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@dontletsstart.com Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Original research To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Message-ID: 41B661BB.6000302@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