User:Lode Runner

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] The War Against Rules-Lawyers

After a year or two of idle tinkering, I've finally found a cause worthy of my focus.

In the face of all the accusations against Wikipedia not being a "real" encyclopedia, the push for verifiability was a smart one. But instead of using these policies to weed out questionable information, they are more frequently being used to brow-beat others on talk pages--especially WP:NOR.

Even when paraphrasing and summarizing, we still need creativity. The rules lawyers of Wikipedia would have us choose a single "correct" interpretation from a multitude of primary and secondary sources--this interpretation just always happens to be their own.

All reasonably worded articles must include some degree of synthesis. By "reasonably worded", I mean more than straightforward declarative sentences along the lines of "source X believes it but source Y doesn't." Can you imagine an entire article reading like that? Can you name me a single featured article that did? Real encyclopedias don't regurgitate other peoples' arguments word for word. They aggregate, they summarize, they even point out obvious inferences without bothering to cite them. This is because they are in fact--*gasp!*--entirely original conclusions (or at least independently-arrived conclusions.) But they are very simple, rational ones, and there can't be any credible source to refute them.

My current goal is to clarify WP:NOR since it the most quoted (I want to say "wielded") policy, other than perhaps WP:NPOV. Since I fear an uphill battle if I try to clarify that WP:SYN is, in fact, completely unenforceable in absolute terms, I will first be focusing on the clarification of original research (including synthesis) in the decision making progress. Baby steps.

The rules lawyers seem to have this idea that all Wikipedia policies apply to the talk pages as they do to the articles. This is completely absurd. Clearly, the spirit of WP:NOR is to prevent suspect information from being included in the articles themselves--not to stifle intelligent debate. In other words, any non-trivial information you add to an article should definitely be cited, but your reasons for adding it can include original research. Behind the (hopefully) unbiased, objective article lies a wealth of often controversial information, and original research (especially synthesis) is vital in the decision making process. This is the basis of my proposed addition to WP:NOR. In detail:

[edit] Is original research ever permissible?

Original research should not be included in new articles or additions to existing Wikpedia articles. However:

  • This does not apply to talk pages or to any other page that is not a Wikipedia article (including, but not limited to, the village pump, mediation pages, and user pages.) When editors suggest an addition to an article, they should endeavor to find sources for their claims but sources are not required to discuss an issue. On the contrary, synthesis is often a vital part of the decision making process even though it isn't allowed in the article itself. In other words, original research may be used as an argument for the inclusion of reputably sourced material, but the fruits of that research must not be included in the article itself.
  • This does not apply to the proposed removal or alteration of unsourced material from the article.
  • This does not apply to proposed formatting, rewording (so long as the reworded version does not contradict any applicable sources), page redirection, or any other sort of action that does not add new content to the article or remove/alter content that is properly sourced.
  • If doubt exists over whether something is original research, consider the overall necessity to the article. If there is a consensus that the article suffers significantly without it, put it in (see WP:IAR.)

These exceptions exist to facilitate intelligent debate, not shoehorn your own personal opinion into an article. Original research does not imply bias--editors are still expected to present a neutral point of view.

[edit] Is it personal?

Some people objected to my demonizing of rules lawyers and usage of the word "war." I'd be lying if I said this wasn't personal--I am COMPLETELY FED UP with these types of useless people. I'm sure a few of them mean well, but the majority seem to be a new, clever kind of vandal that uses unclear policies to drown out the opposition. It's hard to be civil with someone who is clearly pushing his own agenda (but will never admit the existence of his own huge synthesises) while lambasting you for allegedly pushing yours.

However, I am not and will not support any effort intended to disrupt Wikipedia. The policy mistakes my newfound foes have pointed out are genuine (minor) mistakes. If consensus clearly does not support any of my proposals, I will simply retire from Wikipedia permanently. --Lode Runner 06:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)