[WikiEN-l] Wikipedia & Original Research

[Geoff Burling]

Following, & participating in, the various threads about Original
Research, I've noticed that a couple of points have not been
touched upon. And I think we should consider them while we are all
trying to develop a consensus on this matter.

1. Original research leads to the problem that some editors think
that they "own" an article. One of the exciting things about
writing for Wikipedia is being able to say "I put that text there!"
And while we are aware of the problems surrounding people who do
not want their purple prose to be deleted, the problems can only
increase if we allow people to put their own research in Wikipedia
& say "Wikipedia has something I discovered."

The Wiki way (as I understand it) is that one person adds their
input, and another may change or add to it; the result is that
the content of Wikipedia inevitably changes over time, gradually
(hopefully) moving between viewpoints in search of a balance.
Because original research is such a personal thing, it can only
disrupt this desirable changing.

2. Original research is inevitably POV; allowing original research
thus makes it easier for POV-pushers. I hope I'm not the only
one who has noticed that if a person performs research & discovers
a fact, they believe it to be true; they will not be receptive to
permitting other POVs intrude on their research. As a tangible
example, if I were to set forth my original research stating that
cats are better than dogs[*], I would obviously do so only if I
am convinced that it was true, & that anyone who disagreed with
me were either ignorant or in denial of the obvious facts.

And if we were to look at the motives of many POV-pushers, I
believe that they are acting in good faith, but are under the
same misconceptions that are linked to people who insist on
inserting some forms of original research.

3. To write some articles with a desirable quality, it is almost
impossible not to resort to what can be called, in good faith,
original research. And this point makes the matter a hard one.

To write about any literary work beyond the bare facts of its
creation & its characters & plot easily leads to original research.
After all, the Wikipedian is asked to explain perhaps the most
important things about the work -- what is it about, why is it
important, what does it mean -- based all too often on a personal
interpretation of the primary source. I wouldn't be surprised
that this is the reason why many articles about literature, music,
cinema & the plastic arts are in need of more material. While in
many cases there exists a usable amount of secondary literature
about a work -- a prime example being the plays & poetry of
William Shakespeare -- for a lot of authors who should have
articles in Wikipedia, there is little or nothing. Looking at my
own bookshelf, I'd be hard-pressed to think of critical literature
on Craig Lesley, Kazuo Ishiguro, James Branch Cabel, Toni Morrison,
L. Sprague de Camp, Harry Harrison, Hunter S. Thompson or Chinua
Achebe.[**] And even some topics that should not be hard to
find abundant secondary literature for -- say a history of the
influence Homer's _Iliad_ had on Western Literature -- would
be difficult to complete without doing research & drawing
conclusions (e.g., just how far was Elias Loennrot influenced
by the _Iliad_ in his compilation of _The Kalevala_?).

Another instance is the creation of lists on Wikipedia; in some
categories, the compilation & sorting would involve some kind
of POV, whether conscious or accidental. The example I had in
mind was the project of compiling a list of Mayors of Addis
Ababa, the largest city in Ethiopia. I hope we can all agree that
this is a list worth having in Wikipedia; but can we be
assured that the people listed weren't included or excluded on
an NPOV basis? Or that if there is a conflict of opinion over
the order of 2 or more Mayors, that the right opinion was
followed?[***]

If I may be allowed to answer my own question, I think there
is a way to allow original research into Wikipedia without also
allowing its problems in. One way would be to present the
conclusions of orignial research overtly as one, non-exclusive
POV. To do this requires the use of some despised weasel-words like
"based on this evidence, it appears that" or "it may be true that"
or "this suggests". After all, even if the evidence screams that
a given conclusion is the only conceivable one, further research
or peer review may show that some of the evidence can be explained
away or be shown to support an entirely different conclusion.

Another approach -- & these are not exclusive -- is to admit
that even though we are Neutral Point of View, sometimes because
no article on Wikipedia is every truly complete we are only able
to present one of many POVs. That is, the original editor adds
her/his research with the full knowledge that another editor may
drastically rewrite it to add other material. In a way, this is
identical to current policy -- well, as I understand current
policy; but this not only reinforces the idea that no one
Wikipedian owns an article (avoiding issue #1 above), but also
it may be useful for everyone to occasionally step back in a
dispute & determine whether our arguments are based on a myopic
& enthusiastic embrace of our own POV (avoiding issue #2 above).

This is all meant as more material to chew on. The [[No original
research]] policy helps in a lot of different ways, but clearly
it has a few problems that require some tweaking with it.

Geoff

[*] I selected this example not necessarily because I believe it
is true, QED, but because I live with 3 cats who would shred me
into hamburger were I to argue the opposite opinion. Let's not
debate this topic.

[**] Just a selection of fiction writers from the shelf next to
my desk, nothing more.

[***] I've encountered a similar problem in compiling a list of
the Patriarchs of Antioch -- an article I've likely left unfinished,
& hampered by countless cases of umarked POV content, but at the
end I grew tired of the subject, & decided it was time to leave
the article for someone else to work on.