[WikiEN-l] Philosophical question re sources

[Mikkerpikker]

Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
> An organisation exists which makes certain claims.  These claims are
> at odds with informed opinion on the subject.  They are not published
> in any peer-reviewed journals, and can be demonstrated to be false or
> at best questionable by reference to primary sources.
>
> Most credible authorities do not deign to reply to these claims,
> because the organisation is mainly dismissed as cranks (or rather, a
> lone crank) and many of the claims are considered absurd, but they
> have a popular resonance among certain groups who desperately want to
> believe them.  The person who runs the group is a talented
> self-publicist and gets his claims in the news, but declines all
> invitations to submit the claims for peer-review.  As unpublished
> work, there are therefore no published rebuttals, and most reputable
> authorities simply dismiss the group.
>
> Some of the group's claims have a basis in published research, but
> constitute an extreme interpretation of that research.  This
> interpretation is, in some cases, strongly contested by the
> researchers themselves.
>
> Supporters of the group are vociferous; this is in many cases the sole
> source for what they really want to believe, so they promote it
> assiduously.
>
> So: the group is notable by reference to news coverage.  The existence
> of the group's claims come from reliable sources, the group's own
> materials which are reliable in the context of documenting the group.
> Rebuttals do not come from reliable secondary sources because the
> secondary sources have published neither the claims nor the rebuttals.
> Opposition to the claims is therefore denounced as uncited and "weasel
> words" because the opponents are not named, although there is not one
> single reputable authority which supports the claims.
>
> How best to handle this?
>
> I am personally involved in one side of a dispute on this, as is
> patently obvious from the way I have phrased the above :-)  In the end
> I want the article to be a good one because every article should be a
> good one.  Another user, DeFacto, has been effective in challenging
> opposition from me and others, and thus tightening up this and other
> articles on subjects related to motorist activism.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe_Speed is the article in question.
>
> There now exists a groundswell of motorist activists who sincerely
> believe that Paul Smith has "proved" that speed cameras cost lives.
> How can we demonstrate that this is a false claim, as [[WP:NPOV]]
> requires we must, without straying into original research?
>
> This is also a problem because their claim that cameras cost lives has
> now been repeated in other Wikipedia articles.  That is a serious
> concern to me.  It is a claim which Smith actively refuses to put up
> to peer review.
> Guy (JzG)

Though there may be no published academic papers that challenges
Smith's views directly, surely there are studies that attack his views
indirectly? That is, surely there are studies showing, say, that
driving over X km/h is intrinsically dangerous as it increases beyond
some threshold the probability of dying or sustaining serious injury
in the event of an accident. Moreover, I'd be very surprised were
there not academic studies linking speed with higher accident
incidence. (There are, after all, simple ways to test this: count the
number of accidents before and after cameras were deployed in a
certain stretch of road. So if A=accident, b=before cameras were
installed and a=after cameras were installed, then if A(b) > A(a) then
cameras improve safety. If A(b) < A(a) then cameras decrease safety,
and if A(a) = A(b) then cameras don't have an effect).

Citing such "indirectly" critical published studies will, I am sure,
go a long way towards improving the article.