[WikiEN-l] original research

Fri Mar 4 19:49:13 UTC 2005

Charles Matthews wrote,
>Can't really agree with that.  Banning deductive logic from articles isn't a
>good idea.  As I have said here before, that seems to me to be an inflation
>of the original research policy, meant to bar crank theories, to an
>unreasonable extension of it.

I don't think this is Jay's point.  The problem is not deductive logic 
itself, but to what use it is put.  If it is used to construct a new 
interpretation or synthesis, then it is original research.

But let's face it -- the issue is not only the meaning of the rule, but its 
enforcement.  These two are inevitably tied together because the people who 
interpret the rules (the community) are the same as the people who enforce 
them -- unless it goes to mediation.

There has been a fair amount of discussion about possible problems in the 
mediation/arbitration process.  I don't want to get into that.  I just want 
to remind people that the first, and I think most important, line of 
enforcement is the community of editors.

Moreover, I want to suggest that strict rules, although good guidelines, 
are not the only things that should be enforced.  I believe that the 
community has standards and values that have not been written down, and 
should not be written down, but which we need to keep in mind whenever 
talking about the enforcement of an official policy.  These informal 
standards shouldn't be written down -- and maybe not even put into words -- 
because doing so will eventually require more and more official agents of 
enforcement -- I think this is what some people sense when they raise 
concerns about creeping legalism; certainly it threatens the anarchic 
nature of the community which is not (just) an end in itself but, as a 
matter of faith, the unique quality of Wikipedia that we believe will lead 
to great articles.

Here is how I see these unofficial, unarticulated standards being enforced: 
through the presence or absence of controversy over an article.  In many 
(NOT ALL) cases, an editor can make a change or add something without 
stirring up any controversy.  I think that this is what Charles is talking 
about -- there are cases where people can use their own logic to develop 
articles.  Whether it is "original research" or not is a moot point as long 
as no one complains about it -- and not one will complain about it if it 
makes sense to everyone.  If it doesn't make sense to one or a few people, 
there is need for discussion and people often can work out some 
compromise.  In other cases, many people will complain (this is when an 
article becomes controversial) and it is only at this point that I think 
policies like "no original research" need to be enforced in the strictest 
terms.

Please do not misconstrue what I am saying.  I am not saying that "no 
original research" should be enforced only in extreme cases.  I am saying 
that in most cases, where there is no controversy, the community of editors 
should be guided by the policy but should have a lot of room to interpret 
it, and flexibility in how to apply it.  I think we should give editors -- 
not just individuals, but the community of editors -- a lot of leeway for 
deciding when we need to start enforcing strict rules uncompromisingly.  I 
think we can wait and see whether a given edit provokes strong resistance 
and controversy before going to the policy and arguing over how strictly to 
enforce it.

And believe me, I am as committed to NOR as anyone else here.  My point is 
procedural and not substantive.

Steve

Steven L. Rubenstein
Associate Professor
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Bentley Annex
Ohio University
Athens, Ohio 45701