Submissions/OR - the policy we all break on English Wikipedia

This is an accepted submission for Wikimania 2014.

Submission no. 1116

Title of the submission: OR - the policy we all break on English Wikipedia

Type of submission (discussion, hot seat, panel, presentation, tutorial, workshop): Presentation

Author of the submission: Peter Gallert

E-mail address: petergallertdirectbox.com

Username: Pgallert

Country of origin: Namibia

Affiliation, if any (organisation, company etc.): Polytechnic of Namibia

Personal homepage or blog: None

Abstract (at least 300 words to describe your proposal)

Wikipedia is an immense source of knowledge, and it is created by research. It is the 21st century's definition, outline, and bibliography of human knowledge---three milestones that have been attempted in past ages, and whenever this was done, the output was regarded not merely as a publication. There is no encyclopedia without research; the mere selection of material is an act of research, as are most other tasks of editors and writers.

Yet English Wikipedia has a policy on No Original Research forbidding to do just that. Not surprisingly it is being broken so frequently, with impunity, by a majority of otherwise rule-obeying editors, than any other piece of regulation. In fact, there is hardly a single article which doesn't contain Original Research (OR) to some degree, including those in our highest assessment classes. OR according to current reading of the policy is for instance:

Pictures or coordinates taken by an editor, because we don't have any guarantee that the object is indeed on the picture, or at the indicated place.
Most picture subscripts, because you will almost never have a reference that annotates this very picture in that way.
Many navigation boxes and topical infoboxes, if there are no reliable sources that support this type of topic grouping.
In-text source evaluations in the form of "Y claims that X", which, although factual, express criticism of X (If we agreed we would simply write X and cite the source of author Y).

More generally, all considerations regarding notability, verifiability and reliable, independent sourcing belong to the realm of research. While the discussions on these issues are held outside the main space, the result becomes visible on our article pages, and the result is a research result. No reliable sources will normally be available for meta-considerations like these. Moreover, demanding justification for references in the form of references leads to infinite regress and is thus logically impossible to satisfy:

Prove that X is a reliable source for Y
Source Z says so
Prove that Z is a reliable source for "X is a reliable source for Y"
Source A says so
Prove that A is a reliable source for 'Z is a reliable source for "X is a reliable source for Y"'
...

In the presentation I will look at the historic development of the No Original Research policy and suggest several ways out of the present dilemma. I will also agitate to not keep a policy unchanged that everyone is forced to break, as that potentially fuels wikilawyering.

Track: WikiCulture & Community

Length of session (if other than 30 minutes, specify how long): 20 minutes + 10 minutes discussion

Will you attend Wikimania if your submission is not accepted?: Yes, I got a scholarship

Slides or further information (optional): I will develop slides should my submission be accepted. For an essay on the topic, see here.

Special requests: None

Interested attendees

If you are interested in attending this session, please sign with your username below. This will help reviewers to decide which sessions are of high interest. Sign with a hash and four tildes. (# ~~~~).

Interesting and provocative proposal from a speaker who has had interesting things to say in the past. MartinPoulter (talk) 16:10, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. "What is research?" and "When is it 'original'?" are questions that really cut to the heart of the matter. Bravo! #LaFolleCycliste (talk) 06:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Shyamal (talk) 04:42, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
AWang (WMF) (talk) 22:38, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel Case (talk) 01:50, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Frank Hendriks (talk) 14:37, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]