[Foundation-l] The 'Undue Weight' of Truth on Wikipedia (from the Chronicle) + some citation discussions

[Fred Bauder]

> On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 4:44 AM, Mike Godwin <mnemonic at 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

The policy had its roots in the effort to deal with physics cranks, see

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-September/006715.html

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