--- On Sun, 24/10/10, SlimVirgin <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote:
By excluding high-quality media sources you're
elevating the lowliest
scientist as a source, and the vested interests that finance the
research, above the most senior and experienced of disinterested
journalists. That makes no sense to me.
The specific case raised here, the BBC is, sadly, not a high quality
source for science reporting, being notoriously even worse than the
typical run of the media.
(Wonder if I could cite Ben Goldacre on that.)
Though their recent move to linking to original sources may help.
In the example I gave I cited both the BBC and the original study, and
it was still removed.
How do we handle articles about drugs if we're not allowed to use the
mainstream media? Removing them leaves those articles almost entirely
reflecting the position of the pharmaceutical industry, which is the
funder and beneficiary of much of the research.
It swings both ways, doesn't it. Present consensus is that the MMR vaccine/autism
controversy was without merit; by giving it undue weight, we may have discouraged parents
from having their children vaccinated, and may have contributed to multiple deaths.
Measles outbreaks had practically disappeared; now they're back.
Our first basic job in writing an encyclopedia is to reflect the scholarly literature that
exists on a topic. That is how encyclopedias are written. A Wikipedia article
shouldn't look like a press review if there is a significant amount of scholarly
literature on a topic.
Having said that, we should also note, in a disinterested tone, the existence of any
notable controversies in the public consciousness, making clear who says what, and on what
basis. The high-end media will be indispensable for that.
A few weeks ago, I proposed updating en:WP's verifiability policy with the following
wording:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Academic publications, such as peer-reviewed journals and books published by well-regarded
academic presses, are usually the most reliable sources in topic areas where they are
available. Non-academic sources may be used as well, particularly if they are respected
mainstream publications. This includes books by reputable publishers as well as
newspapers, magazines, journals and electronic media.
The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. In topics which are the subject
of scholarly research, the most authoritative sources are academic works that have
undergone scrutiny by a community of experts in that field. Quality mainstream media are
equally valuable sources for areas such as current affairs – including the socio-economic,
political, and human impact of science – or biographies of living persons. In general, the
best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing scientific
findings, evidence, facts, and legal aspects; the greater the scrutiny given to these
issues, the more reliable the source.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
That wording has attracted a significant amount of support, but SlimVirgin fears it will
further move the balance towards improperly excluding media sources.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Proposal_5_compar…
It's not an easy thing to get right; the discussion on the WP:V talk page (which also
includes a variety of alternative proposals) could benefit from wider input.
Andreas