly known. This is what I've learned: * An understanding of fact and theory based on Moran/Gould's "Evolution is a Fact and a Theory", + There are observations of facts about the state of the Universe. We know that the sun moves in the sky, rising and falling -- regardless of some Biblical interpretations. Objects on earth fall. The earth has existed for billions of years with varied life forms living upon it. And this planet is undergoing substantive climate change. + There are theories that explain the relationships between observations, posit mechanisms, and predict future events. The earth orbits the sun according to gravitational principles that also govern the path of the apple falling from my hand. Our present continents developed via geological processes including plate tectonics. And humans have, in part, effected climatic change and its probable detrimental effects. And just because something is a theory doesn't mean that it is dismissable or that every "theory" is equally capable. + There is evidence that determines our confidence in both facts and theories. One would think the nature of ascertaining facts via observation is trivial, but we must be wary of hindsight bias, confirmation bias, placebo effects, and all manner of other prejudicial phenomena. With respect to theory, confidence is determined by the nature of its assumptions, testability, the quality of the underlying data/observations, and the theory's explanatory power. Theories are wrestled with by the scientific community, tested, repeated, confirmed, and settled upon by scientific consensus and ultimately judged by historical hindsight. However, the relationship between fact and theory is complicated because we often can not perfectly observe the state of something, such as the surface air temperatures and thickness of the Arctic ice cap. We then must take samples and extrapolate, which now, in part, constitutes a theory about the validity of the extrapolation until the extrapolation is considered so conclusive as to engender a fact. For example, only the irrational or obstinate would dispute the observation of fact that it is very cold in Boston today absent readings from thermometers in every square foot of Boston. + Anything can, and unfortunately will, be disputed. Some can argue that the aliens have placed the image of the falling apple in my mind or that God placed fossils in the earth to test my faith. However, these pronouncements are useless.
In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms." - Stephen J. Gould, Evolution as Fact and Theory; Discover, May 1981. The above reliance upon aliens and gods to explain a falling apple as fact is absurd because they defy every other assumption necessary to daily life in this world: that the majority of humans can trust their most basic senses. As a theory, these pronouncements can not be tested and they offer us no novel explanations of the past nor predictions for the future. Science is the difficult process of gaining a useful understanding of our world while avoiding an alarming collection of biases, self-interested prejudices, and cognitive blind-spots. Furthermore, scientists can, should, and do argue about particular nuances without necessarily undermining the confidence of a larger understanding. For instance, scientists might discuss gradualism versus punctuated equilibrium without contesting the geological records, fossil records, nor natural selection. Or they may come to find that an understanding only applies to previously known assumptions, but new assumptions (e.g., non-Euclidean geometry, relativistic time/space, the quantum scale, etc.) require new observations and explanations under the new conditions. * As I've written before, "We can never know everything." We all can't be experts on everything, so we often need to rely upon credible authority while remaining critical and skeptical, but never dismissive. * It's no good being dogmatic. I've found the criticism of the IPCC policy summaries (distinct from the actual report) to be interesting and the recent debate regarding ice sampling in the Arctic worthy of further research. ...
Joseph Reagle wrote
* It's no good being dogmatic. I've found the criticism of the IPCC policy summaries (distinct from the actual report) to be interesting and the recent debate regarding ice sampling in the Arctic worthy of further research.
It is no good just being dogmatic, in a science article. On the other hand I have been involved in the quantum gravity disputes, for a few months, as a neutral (hopefully) third party. One person involved has made (with some justification) the point that the sheer interest of a sharp debate was being overstated. That is, too journalistic to assume always that disagreement is drama.
As we know, there can be smoke without fire in such cases. This can properly be called a 'credibility' issue; if the truth appears to be that 'we just don't know, right now'.
Consider for example how much WP in 1950 should have contained about what was on the dark side of the Moon. Inadequate justification for simply asserting as dogma 'probably just like the side we can see, in general terms'; but on the other hand most other theories were ridiculous, and there would have been little reason to mention one speculation over another.
Charles
This would be fine except that often the claim is that the 'credible' scientific sources are involved in some kind of conspiricy, or are systematically unable to appreciate the field for some reason.
I see where you're going with this, and I agree with you on a personal level, but we are picking and choosing which sources are 'credible' based on what we believe to be right.
Mark
--- "Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales" jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Mark Richards wrote:
I think we may be at cross purposes. I think the difficulty is in identifying who the credible
sources
are, and with whom they are credible when you are dealing with things that some people think are pseudoscience and others think are suppressed
truth.
Why is it difficult in this case? Are there articles in journals which meet standard practices of peer-reviewed academic research? Credible. Are there articles in the National Enquirer? Not credible.
Are there books published by respectable acacemic presses? Credible. Are there books published by "New Age" publishers who appear to publish anything which will sell? Not credible.
With ESP, the question is often framed in terms of statistical probabilities that thus-and-such could have been the result of chance or not. While we may not be qualified to directly assess the statistical evidence itself, we are qualified to look at such questions of: what is the training of the author? Does this person have a PhD in statistics from a reputable University? Does this person publish work in peer-reviewed journals?
I don't see any difficulty at all here, as long as we abandon the idea that neutrality requires epistemological nihilism.
In most cases, it is sufficient to simple state the unconversial facts in a reasonably complete manner. "A study conducted by Professor Smith at Harvard University and published in _Review of Statistical Psychology_ found thus-and-such. While this reflects the broad consensus of the scientific community, it is also true that a vast popular literature continues to promote..."
--Jimbo
-- "La n�fle est un fruit." - first words of 50,000th article on fr.wikipedia.org _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Mark Richards wrote:
This would be fine except that often the claim is that the 'credible' scientific sources are involved in some kind of conspiricy, or are systematically unable to appreciate the field for some reason.
I see where you're going with this, and I agree with you on a personal level, but we are picking and choosing which sources are 'credible' based on what we believe to be right.
The difference between systemic bias and conspiracies relates to good faith. Active conspirators are fully aware of what they are doing. There is an element of "mens rea" to their activity. Persons who participate in a systemic bias will most often believe that they are doing the right thing. In the slavery era, the slave owners were acting within the socially acceptable norms of their time.
I have a pet linguistic peeve in this debate. Please don't mix up the words "systemic" and "systematic". Something is "systemic" if it has become built into a system. Something is "systematic" if it is done in a structured and organized way.
If we "are picking and choosing which sources are 'credible' based on what we believe to be right" then the debate has just been shifted to one of determining what we mean by "we". The debate has not come to a resolution; it has merely shifted its focus. The "we" that participates in a debate is not the same "we" that takes one side of a particular argument.
Ec
On 15 Dec 2004, at 21:12, Ray Saintonge wrote:
I have a pet linguistic peeve in this debate. Please don't mix up the words "systemic" and "systematic". Something is "systemic" if it has become built into a system. Something is "systematic" if it is done in a structured and organized way.
YAY for linguistic nitpicking! ;-) The enormousness of the enormity of using ''enormity'' to mean ''enormous''... ;-D
Seriously now, I am SO with you! :-)
-- ropers [[en:User:Ropers]] www.ropersonline.com
PS:
And then there was this incident--as Dave Barry would say, I am not making this up--where some US employee was actually FIRED--ie, he had to go to court to get his job and good reputation back--purely because he had said that doing such-and-such would be niggardly. Apparently the colleague had never ever heard of the words "niggard", "niggardly" or "niggardliness" and REFUSED to listen to an explanation, so your man had to go to the courts to get his colleague--who was totally convinced of having heard a racial slur--to actually ''have a look in the dictionary'' and duly discover that the term had more to do with Scrooge McDuck than with skin colo(u)r. Meh. Words fail.
Jens Ropers wrote:
On 15 Dec 2004, at 21:12, Ray Saintonge wrote:
I have a pet linguistic peeve in this debate. Please don't mix up the words "systemic" and "systematic". Something is "systemic" if it has become built into a system. Something is "systematic" if it is done in a structured and organized way.
YAY for linguistic nitpicking! ;-) The enormousness of the enormity of using ''enormity'' to mean ''enormous''... ;-D
Seriously now, I am SO with you! :-)
-- ropers [[en:User:Ropers]] www.ropersonline.com
PS:
And then there was this incident--as Dave Barry would say, I am not making this up--where some US employee was actually FIRED--ie, he had to go to court to get his job and good reputation back--purely because he had said that doing such-and-such would be niggardly. Apparently the colleague had never ever heard of the words "niggard", "niggardly" or "niggardliness" and REFUSED to listen to an explanation, so your man had to go to the courts to get his colleague--who was totally convinced of having heard a racial slur--to actually ''have a look in the dictionary'' and duly discover that the term had more to do with Scrooge McDuck than with skin colo(u)r. Meh. Words fail.
Ladies who work to maintain the morale of our armies deserve medals for their meretricious servic.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
I have a pet linguistic peeve in this debate. Please don't mix up the words "systemic" and "systematic". Something is "systemic" if it has become built into a system. Something is "systematic" if it is done in a structured and organized way.
systematic, adj: relating to or consisting of a system. systemic, adj: of, relating to, or common to a system.
(From http://www.m-w.com/)
Seems to me that systematic and systemic can indeed be used interchangably in many cases.
Shane.
Shane King wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
I have a pet linguistic peeve in this debate. Please don't mix up the words "systemic" and "systematic". Something is "systemic" if it has become built into a system. Something is "systematic" if it is done in a structured and organized way.
systematic, adj: relating to or consisting of a system. systemic, adj: of, relating to, or common to a system.
(From http://www.m-w.com/)
Seems to me that systematic and systemic can indeed be used interchangably in many cases.
"Consisting of" and "common to are clearly different. Your citation for "systematic" in particular is out of context..
Ec
Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote:
Mark Richards wrote:
This becomes more and more difficult in controversial subjects, like water floridization (sp?) for example, or ESP. Who are the 'experts' on the subject?
It's "fluoridation".
I don't really see what the difficulty is. I'm not trying to be dense here, but to me this is quite simple.
Our current article on Extra-Sensory Perception, for example, is quite bad. And the reason is precisely the lack of _credible_ sources. These exist, but the current article appears to be written by people who would prefer for these not to be named.
I agree that that article is dreadful. To begin with it is sprinkled throughout with with words like "supposed" or "alleged" which if repeated tend to bias the commentary, and certainly detract from the flow of the text. Expressions like "ESP's critics, a group that includes most mainstream scientists," is a gratuitous reference to the authority of scientists. I think that it would be closer to the truth to say that most scientists have never paid any serious attention to ESP, so that the basis which that majority criticizes ESP is its own lack of knowledge. That to me is not very reassuring. Many articles would be much better if the science lobby started to show some restraint. A single well-written paragraph can more than adequately represent the views of the detractors. Trying to debunk concepts that have never been proven, with equally questionable data only makes for an article full of sniping. The average reader does not choose to read the article to watch the sniping.
Credible sources for both sides of this argument are available, and it would be nice if they were chosen in a context of mutual respect..
Ec
On 12/10/04 4:38 AM, "Ray Saintonge" saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote:
Mark Richards wrote:
This becomes more and more difficult in controversial subjects, like water floridization (sp?) for example, or ESP. Who are the 'experts' on the subject?
It's "fluoridation".
I don't really see what the difficulty is. I'm not trying to be dense here, but to me this is quite simple.
Our current article on Extra-Sensory Perception, for example, is quite bad. And the reason is precisely the lack of _credible_ sources. These exist, but the current article appears to be written by people who would prefer for these not to be named.
I agree that that article is dreadful. To begin with it is sprinkled throughout with with words like "supposed" or "alleged" which if repeated tend to bias the commentary, and certainly detract from the flow of the text. Expressions like "ESP's critics, a group that includes most mainstream scientists," is a gratuitous reference to the authority of scientists. I think that it would be closer to the truth to say that most scientists have never paid any serious attention to ESP, so that the basis which that majority criticizes ESP is its own lack of knowledge. That to me is not very reassuring.
Actually, no. Most scientists believed in some form of ESP in the 1950s as initial studies (I believe some of the most prominent coming out of Berkeley) indicated evidence for it.[1]
All such studies were found to be unrepeatable, investigatorial bias and subconscious coaching were found to be causing the results, and the myth of ESP was laid to rest.
[1] See A.M. Turing's "Computing Machinery and Intelligence", Mind, October 1950 (aka the Turing Test paper):
"I assume that the reader is familiar with the idea of extra-sensory perception, and the meaning of the four items of it, viz. telepathy, clairvoyance, precognition and psycho-kinesis. These disturbing phenomena seem to deny all our usual scientific ideas. How we should like to discredit them! Unfortunately the statistical evidence, at least for telepathy, is overwhelming. It is very difficult to rearrange one's ideas so as to fit these new facts in. Once one has accepted them it does not seem a very big step to believe in ghosts and bogies. The idea that our bodies move simply according to the known laws of physics, together with some others not yet discovered but somewhat similar, would be one of the first to go.
This argument is to my mind quite a strong one. One can say in reply that many scientific theories seem to remain workable in practice, in spite of clashing with E.S.P.; that in fact one can get along very nicely if one forgets about it. This is rather cold comfort, and one fears that thinking is just the kind of phenomenon where E.S.P. may be especially relevant."
Ray Saintonge wrote:
I agree that that article is dreadful. To begin with it is sprinkled throughout with with words like "supposed" or "alleged" which if repeated tend to bias the commentary, and certainly detract from the flow of the text. Expressions like "ESP's critics, a group that includes most mainstream scientists," is a gratuitous reference to the authority of scientists. I think that it would be closer to the truth to say that most scientists have never paid any serious attention to ESP, so that the basis which that majority criticizes ESP is its own lack of knowledge. That to me is not very reassuring. Many articles would be much better if the science lobby started to show some restraint. A single well-written paragraph can more than adequately represent the views of the detractors. Trying to debunk concepts that have never been proven, with equally questionable data only makes for an article full of sniping. The average reader does not choose to read the article to watch the sniping.
I agree with that approach. Most people do not take ESP seriously, and so it's not necessary to beat them over the head every other sentence with "but, ESP is actually a bunch of cranks!!!". I imagine if I were looking for an article on ESP, I would want to know what people who believe it is true think about it, and why, and so on. Of course it should also be mentioned that the vast majority of scientists think it's nonsense, and that the few purported scientific studies to demonstrate it have been roundly criticized.
Mostly I think tone is a big issue. When I read an article and it sounds to me like whoever wrote it is trying to push a point of view, it irritates me, even if I agree with the point of view. Think, "does this sound like it's written by someone with strong feelings on the subject?", and if so, why, and how can we change that?
-Mark
Delirium wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
I agree that that article is dreadful. To begin with it is sprinkled throughout with with words like "supposed" or "alleged" which if repeated tend to bias the commentary, and certainly detract from the flow of the text. Expressions like "ESP's critics, a group that includes most mainstream scientists," is a gratuitous reference to the authority of scientists. I think that it would be closer to the truth to say that most scientists have never paid any serious attention to ESP, so that the basis which that majority criticizes ESP is its own lack of knowledge. That to me is not very reassuring. Many articles would be much better if the science lobby started to show some restraint. A single well-written paragraph can more than adequately represent the views of the detractors. Trying to debunk concepts that have never been proven, with equally questionable data only makes for an article full of sniping. The average reader does not choose to read the article to watch the sniping.
I agree with that approach. Most people do not take ESP seriously, and so it's not necessary to beat them over the head every other sentence with "but, ESP is actually a bunch of cranks!!!". I imagine if I were looking for an article on ESP, I would want to know what people who believe it is true think about it, and why, and so on. Of course it should also be mentioned that the vast majority of scientists think it's nonsense, and that the few purported scientific studies to demonstrate it have been roundly criticized.
Mostly I think tone is a big issue. When I read an article and it sounds to me like whoever wrote it is trying to push a point of view, it irritates me, even if I agree with the point of view. Think, "does this sound like it's written by someone with strong feelings on the subject?", and if so, why, and how can we change that?
There are probably ways in which this whole class of articles can be approached more civilly. A short opening paragraph can define the subject. There is no need to say that anything is "alleged" there unless you are disputing the definition itself. A definition is not a falsifiable statements. Instead it serves to establish that we are talking about the same thing. It can be followed by two sections: "Claims by supporters of ..." and "Criticisms by opponents of ..." Each side can have relatively free reign to express itself in its own section. Additional sections may be relatively uncontroversial such as the history of the subject, or they may be disputable details of the subject. Opponents need to have confidence in what they said in their criticism. If the subject is as wrong headed as they say it is than *anything* that derives from it can simply be dismissed as Garbage In Garbage Out.without any need to expand or expound.
One well known contributor with a reputation for a confrontational style sought to confound ESP with alien abduction, by suggesting that an abductee might claim that the aliens would use ESP to communicate with him. One thing to remember is that it is quite normal for people to believe in one but not the other. In that case a believer in one would find it insulting to be associated with a belief in the other. Each of these topics needs to be approached on its own merits or lack thereof.
Ec
Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote:
Not "more popular" -- "in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties" -- credibility is an inherent part of this judgment.
But that IS about who is more popular. We don't take each individual scientist, evaluate how good they are, and decide to rank their views according to that. Instead we shotgun it and say nearly everyone believes Albert not Gertie, so we'll declare him the winner.
At a more abstract level, I don't see why you think we can even evaluate credibility. You point out how we can't evaluate theories well because we're notnecessarily qualified to do so, and I agree with that. But if we can't evaluate those theories, how can we evaluate how well the people who do evaluate those theories are doing? That's what makes someone credible: they get things right. But if we can't work out what's right, how can we tell if they're getting it right?
Popularity. It's a popularity contest.
It's also a popularity contest on other levels. A typical edit war starts when person A believes source or view X while person B believes source or view Y. Which source or view is the most "credible"? Well, it's whichever one gets the most people turning up to support it on the talk page! If consensus isn't going to happen, it's always going to end up in a "vote": whether formal or informal.
Jimbo, I think we basically agree, except that you think what's written is the way things really work. I'm all for keeping crackpots off wikipedia, but I don't think the current policy lets us. That they're mostly kept off is despite policy, not because of it. Unfortunately I also think our current means of dealing with it (throw it to a popularity contest) probably keeps off legitimate minority views too.
Shane.
Shane King wrote:
But that IS about who is more popular. We don't take each individual scientist, evaluate how good they are, and decide to rank their views according to that. Instead we shotgun it and say nearly everyone believes Albert not Gertie, so we'll declare him the winner.
*We* don't evaluate how good they are -- this is the job of their PhD programs.
At a more abstract level, I don't see why you think we can even evaluate credibility. You point out how we can't evaluate theories well because we're notnecessarily qualified to do so, and I agree with that. But if we can't evaluate those theories, how can we evaluate how well the people who do evaluate those theories are doing? That's what makes someone credible: they get things right. But if we can't work out what's right, how can we tell if they're getting it right?
Do you find this argument compelling? I don't.
I know next to nothing about physics personally. And yet, I'm very much qualified and confident to say that the views of faculty members at Harvard and MIT are _credible_, whereas the views of Achimedes Plutonium are not.
So, I can't evaluate theories of physics, and yet I am able to evaluate how well the people who do evaluate those theories are doing. Is this in any way astonishing?
Popularity. It's a popularity contest.
Popularity has nearly nothing to do with it. I have no idea what the general public thinks about physics, nor do I imagine it is very sensible or credible to worry much about it.
--Jimbo
Shane King wrote:
There is no size limit to Wikipedia.
Perhaps in theory. In practice Wikipedia is straining under the existing load. Loading small articles can take up to a minute. Simple edits on articles can take 20 minutes, requiring multiple re-tries. Users are randomly and frequently logged out. Adding every conceivable fringe theory or position to existing articles, not to mention the current penchant for adding articles on every high school in North America (and similar trivia), will only make that worse.
Moreover, there is a limit to the patience of the reader. If a reader has to wade through lengthy sections outlining trivia, conspiracy theories, fringe and crackpot views, etc. while trying to understand what is significant about a particular topic, then that reader will soon either lose interest in the topic, or come away with an entirely distorted understanding of it.
Hi everyone, this is my first post. I've been reading the archives about NPOV and "no original research" with interest, as I feel they're the backbone of Wikipedia. It seems to me that, taken together, they provide a solid policy base, with no inherent contradiction. NPOV only refers to Auntie Gertie's views on relativity if those views have been published in a reputable, and for academic subjects this means peer-reviewed, journal. The same goes for non-academic subjects. The views must have been published in a reputable newspaper or other publisher, where articles go through a system comparable to peer review by being checked by writers/journalists, editors, lawyers (or, at least, they're supposed to be).
I feel there will be very examples where NPOV and "no original research" taken together will not solve an issue; and editors should provide references whenever they can so that readers can check for themselves that the "no original research" principle was adhered to. Requiring editors to get in the habit of providing references seems to me to be the key.
Slim
Hi everyone, this is my first post. I've been reading the archives about NPOV and "no original research" with interest, as I feel they're the backbone of Wikipedia. It seems to me that, taken together, they provide a solid policy base, with no inherent contradiction. NPOV only refers to Auntie Gertie's views on relativity if those views have been published in a reputable, and for academic subjects this means peer-reviewed, journal. The same goes for non-academic subjects. The views must have been published in a reputable newspaper or other publisher, where articles go through a system comparable to peer review by being checked by writers/journalists, editors, lawyers (or, at least, they're supposed to be).
The problem I've run into is that partisans on different sides of an issue will insist that the sources brought by the other side are "biased" or not reputable. Is CNN reputable? Fox? Al Jazeera? The Jerusalem Post? How about Al Ahram (which, though the oldest daily newspaper in the Arab world, has its controlled by the Egyptian Ministry of Information)? What about even less well known sources?
JAY JG (jayjg@hotmail.com) [041211 15:47]:
Shane King wrote:
There is no size limit to Wikipedia.
Perhaps in theory. In practice Wikipedia is straining under the existing load. Loading small articles can take up to a minute. Simple edits on articles can take 20 minutes, requiring multiple re-tries. Users are randomly and frequently logged out. Adding every conceivable fringe theory or position to existing articles, not to mention the current penchant for adding articles on every high school in North America (and similar trivia), will only make that worse.
Er, no - the load comes from the rate of edits, not the number of articles.
Moreover, there is a limit to the patience of the reader. If a reader has to wade through lengthy sections outlining trivia, conspiracy theories, fringe and crackpot views, etc. while trying to understand what is significant about a particular topic, then that reader will soon either lose interest in the topic, or come away with an entirely distorted understanding of it.
That would be a badly-written article in need of better summarisation.
- d.
Moreover, there is a limit to the patience of the reader. If a reader
has
to wade through lengthy sections outlining trivia, conspiracy theories, fringe and crackpot views, etc. while trying to understand what is significant about a particular topic, then that reader will soon either lose interest in the topic, or come away with an entirely distorted understanding of it.
That would be a badly-written article in need of better summarisation.
Not easy to do, when proponents of the various fringe theories insist that their trivia is crucial to understanding the issue. And they tend to be much more determined about their obsession, er, area of focus, than the average editor. As an example, the [[Bible]] article, intended as an overview of the Bible, it history, canons, major translations, etc. now has a large section in it on "The name of God as found in the Bible", simply because certain sects (Jehova's Witnesses in particular) and people promoting the views of a fringe author (e.g. Gérard Gertoux) are extremely focussed on this issue. In fact, it was originally inserted into the introduction of the article, and repeatedly reverted and defended there. Pointing out that this is actually a minor topic more appropriate for the [[Tetragrammaton]] article, if anywhere, eventually managed to get the section actually expanded, and inserted into Tetragramaton as well, but at least it is moved down the Bible page a little. After a while the typical editor, who doesn't think trivia deserves this kind of undue promotion, but also doesn't really have a lot invested in this particular topic, (e.g. me) move on, leaving the nonsense in place.
Jay.
JAY JG wrote:
Shane King wrote:
There is no size limit to Wikipedia.
Perhaps in theory. In practice Wikipedia is straining under the existing load. Loading small articles can take up to a minute. Simple edits on articles can take 20 minutes, requiring multiple re-tries.
There is virtually no relationship between the size of the database itself and the performance of the wikimedia cluster. This doesn't imply that radical inclusionism is right, but it does imply that "server load" is really not a reason to delete anything.
--Jimbo
At 10:21 PM 12/8/2004 -0500, JAY JG wrote:
Wikipedia couldn't possibly represent ALL views, nor should it. There are 6 billion people in the world, each with their own view on a limitless array of topics. Even if we limit ourselves to the much smaller (though still overwhelming) number of views that are, say, published on websites, NPOV does not demand that we say "according to Einstein e=mc^2, but according to my Aunt Gertie [www.relativityaccordingtogertie.com], e=mc^3"
I was quite saddened to discover that www.relativityaccordingtogertie.com doesn't appear to be a real website. I wanted to read more about her theories. :)
Bryan Derksen wrote:
I was quite saddened to discover that www.relativityaccordingtogertie.com doesn't appear to be a real website. I wanted to read more about her theories. :)
Allow me to put in a plug for the excellent website http://www.crank.net/
-------------------------------------------------------- The esteemed Crank o' the Day for 2004 Dec 08:
Revelations, a Screenplay Trilogy "Have you ever wished you could go into the future and see what it holds? Or go back in time and see what really happened? Stories, myths and legends. I'll show you where they all began. And more importantly, how they'll end."
Finally, the true interpretation of the Bible's prophecy books, including Revelation, and other mysteries of the world. Learn answers to questions like: Who built the Giza Pyramids and Sphinx... how and why? When will the Antichrist and False Prophet appear? Were there giants in our past? Are there Titans in our future? What does Lucifer, the original flying Serpent Cherub, look like? What really wiped out the dinosaurs? Is Evolution a lie? Who is God and where is Heaven located? What are UFO's? When will the final Apocalypse or Armageddon happen? When will the seven-year Tribulation begin?
Shane King wrote:
But your comparison there is hardly fair: you've picked a (potentially) hard theory to judge but an easy source to judge. There are plenty of other sources that aren't clear cut, there are plenty of theories that are clear cut.
Yes, but my example is the usual case.
If judging the credibility of a source is so easy, why are there still millions of people who think FOX News really is "fair and balanced"? ;)
And why do even more people trust Dan Rather?
Anyway, I hope that the average Wikipedian has greater media competence than the average viewer of the evening news.
It seems to me from this single mention that credibility doesn't matter. If it's not credible, we report on others saying so and leave it at that, we don't make the judgement ourselves.
And we also report *that* it is not credible, for example by saying things like "This theory is rejected by virtually all mainstream scientists."
The idea of whether those people are credible is not even mentioned and is hence a non-issue by the NPOV policy. Instead of credibility, we're asked to judge popularity instead (minority/majority views). That may not have been your intention when developing the NPOV policy, but that's how it stands now. I urge you to clarify it if it's not how it should be.
Not popularity! Popularity is seldom very helpful in clarifying credibility.
Which is still biasing towards "credibility", and hence not compatible with the NPOV as written. I quote: "The neutral point of view policy states that one should write articles without bias, representing ALL views fairly" (my emphasis on the ALL). I fail to see how shunting some views to seperate articles and not others counts as "fair".
Really? I don't really see the problem. It isn't "shunting" -- done properly it's just good writing.
--Jimbo
Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales (jwales@wikia.com) [041210 07:11]:
Shane King wrote:
Which is still biasing towards "credibility", and hence not compatible with the NPOV as written. I quote: "The neutral point of view policy states that one should write articles without bias, representing ALL views fairly" (my emphasis on the ALL). I fail to see how shunting some views to seperate articles and not others counts as "fair".
Really? I don't really see the problem. It isn't "shunting" -- done properly it's just good writing.
In fact, "shunting" seems to me to be generally discouraged - more typically you have a section which starts "Main article: [[foo]]" and a paragraph or two summary, with [[foo]] being an extensive piece on the obscure topic in question.
- d.
Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote:
Shane King wrote:
I've been thinking about this for a few days, and I can't get around one basic issue: we haven't solved the problem. We've shifted the burden of evaluating the credibility of the theory to evaluating the credibility of the sources. I see no reason to believe we're any better at evaluating the credibility of sources than of theories.
Oh, I think it is a lot easier to evaluate the credibility of sources than the credibility of theories. If you offer me your personal theory of "Liquidity, Efficiency, and Bank Bailouts" then it's going to be quite hard for me to judge whether you are an economics crank or someone with an interesting theory. But if you point me to an essay of that title in _American Economic Review_, I can feel comfortable that it is at least credible.
What about an article written by an associate editor of the New Republic? It's still surprising to see how many articles have referred to information in Stephen Glass's "Hack Haven" article as a credible source.
(However, despite how much the reliability of usually credible sources can be disputed, I realize Wikipedia needs a clear-cut policy on this, and that there is probably no such thing as bullet proof policy on ensuring that everything reported is 100% accurate.)
As such, despite theories such as the [[propaganda theory]] (by [[Noam Chomsky]]) or other recent court cases proving that big News stations (e.g. Fox News) can lie legally (due to the 1st amendment overriding whistle-blowing laws), I still reckon Wikipedia has a much better chance of being a source for reliable information than most places due to its collaborative design.
$0.02, Rebroad
Ed