Talk:Article hub: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
(By 142.177.X.X, moved from the article by Juxo ) |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
Note: there is no [[ontological distinction]] between research and opinion: research is the opinion of a researcher. And anyone can be a "researcher". Thus, opinions are indistinguishable from other forms of research - except that one could say "facts are research, and analysis is opinion. [[Critical Point of View]] articles that don't even pretend to be [[NPOV|neutral]]. These are part of "research" but clearly marked. They are often drawn from outside text, in the form of [[campaign]]s for and against some entity, such as [[company]], [[product group]], [[product|individual product]], [[area]] ([[country]], [[ecoregion]]) or a piece of [[advertising]] which is clearly promotional. An opinion starts as the lowest-credibility form of research and those who provide it will often be engaged with the [[Lowest Troll]] to determine if the authors or transmitters or republishers are [[funded troll]]s being paid to trash or promote some commercial service. | Note: there is no [[ontological distinction]] between research and opinion: research is the opinion of a researcher. And anyone can be a "researcher". Thus, opinions are indistinguishable from other forms of research - except that one could say "facts are research, and analysis is opinion. [[Critical Point of View]] articles that don't even pretend to be [[NPOV|neutral]]. These are part of "research" but clearly marked. They are often drawn from outside text, in the form of [[campaign]]s for and against some entity, such as [[company]], [[product group]], [[product|individual product]], [[area]] ([[country]], [[ecoregion]]) or a piece of [[advertising]] which is clearly promotional. An opinion starts as the lowest-credibility form of research and those who provide it will often be engaged with the [[Lowest Troll]] to determine if the authors or transmitters or republishers are [[funded troll]]s being paid to trash or promote some commercial service. | ||
:The above could be rewritten, but, to invent a new third wiki to decide whether [[Research Wiki]] stuff should be visible in the [[Publish Wiki]] is just insane, so that implication is removed until some viable approach can be agreed. let's look at the issue in depth here: | |||
::Research is the opinion of a researcher - even if it quotes others and has the famous [[neutral point of view]], the researcher is still deciding what sources are credible, what not to quote, etc.; if there was no need for critical views, there'd be no need to research that product or service, so all of it should be assumed [[Critical Point of View]] unless it is clearly advertising or other propaganda originating from someone with an interest - if we assume that everything is by [[funded troll]]s, and must prove it is critical before it gets to [[Publish Wiki]], that's another option, but, one with implications | |||
::The comments about something's status or credibility belong in [[Research Wiki]] as a sort of structured [[Talk Page]] using [[TIPAESA]] because that's where people dispute the research. The sources used in that debate should be all over the place, we don't need a separate "Opinion Wiki" just for that - we should be referring to [[Wikinfo]], [[Disinfopedia]], [[CorpKnowPedia]], etc.. in those structured arguments. All the more reason for an [[interwiki link standard]]. | |||
::The test for getting to [[Publish Wiki]] has to be fair and objective, based on some [[edits, votes and bets]] system, not based on some [[sysop power structure]] for which [[CGO]] will end up directly liable. Let's not make the [[Wikimedia]] mistake! | |||