[Taxacom] Wikipedia rewrites

[John Grehan]

Doug,

Thanks for the clarification. Since there is more than one author
publishing on the orangutan theory this is not a problem.

John Grehan



> -----Original Message-----
> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [mailto:taxacom-
> bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Doug Yanega
> Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2009 8:54 PM
> To: TAXACOM at MAILMAN.NHM.KU.EDU
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Wikipedia rewrites
> 
> John Grehan wrote:
> 
> >I plan to go viral more or less and track down every
> >traditional assertion about our purported common origins with the
> >chimpanzee and provide the alternative. Its going to be very
interesting
> >to see what happens. This may not be a first, but it will be a first
for
> >human evolution theory where the orangutan theory has been
successfully
> >excluded from traditional accounts. In due course if I get
comfortable
> >enough with the techniques I might also add an orangutan origins
page.
> 
> Just as a reminder for what we *were* discussing here, Wikipedia has
> a strict policy against the inclusion of original research. One
> excerpt in particular is especially informative in this case:
> ----
> The prohibition against original research limits the extent to which
> editors may present their own points of view in articles. By
> reinforcing the importance of including verifiable research produced
> by others, this policy promotes the inclusion of multiple points of
> view. Consequently, this policy reinforces our neutrality policy. In
> many cases, there are multiple established views of any given topic.
> In such cases, no single position, no matter how well researched, is
> authoritative. It is not the responsibility of any one editor to
> research all points of view. But when incorporating research into an
> article, it is important that editors provide context for this point
> of view, by indicating how prevalent the position is, and whether it
> is held by a majority or minority.
> The inclusion of a view that is held only by a tiny minority may
> constitute original research. Jimbo Wales has said of this:
> 	*	If your viewpoint is in the majority, then it should
> be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted
> reference texts;
> 	*	If your viewpoint is held by a significant minority,
> then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
> 	*	If your viewpoint is held by an extremely small
> minority, then - whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it
> or not - it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, except perhaps in some
> ancillary article. Wikipedia is not the place for original
> research.[8]
> ----
> 
> So, if there are multiple researchers who have published on the
> human-orangutan hypothesis, then it's fair game for Wikipedia, though
> it must be clearly stated that it is a minority hypothesis.
> 
> Peace,
> --
> 
> Doug Yanega        Dept. of Entomology         Entomology Research
Museum
> Univ. of California, Riverside, CA 92521-0314        skype: dyanega
> phone: (951) 827-4315 (standard disclaimer: opinions are mine, not
UCR's)
>               http://cache.ucr.edu/~heraty/yanega.html
>    "There are some enterprises in which a careful disorderliness
>          is the true method" - Herman Melville, Moby Dick, Chap. 82
> _______________________________________________
> 
> Taxacom Mailing List
> 
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> 
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> 
> The entire Taxacom Archive back to 1992 can be searched with either of
> these methods:
> 
> http://taxacom.markmail.org
> 
> Or use a Google search specified as:
> site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here