[WikiEN-l] Original research

Fri Dec 10 17:27:48 UTC 2004

I have two comments concerning the most recent discussion on original 
research.  First, can I include information if it comes from an interview I 
conducted.  I think the answer has to be no.  This is "original" research 
in the clearest sense -- raw data prior to any interpretation or analysis 
(I think most of our discussion has centered on, can we provide our own 
interpretation or analysis in articles?  Again I think the answer is no, 
but this seems to be a more complex issue for many people).  I think this 
is a very easy question to answer, given our policy.  I have to say, I have 
some regret that the answer is no.  One of the primary ideals of academic 
research is making raw data available to allow new interpretations or 
analysis, but the way academic research is actually published severely 
limits this.  One of the great things about the internet is its potential 
to make a great deal of raw data available to the general public, which is 
a great thing.  Still, I can think of three reasons why Wikipedia should 
not be in the business of making raw data available.  First is 
methodological (this doesn't apply to this particular question, which I 
think has to do with a rock band, but applies to most scientific research): 
can we assert some reasonable degree of confidence that the data was 
produced through appropriate (e.g. scientific -- but in courts, the 
equivalent would be "following the rules of evidence") 
means?  Peer-reviewed journals and books published by academic presses make 
this claim, and it is in part based on peer-review and evaluating the 
credentials of the author.  We won't be doing that.  As I said, this 
doesn't hold for interviewing a musician, but I think it is something to 
bear in mind.  My second and third reasons however may be relevant to the 
question at hand: publishing information involves legal and ethical 
responsibilities.  Here we may be better off comparing ourselves to 
newspapers.  Aside from having legal staffs that can and often do check 
stories before they are published, journalism schools and newspapers are 
supposed to cultivate a common set of ethical principles to guide 
journalists.  And journalists still often act unethically!  If journalists, 
who as part of their profession may have spent a good deal of time talking 
about ethics of reporting screw up, how much more likely is it that someone 
somewhere along the line on the internet will screw up?  It is safer for us 
not to try to act as reporters.

The second comment has to do with credibility.  I agree 100% with Jimbo's 
point that what makes Einstein's theories more credible than aunt Gertie's 
is not crude popularity but that physicists give more credence to 
Einstein's theories (about physics by the way -- Aunt Gertrude may be more 
of an authority on needlepoint or, so as not to be sexist, repairing a 
carburetor, than Einstein).  But what about controversial topics like 
flouridation or ESP?  Well, in the first case an article can say that there 
are debates among scientists and among politicians, and give accounts of 
both kinds of views (the obvious model is global warming: all atmospheric 
scientists agree that global warming is occurring; some scientists debate 
whether it is anthropogenic or whatever the term is; many politicians 
debate it).  In the second case -- or let's just say, other cases, we can 
say that there is not only debate over what is going on; there is debate 
over who is a credible authority: some people say x, others say y ..."

In other words, I don't see this as an NPOV problem; I just see it as 
another layer of NPOV -- in some (probably very few) cases there is debate 
over who's views are most authoritative/credible, and if so we should 
provide some account of this debate.

Steve

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