[WikiEN-l] Radical redefinition of OR

[Ray Saintonge]

Jimmy Wales wrote:

>Ray Saintonge wrote:
>  
>
>>The lawsuit here is not a matter of having been so unfortunate as to be 
>>caught driving drunk pure and simple.  The issues relate to how Langan  
>>presents himself to the world in relation to those issues and 
>>organizations which make him encyclopedic and/or notable.  The 
>>references to the judgements may very well havew come from his opponents 
>>in the case, but that is not the same as systematically sifting through 
>>court records to find dirt on the guy
>>    
>>
>This is exactly what makes it original research.  You have looked at his 
>life story, and looked at this lawsuit, and drawn the original 
>conclusion (perhaps plausible, perhaps even correct!) that the case 
>reflects negatively on him, showing perhaps something bad about how he 
>presents himself to the world, etc.
>
I can draw the conclusion that the case reflects negatively on the 
person on the mailing list, but that does not imply that this would need 
to be said in the article.  There, to avoid original research, we can 
say that he lost the case, and beyond that we are limited to what is on 
the face of the decision.  The matter of how he presents himself to the 
world was there to distinguish this from a drunk driving charge.  One 
relates to his public persona, the other strictly to his private life.

>That might mean that the lawsuit would make a fine basis for original 
>research, to be published as investigative journalism in a newspaper, 
>magazine, or book.
>
>But it certainly means that it is original research: a novel conclusion 
>being drawn from primary sources.
>
If one is using the case to draw novel conclusions then yes, it should 
not be used that way.

>>I've taken time to think about this before answering, and I keep 
>>arriving at the conclusion that it is not correct to suppress this 
>>information.
>>    
>>
>Wikipedia is in no position to "suppress" information.  It is in the 
>public record.  
>
It is that, nothing more, nothing less.

>Should someone who is working at an institution which is 
>properly tasked with doing original research want to do so, they are 
>welcome to do so at any time, and we do not stand in their way.
>
No problem there.

>But the fact still remains that this sort of thing is unquestionably 
>original research of _precisely_ the kind that we need to avoid for the 
>obvious reasons having to do with what makes an encyclopedia an 
>encyclopedia, what kind of resources we have to vet such things, and 
>what kind of door we open to crackpots, cranks, and POV pushers, if we 
>came to the conclusion that original research is allowed in Wikipedia, 
>in case we don't like the person involved. (!)
>
It seems that the one common difference to this exchange is one of 
whether we can separate the document itself from the conclusions that 
some may draw from it

>>I had never heard of Langan before this came up.  Going 
>>through the long talk page attached to his article I get the impression 
>>that this guy is a streetfighter who is ready to do whatever it takes to 
>>win his point.
>>    
>>
>Your not liking him is not a good reason for us to throw out one of our 
>fundamental policies so that people with an axe to grind can dig up 
>negative information about him.
>
I've never said whether I liked him or not.  I've drawn a preliminary 
conclusion from  reading the material in the least few days, but I could 
probably draw the same conclusion about his opponents.  Disagreeing on 
what a fundamental policy means or should mean says nothing about 
throuwing out that policy.  It is also inappropriate to impute any 
motives that I may have to dig up negative information about Lnagan.  I 
very much prefer to be radically neutral in these kinds of situations.

Ec