On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 4:44 AM, Mike Godwin
<mnemonic(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I think the article in The Chronicle of Higher
Education is a
must-read. Here you have a researcher who actually took pains to learn
what the rules to editing Wikipedia are (including No Original
Research), and who, instead of trying to end-run WP:NOR, waited years
until the article was actually published before trying to modify the
Haymarket article. To me, this is a particularly fascinating case
because the author's article, unlike the great majority of sources for
Wikipedia articles, was peer-reviewed -- this means it underwent
academic scrutiny that the newspapers, magazines, and other popular
sources we rely on never undergo.
I think the problem really is grounded in the UNDUE WEIGHT policy
itself, as written, and not in mere misuse of the policy.
Perhaps the policies can be improved, but they are written to stop bad
editing rather than to encourage good editing. I don't think that can be
changed. It's impossible to legislate good judgement, and it's judgement
that was called for with the Haymarket article.
Mike
It it is misapplied when rigorous new research is excluded. What is
needed is capacity make judgements based on familiarity with the
literature in the field. You can have that, as a academic in the field
might, or you can learn about it by reading literature in the field and
finding how how new research was received, reviewed and commented on.
Fred