I think the policy "no original research" is one of our most important
policies, and essential to the integrity of our project as an
encyclopedia. Recently Jimbo pointed out that the policy was originally
developed to deal with physics cranks, but that it could apply to history
as well -- but perhaps, with some difficulty. I agree that the policy
should apply to all forms of research. I've been thinking about the way
the policy is formulated and think it can be improved. I have mad ea
suggestion on the talk page, and I'd appreciate comments:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research#On_seconda…
I am very confident of the substantive point I am trying to make, but less
confident about the wording. Whether I am right or wrong, this issue
requires some debate now because a number of people have expressed
confusion about our policy,
Steve
Steven L. Rubenstein
Associate Professor
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Bentley Annex
Ohio University
Athens, Ohio 45701
As wikipedia grows and evolves, standards will change, hopefully become
clearer, and in some cases, I think, should become more stringent. I think
this is the case with original research. The Apple Pie article is
informative and well-written -- and does have some outside links. But if
as we grow we want to be taken seriously, claims about the gendered nature
of "American as apple pie" need to be sourced. The fact is, there are
sources out there. For our articles not to provide sources accomplishes
two negative things. First, it makes our editors appear lazy, as we are
unwilling to do a little more work to acknowledge where our analysis comes
from. Second, it makes wikipedia less useful as a gateway to further research.
That said, the article is primarily about an object and does not involve
much interpretation or analysis. As I read others' views and see more
examples, my view is starting to firm up as this: if the article makes no
interpretive, analytical, or synthetic claims, it can rely on primary
sources (and thus, be a secondary source). But if the article is to make
interpretive, analytical, or synthetic claims, it must rely on secondary
sources (and thus, be a tertiary source).
Re: The league of distinguished gentlemen. I agree strongly with John. I
disagree with Charles, who writes "It's a kind of goofy pedantic point that
personal knowledge of something should be disqualified." On the contrary,
this is what rules like "no original research" or "no personal essays" is
all about. Look, lets say I am a particle physicist and I have conducted
research on muons and want to write the Wikipedia article on muons. I
should still have to back up my claims with references to published
work. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a substitute for a journal or
newspaper.
Steve
>Message: 3
>Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2004 14:57:06 -0500
>From: Delirium <delirium(a)hackish.org>
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] original research
>To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
>Message-ID: <41B4B992.2080000(a)hackish.org>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
>Charles Matthews wrote:
>
> >Take [[apple pie]], which cites an original source. WP doesn't need to
> >police whether the conclusions drawn are safely derivative or not. (That's
> >apple sauce - sorry.) Any more than if I wander around Cambridge and see
> >something encyclopedic, I need first to check that it's in a guidebook.
> >
> >
>Yeah, this is somewhat of a tricky issue. My personal barometer is that
>if I'm documenting facts with a minimum of interpretation, then all I
>need is some reference for the facts. But if I'm making an
>interpretation, I try to confine it to interpretations that have been
>made before, rather than trying to synthesize primary sources myself.
>
>In a few cases, like [[industrial music]], there's no authoritative
>scholarship in the field (indeed, very little scholarship at all), so
>some amount of original research contentiously creeps in, but there's
>still an attempt to document "prevailing opinion", as far as information
>on it can be found, and trying as much as possible to avoid making novel
>musicological arguments and categorizations.
>
>-Mark
>
>
>Message: 5
>Date: Tue, 07 Dec 2004 08:37:59 -0800
>From: Sean Barrett <sean(a)epoptic.org>
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] original research
>To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
>Message-ID: <41B5DC67.8000609(a)epoptic.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
>I have recently noticed another form of what I consider to be "original
>research," and I'd like to see if the consensus agrees with me.
>
>The article [[The League of Distinguished Gentlemen]] purports to
>describe a secret society at Creighton University. It clearly was
>written by the secret society himself and is currently listed for
>deletion. A popular reason given in the votes for deletion is
>"unverifiable," the rebuttal to which is "you can't verify it because
>it's a /truly/ secret secret society!"
>
>All of which is only mildly amusing, but did lead me to contemplate the
>possibility of a /real/ truly secret secret society. Even if such an
>Illuminatus really did exist, and someone really were able to penetrate
>it, it seems to me that the resulting exposé would be original research,
>and not appropriate for Wikipedia.
>
>Thus, it seems to me that all unverifiable claims about secret societies
>are logically either
>(A) untrue, in which case they should be deleted, or
>(2) true, in which case they are original research and should be deleted.
>
>Comments?
>
>--
> Sean Barrett | Remember your priorities. Draining the
> sean(a)epoptic.com | swamp will take care of the alligators.
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 6
>Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2004 17:22:05 -0000
>From: "Charles Matthews" <charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com>
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] original research
>To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
>Message-ID: <004c01c4dc81$4749b040$9e7c0450@Galasien>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
>Sean Barrett wrote
>
> >Even if such an
> > Illuminatus really did exist, and someone really were able to penetrate
> > it, it seems to me that the resulting exposé would be original research,
> > and not appropriate for Wikipedia.
>
>Think we should stick with 'Original research' being an 'argument to
>delete', and not a 'proof of non-encyclopedic nature'. It's a kind of goofy
>pedantic point that personal knowledge of something should be disqualified.
>
>Charles
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 7
>Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2004 01:43:48 +0800
>From: John Lee <johnleemk(a)gawab.com>
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] original research
>To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
>Message-ID: <41B5EBD4.3050802(a)gawab.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
>Publish a book about it. If the society is interesting enough to be of
>note, sufficient pop culture should arise surrounding it to justify an
>article.
>
>The incident you mention is indeed original rsearch - that is why we
>need an external source. Original research cannot be verified - that is
>why we need an external source. The inclusionists harp on it - "But it's
>VERIFIABLE! We gotta' keep it!" Without a source not from Wikipedia,
>this is not verifiable at all.
>
>John Lee
>([[User:Johnleemk]])
>
Steven L. Rubenstein
Associate Professor
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Bentley Annex
Ohio University
Athens, Ohio 45701
I have created a new template for Wikipedians to display on their user
pages to display they are content with the GFDL and don't feel the need to
jump on the multi-licensing bandwagon:
You can get to it by typing {{NoMultiLicense}}.
You can see it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:NoMultiLicense
--Ashdurbat
I don't think it counts as fair use to use something that is designed
as an icon for an operating system on every computer stub on
wikipedia, referring to the template "Compu-stub" which uses
Image:Mycomp.PNG which is taken from the Windows XP operating system.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Vandalism_in_progress&…
>
> By the way, this user is also a sysop, but should this make a
> difference? This is a serious question.
Is he? He fails to appear on [[Wikipedia:List_of_administrators]] or
[[Special:Listadmins]].
--
Allan Crossman - a.crossman(a)blueyonder.co.uk
The Moon is Waning Gibbous (53% of Full)
The question is how to define original research. I disagree with Zoney
that an article that is original to Wikipedia is "original research." It
is an original encyclopedia article, and was certainly based on research,
but that research -- for an encyclopedia article -- is not what we call
"original" research. I agree with Mark that we need to be very careful
about this. I think Fred's distinction, "To put together an article using
references from published material is not original research. Advancing
ideas that you can find no published source for is." is very important
and if it is not clearly stated in the policy, then it should be. That is,
an article that draws on previously published material but that advances
ideas that have not previously been published should, for our purposes, be
considered "original research." Stan raises a very interesting point that
bears further discussion, perhaps on the policy's talk page.
Steve
Steven L. Rubenstein
Associate Professor
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Bentley Annex
Ohio University
Athens, Ohio 45701
Hotly agree with Ambi. The autoblocker has been the cause of many nasty
fights, Danny protecting his access to Wikipedia by coaching Mike Garcia
etc etc. Software-wise, this should not be a big deal, as long as account
creation is included (sockpuppets of the world, unite!)
Jfdwolff
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Vandalism_in_progress&…
Disclaimer: This email is written in good faith.
There is a user who is removing their own reports from the Vandalism in
progress page. This user was listed yesterday for reverting a page at
least 5 times. The reverting was not removing vandalism but was
asserting a POV. As far as I am aware, this user should have been
blocked for 24 hours, but it does not appear this happened.
By the way, this user is also a sysop, but should this make a
difference? This is a serious question.
Regards,
Edmund
> The autoblocker was designed for a purpose, and it still largely
> serves that purpose. I don't think there's a need to completely shut
> it off. However, they really shouldn't be affecting logged-in users,
> and I think that as UC says, having them only affect account creation
> and anon editing would be a wise move.
If you do this, then all a vandal has to do is create a whole load of
accounts prior to his spree; block one and he will just switch to another.
I'd like to make an alterative suggestion: a sysop-operated whitelist.
Any username on the whitelist would be immune from IP blocks (though NOT
from direct blocks on the username itself).
There would be no need to pro-actively add users to it; all that would
be required is to wait until a problem arises for someone, then fix it
for them when they email to complain...
The beauty of this system would be that no logged-in user would ever
have to suffer an IP block due to someone else's misbehaviour more than
once.
--
Allan Crossman - a.crossman(a)blueyonder.co.uk
The Moon is Waning Gibbous (59% of Full)
The announcement is on Recentchanges and several other places, and the
election has been discussed here before, but I figured the mailing list
should also receive an announcement that voting has begun in the
December Arbitration Committee election.
--Michael Snow