[WikiEN-l] Re: Example vs. Original research

Wed Jul 27 09:47:14 UTC 2005

> Using the Flat Earth example again, the FES's notions
> are generally unclear in terms of whether they are
> actually sincere (still), or that they might be
> speaking metaphorically, or IMHO from the POV of human
> experience. Thus it can rather ridiculous to talk in
> terms of science, without explaining what their actual
> point is, which might be something like:
>  'Thinking about the Earth as round is only a
> conceptual construct which also requires thinking
> along notions of complex relativity-- in real life, we
> intrinsically think of the world as Euclidian, and
> therefore, "flat." The FES might just be claiming that
> the religious view that all souls be on the same
> plane, or else that in personal terms, thinking in
> global terms is just a waste of precious time.

That is very interesting and you may be right that they are arguing
from a metaphysical perspective. Maybe you would even start to believe
so after reading the Flat Earth Society's website? But, IMHO, a great
loss is that you cannot state that in Wikipedia. While Wikipedia
allows you to use facts drawn from sources, it does not allow you to
interpret sources. You can write that the FES states that the earth is
flat, but you can not say that they are using a metaphysical
perspective.

Same thing with Daniel P.B. Smith's example:

"The earth is approximately an oblate spheroid (a sphere flattened at
the poles.... For many navigational purposes the earth is assumed to
be a sphere, without intolerable error."

That you can write that the U.S. Naval Oceanographic Office say. But
you cannot write that the U.S. Naval Oceanographic Office says that
the earth is round because that would require you to interpret the
source. Because of these things, many editors resort to using no
sources at all, because a statement without a source is often
percieved as less controversial than the same statement drawn from
interpreting a source.

-- 
mvh Björn