[WikiEN-l] (no subject)

[steven l. rubenstein]

Boy do I disagree with Shane.  Yes, it is true that relying on previously 
published source sshifts the burden.  But that doesn't mean there is no 
difference.  I can see a difference between our assuming the burden, and 
editors of journals and publishers assuming the burden.  First, most 
academic articles and books go through a peer-review process.  This process 
has its flaws, but it does mean that authors are held accountable to 
experts in the field on which they are writing.  Second, published books 
and articles are authored and authors are accountable.  This is not the 
case in Wikipedia where, as a collaborative project, articles have no 
authors.  Problems with wikipedia articles are likely to be debated on talk 
pages, which may lead to changes in articles -- an original, innovative, 
and interesting process I am happy to participate in.  But when scholarly 
books and articles are published, professional researches in the field 
often go out and try the experiments over, or re-check sources, or try to 
apply theories to other situations, and then publish more articles or books 
which carry research further.  Our articles can report on this process and 
the debates within academic fields it engenders, but we cannot be a 
substitute for it.

One of the big problems with peer-review is, as Shane points out, that it 
excludes ideas and research that peers do not find credible.  There 
certainly should be a venue for such indiosyncratic and potentially 
ground-breaking work.  The internet already provides a venue for 
publicizing such work.  I do not think the internet needs one more such 
venue.  There are, thanks to the WWW, now an almost infinite space for 
people to present such fringe research.  The question is, do we report on 
it.  I still say: no.  If such fringe research has merit I truly believe it 
will end up in a book or peer-reviewed journal.  We all know how much of 
what is our there is crap.  I just don't think we should waste reader's 
time with crap, and I think to include it in our encyclopedia articles 
demeans the whole project.  How do we decide what is crap?  We don't -- we 
let professional editors of journals and presses do that, because that is 
their business.  Wikipeida's strength is that it is an amateur's venture, 
and that is indeed it is a strength.  It is also a weakness, and I see no 
reason why, in this one case, we can't rely on the pros.

Steve

>Message: 7
>Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2004 12:06:51 +1000
>From: Shane King <shakes at dontletsstart.com>
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Original research
>To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>Message-ID: <41B661BB.6000302 at dontletsstart.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>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.





Steven L. Rubenstein
Associate Professor
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Bentley Annex
Ohio University
Athens, Ohio 45701