[WikiEN-l] Arbitration Committee Seeking Comment

[steven l. rubenstein]

Matt Brown wrote some thoughtful comments, some of which I deeply disagree 
with:

>MO, those would only be legitimate sources to cite if the subject
>itself is obscure and known only to specialists.  If it's a well-known
>subject, it would make more sense to use mainstream sources on the
>subject.

Yes and no.  One reason for citing sources is so that readers who want to 
know more (or check facts) can go to the sources.  In this sense, I do 
agree with Matt that it is important to provide sources that anyone who is 
on-line and has access to Amazon.com, or access to a good library, can find.

But I disagree with Matt's distinction between "obscure subject" and other 
subjects.  A subject that is not obscure, for example the Holocaust or the 
Bible or the U.S. Civil War, obviously has loads of popular and easily 
acceptable sources we can cite.  But there is always ongoing academic 
research, and much important and relevant information will come from 
relatively obscure sources.  This is precisely the material we want to 
include in a high-quality encyclopedia, even if the cited sources are hard 
to find.

>If the obscure source is indeed important, it will at least
>have been cited by someone else.  If, for example, you find an obscure
>source on the Holocaust that is not cited in any mainstream work on the
>Holocaust, it would be original research to begin to build an argument
>based on it.

Matt, this is just 100% wrong.  You simply do not understand our NOR 
policy.  It would violate our policy to "build an argument" on any source, 
"mainstream" as well as "obscure."  But adding material, including 
published data, published explanations, published interpretations, is NOT 
"original research" if it comes from sources that are, however obscure, 
reputable.

>   (If you thought mainstream Holocaust historians were
>ignoring some obscure but credible and important source, that would be
>an issue to take up with them; we're just here to report the consensus
>in the field, not to create it.)

Again, 100% wrong.  We are not here to report the consensus.  As a matter 
of fact, one of the most important functions of our NPOV policy is to 
ensure that diverse views (and if they are diverse, they obviously do not 
represent a consensus) .  We report on different views, provide the proper 
sources, and any context about the sources that can help readers evaluate 
the views being represented.  "Consensus" hotonly has nothing to do with 
it, it is antithetical to what we stand for.

Steve




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