[WikiEN-l] Re: Example vs. Original research

[Ray Saintonge]

Haukur Þorgeirsson wrote:

>>The difference is that some people actively argue that the earth is
>>not a sphere, whereas those who argue that Paris is not the capital of
>>France so far have kept their activities secret.
>>
>>If a fact is contentious, then it should be backed up with a cite.
>>    
>>
>How many religious fundamentalists does it take to
>make a fact contentious? How actively do they have
>to argue? Where are you going to draw the line? And
>why should we privilege the points of view that
>happen to be held by people alive today?
>
>Wikipedia would be a parody of an encyclopedia if it
>held that the approximately spherical shape of the
>Earth is contentious. People expect an encyclopedia
>to be written from a scientific point of view - and,
>for the most part, that's how Wikipedia is written.
>  
>
It's not a matter of the number of religious fundamentalists, or how 
persistently anyone argues, or lines being drawn.  I certainly don't 
believe that today's points of view should hold sway over historical ones.

When we put forth these intuitive truths as examples of the need for 
citations we put up a straw man that is there to be knocked down.  There 
is a presumption that any statement is true unless and until it is 
challenged.  Of course the more ridiculous and outrageous statements 
will be challenged very quickly.  Statements about the near-spherical 
shape of the earth may not be challenged at all.

The "scientific point of view" would be fine if it meant rigorous 
adherence to the principles of scientific method; it is not fine if it 
means support for the prevailing prejudices of mainstream scientists.

Some people may very well expect an encyclopedia to be written from that 
mythical "scientific point of view"; others may expect it to be from a 
"religious point of view" of some sort.  We still need to stick to a 
neutral point of view.  Implicit to the neutral point of view is the 
dynamic of questioning everything.

Ec