Wikipedia talk:No original research (draft rewrite 5th December 2004 to 5th February 2005)

Wider review

Are we ready to open this up to wider review, such as via RFC and the Village Pump? Maurreen 05:50, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes. Be careful how you frame the question, though — the question is not whether the draft rewrite is perfect (it almost certainly isn't, and there are many fine points that will continue to be debated), but whether it is a clear improvement over the existing policy page. —Steven G. Johnson 01:20, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

I think the draft we now have is fine for wider discussion. It addresses the question I raised back in the autum and now has a focused definition of what No Original Research actually means. I can't see anyone wanting to hang on to the original phrasing now. Apwoolrich 21:04, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Intro examples

I think the draft was better when it gave examples in the intro. Doing so made it more clear. Maurreen 07:53, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Do you mean examples of sources? If so, I disagree, because the paragraph was mixing up (a) what sources may be used by editors and (b) what kind of source Wikipedia is. Also (c) these definitions are not the way I've used the terms, and I've been working for years in a business that relies on these distinctions, so if I'm finding it confusing, that suggests to me that others will too. I'd have taken it out altogether, but as a compromise, I shoved it down a bit, and changed the title to make clearer what it was saying. What do you think? I can suggest a good way to test what I'm saying. Isolate that paragraph; find a few honest editors, show them the paragraph; ask them not to look up the terms on Google, but just to say what the paragraph means to them. My guess is that no one will be much the wiser, if any, for having read it. SlimVirgin 08:48, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

No, I mean this: "The phrase 'original research' in this context refers to untested theories; data, statements, concepts and ideas that have not been published in a reputable publication; or any new synthesis of published data, statements, concepts or ideas ..." Maurreen 09:04, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Did I remove that? If so, I didn't mean to. I agree that it's a helpful description. SlimVirgin 19:42, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

It was taken out a while ago; no biggie. I just put it back. Maurreen 05:05, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

On second thought

I think the examples can be tweaked, maybe like this: "The phrase 'original research' in this context can include untested theories; data, statements, concepts and ideas that have not been published in a reputable publication; or any new synthesis of published data, statements, concepts or ideas ..." Maurreen 06:10, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"includes" is probably clearer than "can include" SlimVirgin 19:19, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

I used "can" deliberately, although maybe imperfectly.

We had agreement earlier that unpublished but unchallenged statements could be acceptable.

I think theories can be in a different class than many statements. Also, this and the discussion below are somewhat related to the Slrubenstein's original distinction between scholarly topics and others. Maurreen 05:39, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Can you give an example of an unpublished but unchallenged statement that would be acceptable? SlimVirgin 06:02, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

They are further up this page, here. Maurreen 06:48, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'd be surprised if none of these statements had been published at some point somewhere, if they're true. If you leave a loophole allowing unpublished data to be used, unscrupulous editors will swim through it. That doesn't mean that every commonsense claim has to be sourced ("the sun will rise tomorrow"), but anything challenged does, and if challenged, the editor has to source it or remove it. "Can include" is unclear and introduces an unnecessary doubt. SlimVirgin 07:03, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

Section about different kinds of sources

Sirubenstein, you put the sources section back in the intro. I strongly disagree with this, as it's largely meaningless, because it seems to confuse three things: (a) a general description of what historians regard as different categories of sources; (b) a description of what kind of sources Wikipedia editors ought to use; and (c) a description of what kind of source Wikipedia is. In addition, the first sentence is meaningless. What does: "More specifically, original research usually takes the form of primary sources or secondary sources" mean? It isn't correct English. "Research" doesn't "take the form of" sources. I would like to revert back to the previous version unless someone can explain. SlimVirgin 21:34, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

First, I honestly thought Maureen was objecting to your change, and you were agreeing with her. Second ... I don't understand your first point (or I just don't agree with you). I do understand your second point though and I think it can be addressed more effectively by reweriting it rather than by moving the section lower. Slrubenstein 22:09, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It still makes no sense:

"Original research is research that relies on primary sources, and often relies on secondary sources. Primary sources present information or data, such as archeological artifacts; photographs; historical documents such as a diary, census, transcript of a public hearing, trial, or interview; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires, records of laboratory assays or observations; records of field observations. Secondary sources present a generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data."

This means we're saying: (a) original research is not allowed; (b) original research is research that relies on e.g. photographs, historical documents such as a diary, and sources that present inter alia an analysis of information or data; ergo (c) none of (b) is allowed.

That rules out a lot of material that Wikipedia editors could use. For example, if a transcript of a court case is made available, you're saying Wikipedia can't refer to it. This section needs to go, because it's wrong and will cause a lot of confusion. Can you express what you want to say differently? As it stands, I honestly can't see what you mean.

"Original research" is simply material that has not been published in a reputable publication, with the qualification that the word "reputable" is not a precise term. It doesn't matter what kind of sources its based on. It could be based on primary, secondary or even tertiary sources. Anything that is (i) based on unpublished data; (ii) based on published data but analysed or synthesized in a novel way; or (iii) based on a disreputable or dodgy publication (e.g. the house journal of a fascist cult, except where discussion of what that cult believes is strictly relevant), is "original research". SlimVirgin 23:34, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

I wholly agree with SlimVirgin's last paragraph. That is what we really mean! Perhaps it should be in the new version. The terms primary, secondary and tertiary source are terms taken from historiography, and are attempts to apply them to an encyclopedia is just creating needless problems. The intro needs to be simple and clear, and reference to historiography does not help. I'm reasonably happy that there be a section that explores this is issue with regard to the policy later in the article; but I'm not confident that section will ever become truly precise. :ChrisG 12:52, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"reputable" sources

The section entitled What counts as a reputable publication? goes far beyond the current principle of Wikipedia:No original research, as I see it, in suggesting that Wikipedia as a whole discriminate among its sources on grounds of mass approval, editorial and administrative structure, et cetera. I disagree strongly with this principle in its current unqualified form. Why not keep the draft rewrite closer to the current guideline in scope, remove that section, and introduce use reputable sources as a separate proposed guideline for discussion in the policy thinktank? It might be more easily disentangled from the rest of the rewrite discussion that way. -- Rbellin|Talk 00:11, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The business about editorial structure is just an example, Rbellin. The point is that "reputable" is impossible to define, but we can develop a series of intuitions about it by looking at examples. It does not mean minority views would automatically count as disreputable. It does mean that the publication must have attained some degree of public authority or public recognition. Otherwise, I could set up my own research company and website tonight -- SlimVirgin Research Associates -- and start quoting from it. So we do need SOME standard of evaluation of sources, and some way of describing that standard. Someone recently deleted that Israel was a parliamentary democracy, and when asked for a source, s/he produced a letter to the Guardian letters page. That's the kind of thing we need to make clear is not acceptable. What would you suggest as a way of describing what kind of sources should and should not be used? SlimVirgin 00:33, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

I hold that the only important criterion for judging sources is relevance. The rest can be settled on a case-by-case basis just as Wikipedia has been doing for some time now; there is no urgent need for more codified rules, and the last thing I'd like would be for guidelines about "reputable" sources to scare off even one editor, or keep even one citation from being entered. This guideline seems like an overreaching attempt to make rules for every situation; it is my belief that Wikipedia thrives on openness, and that most of its problems are quite resistant to legislated solutions. (Also, the draft is quite unclear about what you call "just an example": that "ask yourself..." paragraph looks like a part of the guideline to me.)

POV pushers and cranks such as the one you mention above are certainly not going to be bothered by sourcing guidelines (and anyway, the NPOV version of that edit would have been to add "a Guardian letter-writer believed it not to be a democracy," not to delete the text). Go ahead and set up that research company web site, and try to cite it on Wikipedia; your citations will almost certainly be deleted as self-promotion, spam, or irrelevant -- unless they are useful and intelligent enough that they actually contribute value to Wikipedia as sources. The community already does a pretty good job of filtering out useless contributions; a more restrictive guideline will likely discourage some of the useful ones.

Further, I disagree that partisan, small, or independent sources are either "disreputable" or undesirable as sources (in all, or even most, cases). I do not believe Wikipedia should be in the business of assessing other organizations' reputability in the first place. And I find the specific examples in the draft distastefully suggestive of political litmus-testing, when relevance and the specific evidence produced in support of a claim are what matters. Again: if you want to introduce this as a guideline, I'd suggest you separate it from the "no original research" draft and let it be discussed in a separate place, where it can achieve or fail to achieve its own consensus. -- Rbellin|Talk 06:38, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree about supporting the openness policy, and about not wanting to scare editors away. I disagree with your suggestion that, for example, the Guardian letters page thing could have been added as a citation. This editor wanted to remove from the introduction to the article on Israel that it is a parliamentary democracy. It's silly to cater to views like this when the sources offered include a letter to the Guardian and the rest weren't much better. Let me ask you this: What is the point of citing sources, in your view, if any source is acceptable? SlimVirgin 06:59, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

Also, just to clarify, my reason for asking this is to find out what common ground there is between us: something we can agree on and then perhaps build on from there. SlimVirgin 07:33, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

I think "any source is acceptable" -- in fact, anything (short of egregious antisociality) is acceptable -- is the greatest strength of Wikipedia; peer-editor review can correct many problems, and any citation at all is always, always better than none. I'm leaving the specific Israel example aside, as I think it's not quite to the point and don't want to get into a long side discussion.

The very most I'd be comfortable agreeing with as a general rule for all of Wikipedia would be something like: "Try to cite sources that are as widely available, relevant, and credible as possible." I have been thinking about this concern for a while, since I believe it's not a matter that a general rule can help with very much. I think "reputable" is a distraction from the issue: the most general question is is the source credible? -- and the guideline should never discourage citation. Instead, it should encourage citations that are as relevant and credible as possible; this means that we encourage citations from authors or publishers with (a) direct knowledge, (b) field expertise, or (c) stringent fact-checking policies, when such sources are available.

It is still my opinion that the best way to get a strong guideline on what kinds of sources are preferred over others would be to create a separate proposed guideline page and open it up for discussion. Lumping it in with the two very central pages on original research and citation means that the question gets jumbled up with many, many others. I have said enough by now; so feel free to take or discard my opinion on this, and I invite others to contribute theirs. -- Rbellin|Talk 05:44, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think it could be good to make this topic a separate page. Maurreen 06:07, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Rbellin, as this discussion is taking place on the Cite sources page where several other editors have joined in, I'm going to copy your comment onto that page too. Best, SlimVirgin 06:25, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Jallan

Wikipedia is not just a tertiary resource.

In my article on Hrafnkels saga I have a synopsis of the saga. How did I write it? I just read the saga myself and summarized it from there. This makes my synopsis a secondary resource on Hrafnkels saga. I don't see anything wrong with that.

Nor do I see any value in distinguishing sharply between scholarly and non-scholarly subjects.

Haukurth 15:43, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hi Haukurth, I believe the reference to Wikipedia as a tertiary source has been removed, unless someone has replaced it since I last checked. I agree with you: it's both a secondary and tertiary source. SlimVirgin 19:08, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

I should qualify what I've just written: Regarding your Hraknkels saga, if you've merely summarized the contents, I personally don't see a problem with that. But if you've analysed it without reference to scholarly texts, then you're doing original research. If there are no scholarly texts, that's a different matter. In that area, you're unlikely to be challenged, but if an editor were to challenged your analysis (if you have provided one), and you could not justify it with reference to scholarly or other authoritative texts, the other editor could remove it. So the definition of Wikipedia as a secondary source does have to be qualified. When I call it a secondary source, I'm thinking more along the lines of quoting from a trial trancript, but without analysis. SlimVirgin 19:25, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. -- Haukurth 20:37, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

how things stand

Do we have a plan about what we are doing? I know I haven't been active in the discussions, recently -- but I care very much about the work being done here. I happen to think the opening section is now very, very good. What are our priorities now, for finishing this?

I have a set of questions about the state of the discussion here, because sooner or latter (I think sooner) we should try to make this the new version.

(1) As SlimVirgin remarks, we have removed the stuff on "tertiary" sources. That term is used in the current active policy. Should we include something on tertiary in the opening? What should we say?

I would just as soon we didn't mention tertiary, only because primary and secondary cause a degree of confusion already; but if you can think of a very clear way of describing it, I'd have no problem with that. SlimVirgin 03:02, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

(2) I have a reservation about this:

Statements not known to have been published elsewhere may be acceptable if they are not disputed. But if your edit is challenged, you must provide a reputable reference or delete the edit.

I think it opens up a can of worms. I think we should dump the first sentence and keep the second. People may still use unpublished things, but I don't want to put ideas in their heads, especially when the opening section is so clear.

I agree. SlimVirgin 03:02, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

(2) I have a reservation about this:

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not journalism. Wikipedia articles are not news reports, personal journals or weblogs. Wikipedia is not here to provide writers with a platform for their ideas.

I agree with it, but we do have a space for current affairs. I think we need to explain something about how that space works, so as not to confuse people. I also think a major problem here is some people who like to write personal essays, so maybe the stuff on no "personal journals, weblogs" etc. could be expanded.

The current affairs space is only allowed (as I understand it) to report on news reports. Editors there are not allowed to report the news themselves: as in, the president gets shot right next to my computer, and I type a description of the assassination straight into Wikipedia - not allowed, because it's original research, so the same rules apply. SlimVirgin 03:02, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

I just think we should make this clearer in the draft. Do you have any ideas? I think you know more about journalism than I do and could come up with a clearer explanation of our policy. Slrubenstein 17:14, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

(3) The section on verifiability is very very long. I know some people disagree strongly with me, but I think that the section should be as short as possible with a link to the verification article. I absolutely agreed that these two are linked, I just don't think we should cram everything in here. Rather than trying to help people avoid actually going to thee verification policy page, here is my proposal: we finish this up, and then turn our attentions exclusively to the verification policy and see if (how) we can improve that one, next.

I like the section on verifiability because it goes to the heart of original research. Lots of editors understand "no original research" to mean that they're not supposed to submit one of their undergraduate essays or some such. But they don't get that they're not allowed to insert something just because they personally know it to be true. This came up a lot with the videos of the hostages who were beheaded. Several editors had watched the videos and wanted to say X and Y about them, even though these opinions had not been expressed anywhere in the mainstream press; but they couldn't understand why they weren't allowed to describe something they had actually watched. Same with the example I gave above. President gets shot and slumps into my personal lap: I'm still not allowed to mention it on Wikipedia until it hits the wires. So I feel this verifiability versus truth issue is an important epistemological distinction, and I don't believe the verifiability page mentions it, though Jimbo Wales has stressed it several times. This also came up frequently with the LaRouche editors: they kept writing "LaRouche supporters believe X, Y and Z", and they knew what they were talking about because they were referring to themselves, and therefore couldn't understand why I kept deleting and asking for a reference. If you feel we can improve the verifiability page, then by all means shorten the references to it on this one, but please not too short, because this may be the only page people read, and remember: this page is policy, but the verifiability page isn't. SlimVirgin 03:02, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

As you know, I agree completely that verifiability is important. My point was purely structural. Well, we just have to agree to disagree. I would like to know what others think about this. And there is one thing I'd ask you to think about: are you saying that "verifiability" should not have its own page (that the concept is entirely subordinate to "no original research?" If this is not what you are saying, I encourage you to say more about what must be on this page, versus what must be on another policy page. Slrubenstein 17:14, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Basically, I see organizing this into four parts: the opening section; section two as kind of a tutorial helping newbies figure out what they should do. Okay, we have a list of what they shouldn't; can we give them models to encourage them in the right direction? I see the next three parts as very brief explanations of the two other policies I think bear most directly on this article: verification and NPOV -- a paragraph each with a link and a warning that going over those policies carefully will help them make sense of this one, and save them grief in the long run.

Thanks, Slrubenstein 23:00, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Contradiction

One thing is, these two statements seem to contradict each other.

• "The phrase 'original research' in this context refers to untested theories; data, statements, concepts and ideas that have not been published in a reputable publication.
• "Statements not known to have been published elsewhere may be acceptable if they are not disputed." Maurreen 07:17, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Uh, so you are agreeing with the point I made above? I made a specific proposal -- are you saying you support what I proposed? Slrubenstein 17:14, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think the second contradicts "no original research" and shouldn't be there anyway. It give me permisson to insert: "George Bush is a transexual" and leave it there until someone challenges it. SlimVirgin 07:27, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

Anyone who writes "George Bush is a transexual" is unlikely to be stopped by any policy or guideline.

Definition of research, from Webster's New World College Dictionary, Fourth Edition:

• n. "careful, systematic, patient study and investigation in some field of knowledge, undertaken to discover or establish facts or principles"
• vi. "to do research; make researches"
• vt. "to do research on or in; investigate thoroughly"

Thus, my view is that research, as minimum, is the deliberate seeking of knowledge. For one example, direct happenstance observation that people confuse soldiers with Marines is not research.

Slim, even if you and I were to agree on this issue, I doubt your strictness on the issue will fit in the Wikipedia culture. No hard feelings, I hope. Maybe we can just agree to disagree. And maybe it would be good for somebody else to weigh in on this, either way. Maurreen 07:59, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

My strictness on which issue? SlimVirgin 08:07, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

I think the following is important, and we should bear it in mind regarding every policy and guideline we edit: SlimVirgin 08:20, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

David Gerard wrote:

"Wikipedia is not primarily an experiment in Internet democracy. It's a project to write an encyclopedia."

Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote:

"This should be printed out and handed to every single person on the planet. I think I'll start a new nonprofit organzation to do that. Wikimedia will give everyone an encyclopedia. The new organization will give everyone a piece of paper explaining: it's an encyclopedia, not an experiment in democracy.

"We are a grand social experiment of course. But not primarily.

"Well said."

--Jimbo

Slrubenstein's proposal 2

I take it that you are referring to this:

"(2) I have a reservation about this:

'Statements not known to have been published elsewhere may be acceptable if they are not disputed. But if your edit is challenged, you must provide a reputable reference or delete the edit.'

"I think it opens up a can of worms. I think we should dump the first sentence and keep the second. People may still use unpublished things, but I don't want to put ideas in their heads, especially when the opening section is so clear."

I would be OK with deleting the first sentence if the intro examples are tweaked. (And I realize I supported them earlier.)

The intro examples are now:

"The phrase 'original research' in this context refers to untested theories; data, statements, concepts and ideas that have not been published in a reputable publication; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts or ideas that, in the words of Wikipedia's founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a 'novel narrative or historical interpretation'.

Here's another example: U.S. Marines and soldiers both wear a camouflage uniform. It is very similar, but not the same. The uniform regulations for each service are documented, but I know of no published comparison. A strict interpretation of the above paragraph would mean that I couldn't write that the uniforms are different. Maurreen 17:39, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If the uniform regulations are documented, then the differences between the uniforms have been published, unless there is only one piece of paper documenting those differences and no one apart from the author and his friends have ever seen it. :-) If an editor were to challenge you, you'd have to provide a source or delete the edit. Allowing people to use unpublished material opens a can of worms and contradicts the rest of the article. SlimVirgin 19:16, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

Maurreen, I beg to differ. If one were to read only the first two sentences, they might think this, but if they keep reading they will see a statement that says something like "if no interpretive, synthetic etc. claims are made, original sources are enough" and it gives the apple pie example. You may think this could be reworded to be more direct, or that we provide more examples, or give other criteria, but currently the introduction does not say that primary sources are never allowed. Slrubenstein

My suggestion is to change "The phrase 'original research' in this context refers to ..." to "The phrase 'original research' in this context can include ..." I'm not saying that's perfect, but I can't think of anything better right now. Maurreen 07:33, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Why? Or, what's the difference?

What do you see as the important difference between "can include" and "refers to", Maurreen? SlimVirgin 08:37, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

"Refers to" is equivalent to "is", or "A is B."

"Can include" more or less means "might be, or "Some of A is B." Maurreen 09:02, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I see that, but I'm wondering what you perceive the important difference to be. What difference will it make to you, in other words? SlimVirgin 09:28, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is aimed at "the sum of all human knowledge." And the general encouragement is to "write what you know."

A strict interpretation of the paragraph under discussion would mean "limit your writing to paraphrase or quote reputable publications."

I could refer to copy editing test X or Y, or Marine and Army uniforms.

But the paragraph says that not only can I not say anything that hasn't been said before, it must be said in whatever is deemed to be a reputable publication.

I read that as saying I can't make statements about the tests in general, I can't compare the uniforms, I can't make a simple statement that people confuse soldiers and Marines, if someone else has not written it before me. I expect that none of these statements would be disputed by anyone with moderate knowledge of the subjects.

These are just handy examples; they don't have any special meaning.

I understand and appreciate your intentions, and those of Slrubenstein. But maybe the strictness you seem to seek are not appropriate for all topics in Wikipedia, and maybe "no original reseach" can't be perfectly clarified (for instance, I know the information in the examples without performing any research). Maurreen 10:07, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I take your point. But do you accept that you'd have to reference those edits or remove them if you were challenged? (If the uniform differences have been documented, that is publication.) The point is that this page must trumpet the standard. Of course, most edits are non-controversial and won't be challenged. But the policy page has to have excellence as its aim, no matter how far from that aim most editors will stray most of the time, myself included, and it must back up people who come here looking for support if they're in dispute with another editor who's doing original research. It can't allow loopholes for that reason, but that doesn't mean that people can't write "The sun will probably rise tomorrow" without a citation. SlimVirgin 10:22, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

OK, I think we have agreement in principle.

Are you OK with changing "refers to" to "can include" or do you have a different suggestion? Maurreen 11:01, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No, as I said above, this page has to uphold the standard and can't open any loopholes. "Refers to" is fine, it really is. SlimVirgin 11:46, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

Confusing sentence

I can't work out what this sentence is saying: "Although it is our hope that readers research a variety of topics will turn to Wikipedia, one way that contributors to its articles can achieve a high level of quality is to draw on well-established previous research." SlimVirgin 07:36, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

Beats me. My hypothesis: in the early days when the policy was first being formulated, many people tried to put their own formulas or rationales in the article (this is, alas, how some articles are still written -- instead of one article that many agree on, you have an article that really says the same thing ten times, because ten different editors liked their own way of saying the same thing). Slrubenstein 17:14, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Maybe I'll fiddle with that sentence a bit more then. Regarding your proposal, I should have made it clearer that I agree with you, though I have some reservations about reducing the verifiability section too much because people genuinely seem not to understand that issue, but by all means jump in and have a go at reducing it (but please be gentle with me).  ;-) SlimVirgin 19:20, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I really try to be gentle, usually! But honestly, I understood where you are coming from. I can work on the section, but I am happy to give you first crack since you know what you think is the essense that has to be communicated. I'll come back tomorrow and if you haven't done anything I will give it a shot ... Slrubenstein 22:16, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I probably won't have done anything, as I'd tied up with matters LaRouchie. ;-) SlimVirgin 01:35, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

I like your new sentence Sl. I still have a query about the second para though, particularly the first sentence:

Original research thus takes the form of primary sources and secondary sources. Primary sources present information or data, such as archeological artifacts; photographs; historical documents such as a diary, census, transcript of a public hearing, trial, or interview; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires, records of laboratory assays or observations; records of field observations. Secondary sources present a generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data.

What do we mean by it taking the form of? Do we mean: "Original research can be based either on primary or secondary sources"? SlimVirgin 22:33, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

Primary vs Secondary sources

Should the following from capitalism be deleted according to the new guidelines?

Opponents of capitalism counter this by pointing out the unchanged after-tax income of the poorest quintile of the US population during the last two decades. While at the same time the average income and especially the income of the US rich have increased. [1]. Supporters of capitalism point out that the percentage of people in developing countries living below $1 per day have halved in only twenty years, especially in countries like China that has embraced capitalism [2].

Should it be deleted as "generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation" of "primary" sources? Ultramarine 17:00, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Huh? Don't the links serve as sources/citations? How is this original research? Or are you saying the sources are disreputable, invalid, or inappropriately used? Slrubenstein 17:51, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It is interpretation and generalization to say that the income data for the US is evidence against capitalism in general.

You are misreading the very passage you quote. It does not say that income data is evidence against capitalism. It says that some people believe that income data is evidence against capitalism. This is actually a completely different claim. It is not a claim about capitalism, it is a claim about a group of people. Slrubenstein 18:12, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

But the problem is much bigger than this. Every text in Wikipedia that is not a direct quote is an interpretation of another text. Even a summary is an interpretation of the original text. Ultramarine 18:04, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If you insist on claiming that even a summary is an interpretation, then I will just have to point out to you that in the policy "interpretation" is being used in a much narrower way. Your own interpretation is a misinterpretation. Slrubenstein 18:12, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What is the definition for interpretation, synthesis, analysis and generalziation in this policy? When is a change of an original text an interpretation and when is it not?Ultramarine 18:19, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please just look it up in a good English dictionary. This discussion isnot worth it. If we accept your definition of "interpretation," then every article would have to be deleted. Such a proposal is far from constructive; it is effectively trolling. If you have some constructive point to make here, some way to help us do what we want to do more effectively, please tell us what it is. Slrubenstein 18:21, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes. I think all the articles in Wikipedia have and must have some degree of interpretation. All facts should be supported from outside sources, if demanded. The only theories in Wikipedia should be those held by "many" people or an authority. But some interpretation and discussion of these theories in Wikipedia is inevitable. Therefore the guidelines cannot just decide which information to allow or not to allow. It must also be guidelines for this discussion and interpretation. One such guideline might be that one cannot argue against "stronger" arguments. A hierarchy might be

1. Peer-reviewed studies or government statistics 2. Academic press 3. Opinion held an authority 4. Opinion held by many people who are not authorities (5. Opinion held by only one or a few people)

For example, it should not be allowed to argue against peer-reviewed studies by refering to common opinion. In the more controversial topics in Wikipedia, this hierarchy for discussion is already in place by itself. Look for example at capitalism or race and intelligence Ultramarine 18:54, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I am sympathetic to these ideas -- but many others may see problems in what you propose. I suggest you present this as a real proposal here and also in the talk page for "cite sources" and invite people to respond. Slrubenstein 19:35, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Mission statement

Yikes, four archives of talk pages already? Can you please put a "mission statement" at some prominent place, stating why and with which objectives the whole rewrite thing has started? --Pjacobi 10:49, 2005 Feb 23 (UTC)

Or, can someone propose a list of things that still need to be done (I tried, earlier, but got no response)? This thing is now languishing, after much work and thoughtful discussion. When can we start cutting and pasting to the actual policy? Slrubenstein | Talk 20:14, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What's the procedure for putting it up? If we're allowed just to do it, then I suggest that we do. Also, have you seen this Wikipedia:Reliable sources? It's quite good. I think the idea is that this one will explain why sources need to be cited, and Wikipedia: Cite sources will explain how to. SlimVirgin 20:22, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

Okay -- there is still stuff of value in the old policy. I suggest cutting and pasting sections, one at a time. People are always editing the original policy too, so I don't think we need permission as long as we do it little by little, and strive to keep what is still good in the old policy. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:52, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Shall we draw straws for who goes first? ;-) I'll maybe start if I can get in, though Wikipedia is very slow for me today. It took me 10 minutes to get this page to load for editing. Reading is faster. SlimVirgin 22:02, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

Attempts to refute a position

The existing No original research guidelines are fairly clear that original attempts to refute a given position in an article are "original research", yet I don't see that as clearly here. In my experience one of the more significant problems of original research are editors who see a position in an article they don't like, and therefore come up with an argument to refute it. I think we need to make it clear that refutations must also come from published sources, and not just arguments people think up on their own. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:43, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Steve has just incorporated this draft into the main article at Wikipedia:No original research, so perhaps you could take a look and add something? Your explanations to the list of the misuse of deductive reasoning are as clear an exposition of that aspect of OR as I have read. SlimVirgin 20:50, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

NOR policy update needed

I think that photos, which are intended to make a specific point, should not be uploaded to Wikipedia unless they have been previously published by a disinterested, reputable 3rd party.

Flikr.com, weblogs, partisan political web sites (dailykos, freerepublic, etc) and such are not acceptable, but commercial news organizations and commericial publishers and to a lesser extent, non-profits would be ok. There is simply too much opportunity out there to stage photos, for example:

Supporters of Candidate A take Candidate B's signs and make a big mess in a parking lot with them and leave also a lot of trash like water bottles and sandwich wrappers.... the Wiki caption for this reads, "trash left behind after local rally for B".

Clearly it's a staged photo intended to make a point. If the control parameter of "intended to make a point" is not enforced, the excuse regarding the above scenario would be "I found the trash & signs in the parking lot and merely snapped the photo". Such assertions could not be disproved, opening a pandora's box of scheming opporunities.

Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 06:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC)