GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2007-12 > 1198081661


From: Crystal <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Removal of Genetics Component of Wiki Article
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 08:27:41 -0800 (PST)


Unfortunately the WIKI site clearly states that it's not for original work but IMO if they reference or include any work.. well .. All work at some point is "original". In reality an encyclopedia is just a comprehensive collection of articles/books/references about a wide variety of subjects (or even a singular subject I suppose)... there is no reason original works could not be included (or referenced to another website). however I can see WIKI's point with the ease of adding information they need to limit the scope or the site could become unusable (for the general public) .. they need clear and concise wording for their articles and even prefer them to broken into several articles if too verbose and at some point in some subjects everyone has a thoery :) :) .

However, as a believer in alt. med, etc. I find their exclusion on non-peer reviewed information short sited. It was not long ago that a physician was scoffed at for proposing that Ulcers could be cause by H. Pylori. If this was a few years ago this information would have been excluded. A reference such as this might have generated more interest at a faster rate as there is much more exposure and many more people would have been helped.

Anyway IMO while one must abide by the WIKI site rule of no "original" work (as they are the owners) but I don't see why he can't create a website and reference it within the subject as a rising alternative viewpoint. He could quite easily do that - didn't he own/partner on a DNA company? (if I remember rightly). He can reference that company and his work quite legitimately - if they need to have it "published" elsewhere first then I suggest that he submit an article to a Genealogy Mag/webmag referencing his work/site. Many of them would love an article on a topic such at this - he would then have his "published" criteria met. Regardless I don't think a brief assertion about his research within the subject should be excluded tho clearly he can't post the whole work there (as per their rules).

Unfortunately for David he's going to have to work harder to get his subject viewpoint allowed due to the person who's against him.. but if I was David it would just make me work harder to get it there. :) :)

This thread: