Template:CharterVote2/10/Discussion

< RETURN TO THE MAIN PAGE

An Editorial Council shall be empowered to develop policy on content and style, including but not limited to original content. The Editorial Council may not ban the publication of original research.

• Agree Russell D. Jones 00:01, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
• Agree D. Matt Innis 00:32, 17 July 2010 (UTC) (added 'of' - assume it was a typo)

What do we mean by "original research"? However it is defined, if it cannot be banned, it must be limited by the standards of practicing professionals. As an anthropologist, I'm really not interested in hearing 'theories' about, say, ancient Maya culture from kids who went to Cancun for spring break and just, you know, saw some stuff. -Joe Quick 01:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Right. I agree with that. I was thinking more along those lines anyway. But you do bring up a good point. hmmm. Well, there's the approval process. Garbage will get weeded out by peer review. Howard, somewhere else, pointed out that article status of "developing" and "developed" must mean something. Maybe the EC could adopt a policy that advancement in article status should require editorial approval. This would bring the editors into article development more frequently than solely at the approval stage. Thus, garbage content would be weeded out during article development. BUT this is a policy for the EC and not the charter. Russell D. Jones 16:21, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Joe, what do you think of Article 14? Does that put enough controls on original research? Russell D. Jones 16:28, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe, but I'm not sure. If original research is properly controlled by the EC, this is fine. I think I'm feeling uneasy about this because I can't know how the EC will handle the issue. If original research means new insight that follows established criteria for academics or professionals, then it should be incorporated into CZ. If original research means all of the things Wikipedia says it does, then I don't want to see most of it. Can anyone think of charter language that clearly delineates the difference? I've been thinking but haven't come up with anything yet. --Joe Quick 04:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Let's define original research. I think original research can be delineated into three categories: 1) Original synthesis - experts putting concepts together into reasonable rational order, 2) original research - a researcher reporting on observations made during a study, and 3) the wikipedia style original research - when a lay person puts together hand picked sources to make a case for a particular point of view.

I think we want 1, maybe 2, and not 3. This is what will make us different than wikipedia and attractive to editors and academia and remain citable in schools.

It is important... maybe important enough that we need it to have a 2/3 vote to change (i.e. maybe it should be in the charter). Can we put that into words at the charter level, or should we let the EC do it... I don't know, but I'm willing to listen.

D. Matt Innis 12:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

But Matt, 1 and 2 are just subcategories of 3. A professional historian's or economist's or psychologist's or any other academic's argument is nothing more than "hand picked sources to make a case for a particular point of view." The difference is that they're experts with Ph.D.'s, so that makes their biased argument better than the lay person's biased argument. Even better, an economist can use a mathematical equation to prove that their biased argument based on hand picked sources is better (because, as everybody knows, if it can be expressed mathematically, it's science). But maybe this is just my over-educated point of view. Certainly, the economist or historian has a much more honed and precise style of argumentation that does tend to take into account or render inconsequential counter-argument; that's all part of being disciplined.

I agree that having respect for the expert's original contributions to knowledge will enhance CZ and make it attractive. Where we'll get into trouble is original research on Broadway Musicals or on Metallica.

Can we fall back on the editorial approval process or peer review? Garbage will get weeded out by our expert editors as articles develop. Russell D. Jones 16:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

(undent) another category to consider, perhaps the ill-defined Topic Informant. Given we have a real names policy, I don't necessarily see precluding plausible personal accounts, identified as such.

Also, not all honed arguments are academic. Few professional engineers or practicing health care professionals, giving expert opinions, consider themselves academics. Experts, yes. In formal intelligence reporting that isn't politicized, there is a very nuanced way to state confidence in various observations and conclusions, and indeed objections.

I'd note that going back to peer/editor review, which I support, runs against the extreme of authors being able to develop without interference. If desired, I can give several examples of where I believe I used appropriate original synthesis, typically arranging primary sources side-by-side.

Howard C. Berkowitz 16:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Howard, there's a difference between peer/editor review and peer/editor oversight. I see that peer/editor review happens as requested by authors. I see no conflict provided editors mind their own business instead of everybody else's. Russell D. Jones 16:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The $64 dollar, or other folksy metaphor, question is when an Editor should consider inaccuracy, advocacy, or just plain unreadability his or her business. There have been articles on conspiracy theories that I couldn't critique because I couldn't understand part of the prose, and all the citations were in a language I don't read. Howard C. Berkowitz 16:44, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Article 14 deals with original research (and currently leaves the detailed definition to the EC), so I suggest to simply delete the second part of the sentence here, resulting in

An Editorial Council shall be empowered to develop policy on content and style.

--Daniel Mietchen 22:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed to drop second part. Howard C. Berkowitz 23:12, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Agree --Russell D. Jones 00:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree D. Matt Innis 00:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree Joe Quick 04:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)