[WikiEN-l] auto-biography

Fri Jan 2 00:28:23 UTC 2004

Robert Graham Merkel wrote:

>>Should we write a specific policy page about this, to expand the entry 
>>on WWisNot, in a similar way to what I did recently for 
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research ?
>>
>
>We had this debate some time ago, at [[Wikipedia:Auto-biography]].  
>At the time I left it, it imposed a blanket ban on starting articles
>about oneself.  Some people wanted a broader imposition.  Others like
>Cunc objected to it (primarily on the basis that rules are bad - a 
>sentiment I can understand, but disagree with in this specific case).
>
>Eloquence rewrote this later to tone it down - suggesting merely that
>creating an article on yourself is probably not a good idea, and that 
>it is likely to be listed on VfD and that some people strongly
>disapprove of the creation of pages on yourself.
>
>Personally, I still think a blanket ban on creating articles about yourself
>or your own works is a good idea.
>
I am opposed to an outright ban in either of these two areas.  I find it 
difficult to deal with those that want to suppress all knowledge that 
has nothing to do with their unique visions of just what an encyclopedia is.

There are of course many of these that are really user pages.  Wouldn't 
it be simpler if the material were just moved to the relevant user page, 
and a notice were left at the page where the autobiography was to say 
something like, "The material formerly here was autobiographical 
material.  It has been moved to [[User:....]]".  Most will accept this 
change.  Those that don't agree may restore the material.  That's OK. 
 They then need to understand that it may then be subject to  merciless 
editing to an extent that would not happen on a user page.  With enough 
merciless editing they may get the point.  Blanket deletions of such 
pages only provokes animosities.

The recently written "No original research" provision appears to focus 
on science, and "new scientific theories" and completely ignores other 
areas of study.  The most disturbing aspect is that it uses Jimbo's 
comments from the mailing list as though he were speaking "ex cathedra". 
 Jimbo has on several occasions stated that he avoids editing articles 
to avoid a misperception that he is exercising his dictatorial powers. 
 There are times when he has opinions like any others of us and should 
have a right to express them without creating a big splash in the wading 
pool..  From my perspective, the degree of authority with which he 
speaks should depend on how close the subject is to the core values of 
the general undertaking and its operational necessities.  His 
recognition that other projects within the family will develop their own 
policies based on an infinite range of parameters speaks to that.  

Using Jimbo's mailing list opinion as a technique for imposing a 
particular POV does not address the issue.  That article does appear to 
give objective criteria for determining when a scientific article is to 
be viewed as original research.  It gives no reason for why these 
articles should be excluded other than "Jimbo says so."  It is 
completely silent about original research in fields outside of 
"science", and how to identify it  In one sense every article in 
Wikipedia is original research except those that plagiarize another source.

The fact is that the history of science is strewn with these false steps 
and original ideas which led nowhere.  Their historical value is what 
makes them encyclopedic, not their content and not their theories. 
 Their dubious value to science needs to be remarked but not ridiculed, 
and not obsessively disproved.  (Remember, the burden of proof for any 
scientific theory rests with its proponent; if he hasn't carried that 
burden it is sufficient to say that as simply as possible.)  Most of 
these ideas can be adequately covered in a single page, and take much 
less space than what is used arguing about them.  Why should 
contemporary crackpots be viewed with any less regard than those from 
the last century?

Ec