[WikiEN-l] Rules, expertise, and encyclopedic standards

Mon Mar 7 20:11:22 UTC 2005

JAYJG wrote:
>Well, as I noted on the list a couple of days ago, policing for original
>research seems equally difficult, when even long time editors consider
>original research to be "simple facts" or "simple deductive reasoning."
>Perhaps the [[Wikipedia:No original research]] page needs to be updated with
>examples which make that point that if it really is that simple, someone
>else will have done the work for you already, and all you need to do is
>quote them.

Are you talking about situations where such a committee might have to 
police the quality of the research?  Okay, I grant that sometimes this can 
be difficult.  But it isn't insurmountable.  If the committee works, like 
ArbCom, by attending to a complaint and giving people opportunities to 
provide evidence, I think in most cases they will then be able to see the 
difference between an appropriate and inappropriate source, or a reputable 
or disreputable source.

However, there is another way the committee could work.  It could simply 
ask a user, "what research did you do?  What are your sources?"  Anyone who 
has done any amount of research can answer this easily, and then the 
committee might just recommend that the sources used by cited more clearly, 
end of problem.

This may sound like a little thing, but I think it is vitally needed.  When 
I was in conflict with CheeseDreams about the Cultural and Historical 
background of Jesus, one of my major problems was that she seemed not to 
have done any research whatsoever.  I asked her, many, many times, what her 
sources were and she ignored me.  Now, in that particular case Wikipedia 
was lucky enough that CD's own behavior consistently undermined her, until 
she was banned.  But what if there is a user who strictly adheres to all 
behavior policies, but who nevertheless thinks of an article as if it were 
his/her own blog?  The thing is, CD never answered my simple question, what 
was her source -- and I could not compel her to answer, and there was no 
sanction for her not answering.  What if someone very well-behaved acts 
just as recklessly in their contributions?  Here is one place where I see 
the value of a committee that is empowered to ask "what are your sources" 
or "what kind of research did you do" and, if the answer is silence or 
something that just doesn't hold up, can impose a sanction.

I do of course agree that the NOR policy needs improvement.  There has been 
work on a new draft, which perhaps you can help, and which I think should 
be merged with the current policy soon.

You know, a new committee with clear procedural rules will itself begin 
generating clearer ideas about how to deal with disagreements over what 
constitutes original research, too,

Steve

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