On 8/20/06, Delirium <delirium(a)hackish.org> wrote:
Anthony wrote:
This is
precisely the sort of thing our original research policy is
meant to prohibit.
I thought the original research policy was meant to prohibit physics cranks.
[...]
When the rules put us in a situation where we are forced to keep
blatantly false information in an article, I'd say it's time to invoke
the "break all rules" rule. At the very least it's time to bend the
rules as to what counts as an acceptable reliable source.
And how precisely do you propose to simultaneously take care of both of
these things? Wikipedia is not in a position to determine truth, only
to report on what others have said. It's possible that some parts of
physics may be incorrect, and you may be absolutely sure of it, but
Wikipedia isn't the place to publish that research. I don't think it's
the place to publish novel historical, biographical, mathematical, or
any other research either, regardless of how sure you are that you have
"the truth" that every published source is missing.
-Mark
I think I'm capable of determining the difference between a
complicated new physics theory that I've just come up with, and which
hasn't been peer reviewed, and a blatant falsity propagated by a
misquote or other misinformation in a newspaper which can be trivially
misproven by the subject of the article. At the very least I think an
encyclopedia article should note the fact that the subject disputes
the claim. Perhaps I could interview the person and stick the
interview in Wikinews, would that qualify as a published source
outside of Wikipedia? Alternatively, the claim shouldn't be there in
the first place. If neither of those two are legitimate under the
rules, then I'd say it's time to break the rules.
If you don't think you can tell the difference between these two
situations, feel free to always follow the rules.
Anthony