[WikiEN-l] Original research: our secret pleasure?

[Fred Bauder]

You're definitely on to something. Who ever wrote a book about [[BatMUD]]? That article was written by people who have played and what's the harm? This sort of thing makes Wikipedia more interesting. But please, no original research about [[general relativity]].

Fred

>-----Original Message-----
>From: William Pietri [mailto:william at scissor.com]
>Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2007 10:07 AM
>To: 'English Wikipedia'
>Subject: [WikiEN-l] Original research: our secret pleasure?
>
>
>Consider, for a moment, this edit:
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Addams_Family_%28pinball%29&diff=133649872&oldid=130354055
>
>It is a minor modification to our description of "The Addams Family" 
>pinball machine. Because I happen to own one of those machines, I know 
>that this edit is partly right but almost certainly partly wrong. 
>However, I haven't played it much lately, so my first instinct was to 
>commit the grievous sin of original research by playing a few games.
>
>In thinking about this further, there are whole classes of article just 
>like this one, full of uncited information that is probably original 
>research. The unifying characteristics seem to be:
>
> 1. If the article is somewhat inaccurate, there is little risk of
> real-world harm,
> 2. The topic is of relatively low importance,
> 3. Having something on the topic is a net benefit to our readers, and
> 4. There is a wide enough base of people with knowledge of the topic
> that the article can generally be verified from collective
> personal experience.
>
>
>Personally, I think these articles are worth keeping. Our readers get 
>information they want. It also seems like a good place for newbies to 
>contribute: it's a topic they are interested in, there is plenty for 
>them to fix, and if they don't get it exactly right they won't 
>immediately be reverted and slapped with a talk page notice containing 
>eight links to policy shortcuts as they would on, say, [[Evolution]].
>
>As far as I can tell, though, there is no written policy or guideline 
>for this kind of thing. Is that the case? It's probably for the best, 
>honestly, as they are doing fine without it, and I imagine creating a 
>special exception for this kind of thing would lead to all sorts of 
>disruptive wikilawyering.
>
>Regardless, I thought it was interesting how much has been built in the 
>outskirts of our metropolis. Not up to our building codes, but not a big 
>problem, and better than nothing.
>
>William
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>