[WikiEN-l] auto-biography

[Geoff Burling]

On Thu, 1 Jan 2004, Ray Saintonge wrote:

> [ ...] I find it
> difficult to deal with those that want to suppress all knowledge that
> has nothing to do with their unique visions of just what an encyclopedia is.
>
> There are of course many of these that are really user pages.  Wouldn't
> it be simpler if the material were just moved to the relevant user page,
> and a notice were left at the page where the autobiography was to say
> something like, "The material formerly here was autobiographical
> material.  It has been moved to [[User:....]]".  Most will accept this
> change.  Those that don't agree may restore the material.  That's OK.
>  They then need to understand that it may then be subject to  merciless
> editing to an extent that would not happen on a user page.  With enough
> merciless editing they may get the point.  Blanket deletions of such
> pages only provokes animosities.

A bit of communicative sugar always helps. Unfortunately, there are
people who act as if anything except unqualified agreement with them as
vicious harassment. I'll admit I have no clue of how best to deal with
these people.
>
> The recently written "No original research" provision appears to focus
> on science, and "new scientific theories" and completely ignores other
> areas of study.  The most disturbing aspect is that it uses Jimbo's
> comments from the mailing list as though he were speaking "ex cathedra".
>  Jimbo has on several occasions stated that he avoids editing articles
> to avoid a misperception that he is exercising his dictatorial powers.

Interesting. I've been attempting to apply this rule to those articles on
history that I have encountered -- as well as any topic that it fits.
While this does tend to give a historiographical slant to articles
(that is, writing a history of the history of the subject -- ugh),
I think it takes at least one step towards the ideal of NPOV.

And it is applicable. Take a look at the various articles on Chronology
of Ancient History (e.g., [[Egyptian Chronology]], [[Chronology of
Babylonia and Assyria]]): either we have assertions that the current
chronological structure is untenable (without a clear explanation why),
or the results of calculating eclipses into the 3rd millenium BC without
any explanation why (or how) they are important; in one case we have
a problem with NPOV, in another, it's clearly original research.
(Perhaps I'm revealing my own bias in this manner, since I
believe these articles should *explain* how the chronology was determined,
rather than put forth one -- or more -- different chronological schemes.)

The fact that some use Jimbo's comments as the final word is disturbing,
but my feeling is that this usage occurs when a point has been debated to
death, yet one person or a small group simply refuses to understand &
let the matter drop. (Wikipedia does not seem to have any other way to
end debate.) If Jimbo's opinions are used in any other way, then it is
wrong.
>
> Using Jimbo's mailing list opinion as a technique for imposing a
> particular POV does not address the issue.  That article does appear to
> give objective criteria for determining when a scientific article is to
> be viewed as original research.  It gives no reason for why these
> articles should be excluded other than "Jimbo says so."  It is
> completely silent about original research in fields outside of
> "science", and how to identify it  In one sense every article in
> Wikipedia is original research except those that plagiarize another source.

As I understand it, the intent of this rule is to discourage the use of
Wikipedia as a means to ``publish" one's discoveries, be it concerning
Faster Than Light travel, one's proof that Brooklyn was founded by the
Atlanteans, etc. An article should be reporting or summarizing material
that appears in printed sources -- any published sources. This guarrantees
that it is part of the history of ideas in at least some small way,
& not the isolated rantings of some lone individual in a basement
apartment, eager for the attention & approval of an imagined audience.

(Hmm. That last comment could apply to myself, except that I own my house.)

An example of something that clearly violates the ``No Original Research"
rule can be seen in the article [[Heberite]]. From the text, I have no
idea whether this describes an idea held by anyone except its author.
For all I know, this is what is taught in Moscow Public schools -- in which
case it belongs in Wikipedia; and it asserts a number of items without
providing any proof. (It should probably be placed on VfD, but I will
recuse myself from further action concernign this artilce for reasons
that are clear in the Talk: section.)
>
> The fact is that the history of science is strewn with these false steps
> and original ideas which led nowhere.  Their historical value is what
> makes them encyclopedic, not their content and not their theories.
>  Their dubious value to science needs to be remarked but not ridiculed,
> and not obsessively disproved.  (Remember, the burden of proof for any
> scientific theory rests with its proponent; if he hasn't carried that
> burden it is sufficient to say that as simply as possible.)  Most of
> these ideas can be adequately covered in a single page, and take much
> less space than what is used arguing about them.  Why should
> contemporary crackpots be viewed with any less regard than those from
> the last century?
>
I simply want proof that they have some effect on the history of thought,
at least in some small way. The requirement of the use of printed sources
is a small hurdle that keeps most of the unsuitable material out, although
this rule may handicap in the writing of articles regarding computers or
Internet folklore.

Geoff