Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tarquin (talk | contribs) at 21:59, 6 July 2004. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Okay, so say I disagree with an article because it discussing some minor viewpoint that has never been refuted because the viewpoint only generated one or two papers that were ignored by the scholarly community. The original idea that is junk has source material. Refuting the idea will require original research because nobody else has done it. How should this be done? I can post a link to say a Kuro5hin discussion. Is that adaquate? Would it be better to create an article in Meta and then link to that? Jrincayc 18:11, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

No, I don't think an article you've created in Meta would be an acceptable source. If there is no original material refuting something, then we can't report that, in my opinion. Angela. 00:41, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)

Reddi: I'm not really clear on the information you put here, but as far as I can tell #2 at least implies it's OK to outright lie in articles. - Hephaestos 03:32, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The information is from the links in the article. ... the other points are from List of alternative, speculative and disputed theories ...

Sincerely, JDR

I have read them. I see nothing in them that would imply asserting claims which contradict experimentally established results (emphasis mine) is not grounds for exclusion. I apologize however for screwing up and reverting too much earlier, I only question the last edit with the list at the end. - Hephaestos 03:42, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

There are articles, I would guess, that assert claims which contradict experimentally established results ... that in of itself is why some theories are "disputed" it would seem. This does not mean that it's "ok" to lie ... but to note exactly that (ie., whatever the toipic is, that it does contradict the experiments currently know) ... Sincerely, JDR

Ah. I think I understand now; let me know if you disagree with my next edit. - Hephaestos 03:52, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It looks good to me ... hopefully others will comment. JDR 03:56, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Excellent. Thanks! - Hephaestos 04:00, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

In a discussion elsewhere on wikipedia (], I wrote the following. Some of it may be worthwhile in salvaging into the article, but I wouldn't presume adding it myself without some support. Martijn faassen 22:06, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I come to wikipedia (or any encyclopedia) not to read the original views of an individual but to survey the consensus views (possibly several competing ones) on the state of the world (science, history, culture, etc). This way I see the outline of the landscape, and learn some interesting details mostly undisputed, and see some connections, and see what the important theories and debates are. Misplaced Pages tries to be careful in presenting different points of view; it is helped in this as so many people can contribute. If at the same time I can run into singular original views unexpectedly, this will reduce the value of the wikipedia as an overview of the world and ideas at large. I cannot trust it in this function anymore.

Being an overview and a summary, it cannot present the new ideas of a single individual, no matter how true, because this would be misleading as a summary. An idea shared by many should be presented, an idea shared by a significant minority should be presented, but if all the original ideas of singular individuals are to be presented, the forest would be invisible for the trees. Present these completely original ideas in other channels. If it then becomes well-known and debated, it can enter wikipedia.

I am in some difficilty here, for what seems to be discussed is original research in new ideas and theories. Where does original historial writing come in? As an example, I have made a special study of early encyclopaedias and have a number of them on my shelves. I wish to write a piece about Rees's Cyclopaedia and have information about the contributors, printing history and content. I have published about this in relation to the work of the technical writer John Farey, jr (1791-1851). I have also written about Farey for the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, The biographical dictionary of Civil engineers, as well as a number of journal articles on aspects of his life and work. He was the son of John Farey, jr the gologist and discoverer of Farey Numbers, who is mentioned in Misplaced Pages and deserves a proper page.

I am the only writer on Farey Jr, since the original DNB and I have had no feed-back from anyone. Does this mean I should not include him in Misplaced Pages? Likewise Rees's Cyclopaedia has never been written up, yet is an important source for Regency endeavour, in particular on the technology and sciences of the time. It is widely quoted by modern writers on the history of technology and industrial archaeology.

The problem in the UK is that technical history (the history of the useful arts) is not studied in higher education. A recent paper stated that we have 1 professor of the history of technology, compared with about 80 in the States. Such journals as there are are produced in very small print runs,often <500, and as there is very little academic demand few libraries subscribe to them. I am not suggesting journal articles, but Misplaced Pages would be an ideal way of disseminating encyelopaedia style writings, especially as they can be linked to other pages of relevance. Apwoolrich 14:04, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't think there is a problem here. If you write an article on Rees's Cyclopaedia, then it's about a clearly-defined thing. The facts can be verified by anyone else with access to a copy. I'd say go ahead. -- Tarquin 21:59, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)