[WikiEN-l] Original research

Wed Dec 8 02:06:51 UTC 2004

Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote:
> The basic concept is as follows: it can be quite difficult for us to
> make any valid judgment as to whether a particular thing is _true_ or
> not.  It isn't appropriate for us to try to determine whether
> someone's novel theory of physics is valid, we aren't really equipped
> to do that.  But what we _can_ do is check whether or not it actually
> has been published in reputable journals or by reputable publishers.
> So it's quite convenient to avoid judging the credibility of things by
> simply sticking to things that have been judged credible by people
> much better equipped to decide.

I've been thinking about this for a few days, and I can't get around one 
basic issue: we haven't solved the problem. We've shifted the burden of 
evaluating the credibility of the theory to evaluating the credibility 
of the sources. I see no reason to believe we're any better at 
evaluating the credibility of sources than of theories.

Heck, I see no reason why we should even care whether something is 
credible. The NPOV policy says we shouldn't, as I read it. In fact, I 
largely see the NPOV policy and the "no original research" policy as 
being in conflict. We have to report neutrally on all views, yet we 
exclude views that experts don't deem credible. Am I the only one who 
sees a contradiction in that?

If it was up to me, "no original research" would mean precisely what it 
looks like it does. You can't write new stuff directly to wikipedia. 
However, if someone else has written it somewhere, it's fair game, 
without the need for credibility evaluation.

I think the real purpose of the rule is about not misrepresenting things 
on wikipedia, and making crackpots' ideas seem more mainstream than they 
are. But if we write with intellectual honesty (ie call minority 
opinions minority opinions when they are) and cite our sources, I don't 
see any need for the no original research rule as it's currently 
formulated.

One of the best things about wikipedia is that it has the ability to 
report on the bizarre that would never make it above the radar of a 
normal encyclopedia. I find that to be perhaps the most entertaining 
part of reading wikipedia. I think it's unfortunate that we have a rule 
that restricts that without providing any real benefit that I can see.

Shane.