User talk:AtomicDragon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

[edit] Welcome

Welcome!

Hello AtomicDragon, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  Friday (talk) 18:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the welcome, but I've actually been here for a while now (although I don't think I got around to creating account until last spring). I’ve been through a lot of the policy by now and probably get a bit preachy with some of them when talking about Wiki outside of WP, and have used them to make my own wiki encyclopedia elsewhere on the specific topic of Otherkin. AtomicDragon 18:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
    Alright, consider it a belated welcome then. :) If you're interested and knowledgable about the Otherkin topics, I'd be interested in working with you there. So far there's not been a lot of interest in purging the article of its less reputable sources. Of course, this could be because I'm the only person in the world who considers them poor sources, I dunno. I'm not entirely convinced there's much that can be written about this topic while still observing the verifiability and NOR policies. Friday (talk) 18:38, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
I can see how others would view it as a conflict with the NOR policy, but in my mind it seems like there is somewhat of a spectrum with original research on one end and repeating what is common enough to be in other encyclopedias and zillions of sources on the other end. The question is where to draw the line, as most spectrum issues seem to go. At what point does it go from being a conglomeration or description of "sources" to original research? I imagine there are examples on science topics where there are several papers with conflicting views on a topic, yet a decent WP article exists on it. And although a bit contrived for an example, one could view peer-reviewed papers as internal, self-contained statements much like the essays written and discussed within the otherkin community are (just a huge and drastic difference in size and background).
The question of what is a reputable source is also difficult, especially considering the nature of otherkin. It is fair sized, but it is too small to show up in publications much. It is also not outrageous or attention-grabbing as some beliefs and cults are that allow them to be much, much smaller, yet end up in a large amount of publications. As a group or community, they are also very loosely bound with no central doctrine. The best idea I can think of is that the verifiability and/or validity of a source is kind of relative to size of a group to some degree. For an article on something as prevalent as Christianity, it is probably better to cite sources by scholars, whereas for something under the radar of scholars, the best information out there is going to be by smaller no-name essays and write-ups.
I do admit that it is kind of an interesting situation from the theoretical stand point, trying to define where the boundaries of say sociological research is compared to simple summaries of written accounts and so on, but that still leaves the issue of what is to be actually done. It certainly is worth discussion. AtomicDragon 19:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
And by the way, thanks to your welcome, I caught sight of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Beer. I'm sure several other members of the Caltech Beer Brewing club and myself will be happy to look into that. AtomicDragon 19:10, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/t/o/User_talk%7EAtomicDragon_a45e.html"