User:Hillgentleman/NORUYCDI

No Original Research unless You Can Defend It

       Work in progress 

This is a toy model of a policy, an attempt to generalise slightly Wikipedia's No Original Research policy. Two other core policies of Wikipedia are Neutral Point of View and Verifiability.

 Policy: Wikiversity allows original researches, within the constraints of the Laws, 
 so long as the principal participants of such a research are available
 and can satisfactorily answer queries and defend the research.

A typical scenario may be: a scholar visits Wikiversity, studies, collaborates with others, answers some questions, discovers something interesting, reports it in a publication (either within Wikiversity or without), then she can do something else, or she is free to leave. If she leaves, her scribbles on the Wikiversity blackboard would be unintelligeble to others. And so a custodian wipes the blackboard clean for new scholars.

Remark: Research is, by nature, temporary. A successful piece of research matures into common knowledge. Thus it makes much sense that the materials in Wikiversity pertaining to research have, in a sense, a time limit.

Question 0: How does this differ from the No Original Research policy on Wikipedia? How does defending differ from citing sources?

Preliminary answer: The basic difference is that Wikipedia assume that the reader does nothing but checking facts. In principle, Wikipedians are not supposed to understand an argument (see en:w:WP:NOR#Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position. On the other hand, in principle, Wikiversity scholars are supposed to understand logical arguments, if the relvent facts are provided.

Wikiversity scholars can and must support themselves with combinations of known facts and logical arguments.

Question 1: Does it work to prevent unsubstantiated researches staying in Wikiversity?

Preliminary answer: It works at least to some extend. Most people who think deeply would welcome questions. Those who are faking it will not stand much scrutiny.

Question 2: Does it serve to encourage good scholars to come?

Question 3: Who should take the responsibility of scrutinising?

Preliminary answer: Everybody.

Question 4: Who should decide whether someone is faking or not?

Preliminary answer: The community. It would be good to have an knowlegable person who asks the questions, and the community can see if the scholar in question can support himself. But it may not be entirely necessary. Anybody can ask for clarification.

Question 5: What if there is a dispute in the result of the scrutiny?

Answer: I do not know.

Question 6: How can we guarentee the quality of the studies?

Answer: The publication is reviewed. If nobody within Wikiversity is competent enough to review the report, then the scholar should go outside of Wikiversity to publish.

Question 7: What if some good scholar who holds a minority view is mercilessly attacked?

Answer: No personal attacks, of course. But he may become tired of answering even objective questions and decide to leave. I do not know.

Question 8:...

Answer: If Wikiversity is ever to succeed at all, it should consist of and should attract intelligent thinkers, who can think independently, who would take time to understand, who can tell what is good from what is bad, and some who can also explain it to other people,....

Question 9:How can one tell a good scholar from a bad scholar?

Answer: I do not know. We must put our trust in the community for that - if Wikiversity is ever going to work. After all, we come here to learn.

Question 10: