Dreaming 5GW

Today I discovered a visitor referred from the Norwegian version of Wikipedia to my post “5GW and Christianity.”  The article is on fifth-generation warfare and includes links to tdaxp, ZenPundit, Global Guerrillas, PurpleSlog, and Coming Anarchy.  (All of which can be found in my blogroll on the main page of PC.)  So naturally, I searched for the English language version, and found one.  The article appears to be only the bare outline for a new article, and the English version does not include a complete list of the many “external links” included on the Norwegian page —  although the numbers for those external links do link to articles on the blogs already mentioned.

The English article may also be subject to deletion for violating the Wikipedia “No original research” policy. A discussion has in fact begun today concerning deletion. That discussion is also quite bare, as yet.

The article needs some work to make it Wikipedia-compliant.  I wonder how much sourced material is necessary, and of exactly what variety, quality?  The idea behind 5GW is quite new, after all, and may be only theoretical, bouncing as yet between only a handful of interested bloggers. The “no original research policy” clearly states the following:

However, it also includes new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, or concepts —including that which would amount to, in the words of Wikipedia’s co-founder Jimbo Wales, a “novel narrative or historical interpretation.”

On the other hand, the line between “reputable sources” and other sources is growing thin, as the Blogosphere and the Internet in general grow.  For instance, the Wikipedia policy also states:

Wikipedia articles include material on the basis of verifiability, not truth. That is, we report what other reliable sources have published, whether or not we regard the material as accurate. In order to avoid doing original research, and in order to help improve the quality of Wikipedia articles, it is essential that any primary-source material, as well as any generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data, has been published by a reputable third-party publication (that is, not self-published) that is available to readers either from a website (other than Wikipedia) or through a public library. It is very important to cite sources appropriately, so that readers can find your source and can satisfy themselves that Wikipedia has used the source correctly. [ed. — my emphasis]

Most of the blogs cited in the article are self-published, but in the Blogosphere, certain sections of each blog article may be republished in other blogs.  The “third-party publication ” may not be “reputable” (as it often is not) if that third party is a blog; but deciding a definition for “reputable” may become more of a problem in the future, and one wonders if blog rankings might eventually be the scale used to determine reputability.

The Wikipedia policy also makes clear that “source-based research” is perfectly fine:

Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not “original research”; it is “source-based research”, and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia.

But one may wonder, as I have, if every topic on the Blogosphere must have its own article in Wikipedia…In any case, the article as currently written does not objectively present the different concepts of 5GW being bandied about the ‘Net. I think that a healthier discussion of 5GW, including pros and cons of many particulars from many more sources, ought to precede a Wikipedia article, in order for that article to have true objectivity in selecting sources and presenting the idea of 5GW to those new to the concept. It may be too early.

UPDATE 6-17-06: The article has now been deleted by Wikipedia. We might view this as an example of network resilience. Or not.

Filed in The Vault and tagged Wikipedia