User:Sockatume/OR

On original research
A brief editing dispute has caused me to start thinking over some of the Wikipedia policies. In particular, there seems to be a conflict (or at least oversight) between WP:OR and the non-requirement of citing sources or referencing statements.

The OR policy is unambiguous, refined through almost three years of edits and debate. The original intent was, according to Wales, to protect the Wikipedia from a rash of armchair scientists and would-be Edisons: "The phrase 'original research' originated primarily as a practical means to deal with physics cranks, of which of course there are a number on the Web. 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."

It also extends to protecting the project from editors' own biases and views. In this manner it crosses over into WP:NPOV, the neutality policy, although the two are distinct entities (a wholly derivative, partisan Wikipedia could exist without breaching WP:OR, by omission of key viewpoints). Most wikipedians would understand this aspect of WP:OR as "only report the opinions of others", and this is how the policy has often been wielded. However, the policy is much more broad in purpose:

"...any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article"

This is in line with the Wikipedia's description of itself as a tertiary source - that is, a repository for the views, statements, and discoveries of others.

The main problem comes from WP:V, the Verifiability policy which forms the third pillar of the Wikipedia. It is stated thus (emphasis mine):

"Editors should provide a reliable source for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed."

At first glance this is common sense. The majority of facts and interpretations placed on the Wikipedia are widely held, common sense or otherwise unlikely to be questioned. Similarly there are statments which all editors can see require citation - controversial or unlikely quotes from public figures, technical data, and the like. The problems arise in the grey areas.

For example, Editor A happens upon the article "The Matrix", and adds an interpretation of Thomas Anderson's name which is, he believes, entirely sensible from a quick look at the facts. Editor 2 finds this absurd and deletes the section. Carnage ensues.

One highly plausable outcome is that one or both editors leave the Wikipedia or are banned. A second, ultimately more insidious, outcome is that A and B reach some sort of compromise position after reviewing the evidence, commonly choosing to express both viewpoints, and add this to the article. The new statement is unlikely to be challenged - A and B will likely have assembed a well-reasoned, balanced and convincing argument as a result of their debate. Or, if it is challenged, it will wind up being revised once more to reflect the new position. Therefore it does not require citation for its "synthesis" of new ideas. This goes against WP:OR but is perfectly within reason under WP:V. You will often see "weasel words" used in these cituations, and endless he said/she said sentences. In this case, they have in good faith committed a piece of original research to the Wikipedia.

It is of note that it has recently become policy that all statements made in the biographies of the living or recently deceased should be referenced. This is in the biography subject's, and the project's, best interest, preventing the spread of unwarranted rumours about the living which have landed the project in hot water in the past. There is no reason why the project could not extend this policy to all statements, shielding itself against its most common criticism.