Hi everyone,
I have been following the this thread with interest, but am confused
as to to what the term 'original research' means. As a writer of
history I take it to mean searching the literature and archives and
writing a new, properly referenced, article about topic which may
well not have appeared in any other place than Wikipedia. Certainly
there is a great deal in my field which is not to be found anywhere
on the Web, and Wikipedia is an excellent means of getting it there.
Others seem to define 'original research' as a new scientific theory
which has not been published elsewhere.
If we are going to have a blanket ban on 'original research' we ought
to be more precise as to what it actually means, perhaps re-wording
the phrase. Any ideas?
Tony Woolrich (User: Apwoolrich)
Canal Side, Huntworth, Bridgwater, Somerset UK
Phone (44) 01278 663020
Email apw(a)ap-woolrich.co.uk
Can anyone help with this? An editor has added to the article on
former British hostage in Iraq [[Kenneth Bigley]] links to the video
showing his murder. I have deleted the link, but the other editor has
replaced it again, saying a consensus was reached over the [[Nick
Berg]] beheading that Wikipedia would provide a link to these videos.
Does Wikipedia have a policy about publishing links to what is
effectively a snuff movie? Personally, I find this highly
objectionable and unencylopedic.
Would this video count as primary source material and therefore
"original research"?
The other reason I object is that one of the links is to a
particularly nasty website featuring bestiality among other things.
Any advice would be much appreciated, either here or on [[Talk:Kenneth Bigley]].
Slim
In response to Jimbo, Shane writes:
> But that IS about who is more popular. We don't take each
> individual scientist, evaluate how good they are, and
> decide to rank their views according to that. Instead we
> shotgun it and say nearly everyone believes Albert not
> Gertie, so we'll declare him the winner.
No, Shane, we DO NOT do that. Wikipedia does NOT engage in
original research, and it does NOT make findings of
scientific fact. Rather, we follow NPOV policy by reporting
who believes the findings of Albert Einstein and why; we
don't declare anyone a winner.
> At a more abstract level, I don't see why you think we
> can even evaluate credibility. You point out how we can't
> evaluate theories well because we're not necessarily
> qualified to do so, and I agree with that. But if
> we can't evaluate those theories, how can we evaluate how
> well the people who do evaluate those theories are doing?
Either this is a strawman, or you are taking a logical
argument to highly illogical conclusion. I am NOT an
authority on General Relativity, but there are dozens of
scientists who are such authorities, and they are easy to
find. Only the most obvious trolls and internet-cranks
claim otherwise.
In an article we would report something like "Most
physicists believe that X is correct", and explain their
reasons. We would also say that "Some physicists believe
that X should be re-evalutaed because...", and explain
their reasons. We can even offer a brief overview of some
of the popular views held by self-published cranks. We do
not need to proclaim anyone the "winner". By following
NPOV we just say who holds a view, and how representative
their view is.
> Popularity. It's a popularity contest.
No it is not, not in the slightest. Right now you are
beginning to worry me. I have seen this exact argument made
by cranks and trolls on the physics newsgroups.
Robert
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Hello. I'd just like to draw attention to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ram-Man#Spambot
a discussion about whether Ram-Man should be permitted to use rambot
to send unsolicited bulk messages (soliciting participation in a
"dual-licensing drive") to thousands of user-talk pages. The bot is
currently blocked indefinitely, pending the resolution of this issue.
Ram-Man seems to believe that an implicit community consens exists and
approves of his use of the bot in this fashion. Currently, he claims
to have "over 70% support" of users who responded to the message,
although I believe this figure to be skewed by the "users who
responded" part. I therefore would appreciate it if otherwise
uninterested individuals provide Ram-Man with a more concrete measure
of the level of community support which exists regarding this message.
Others have expressed concerns regarding the precedent which this sets
for distribution of unsolicited user-talk messages, and suggest that a
more concrete policy be formed to deal with this form of userpage
spam.
Matt R nicely answered
>I'm not sure I follow you about compatibility. We all agree, surely, that dual
licensing gives people more options on how to use the work. Apologies if I've
missed something, but I don't think anyone is arguing that en.Wikipedia should
refuse GFDL-only material, but rather that we should encourage people to opt to
dual license because that makes certain bits more compatible with other
projects, and never less compatible. Have I missed a trick?
>Personally, I think Wikipedia is (to a small extent) falling short of its goal
of "creating a free encyclopedia" if articles cannot be incorporated into other
copyleft projects. I accept this is a complex problem, but the way I see it,
voluntary dual licensing by contributors may help a little -- it certainly
can't hurt.
hmmm, I see many scenarios potentially problematic, but let me give you an example of where we'll get in trouble.
RamMan goal is that the us cities articles become compatible with wikitravel license so that they can be used in wikitravel (for example). Right ?
So, he would like that all contributors of those articles agree to release their contributions through dual license. We can forget minor contributions for now (considered public domain likely) and forget the little issue of deciding what is minor and what is not minor.
Suppose all contributors release it dual. Then the content can be reused.
What happen if just one contributor refuses ? I read some suggested that his contribution be reworked in such a way that it would not matter (understand here : the contribution is likely to be removed, but modifying it should not make it change license)
What happen if one contributor refusing dual happens to work on the article after it was considered dual ? Is he allowed to contribute or should he agree to dual necessarily to participate on it ?
What happen if some gfdl only content of other wikipedias is translated and added to the dual article ? Normally, it should again switch to a non reusable content. Or will the content be refused so as to preserve the dual license ? What happens if the user insists on adding gfdl content only ?
How do you manage the fact wikitravel will accept en.wikipedia content, but not ja.wikipedia content ? How do you make that clear to editors ?
How do you plan to explain journalists and website makers that they should use this page content in this way, but this other in another way and expect them not to find us totally crazy ?
I agree that the gfdl is problematic, but I am just not convinced of the procedure used. I would just like that someone answers me clearly on the points I mentionned above. I have been asking them for several days now, and the only answer I get is basically "well, some people are not happy with the current license, you do not want a fork, don't you ?".
Well, I love when people give me explanations. It is nice to take informed decisions.
It is not so pleasant to make a decision because of a threat.
I just apology in advance if I really do not understand much of licensing issues. I fear that this might be the case of many editors though.
Don't you think ?
-------
Perhaps I understand little of what RamMan is trying to do. I should go on holidays... ;-)
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
FYI, I've just started blogging for the first time ever, and my first
blog entry is about Wikipedia and Wikinews. You can read it (and
comment, if you like), at the following URL:
http://www.prwatch.org/node/3122
--Sheldon Rampton
I'm trying to herd [[en:Xenu]] through Featured Articled Candidates. It's
getting general support and many useful suggestions have been made. One was
that if the thing about Hubbard's handwriting is mentioned, a scan of at
least that word should be put in.
So I've put the scan in as fair use for academic research purposes. Which
it blatantly is. And the full scanned page has been on Dave Touretzky's
site on the subject (http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/OTIII/) for nine years
without a legal threat. However, the Church of Scientology has threatened
others in the past.
I'm not keen to indulge in copyright paranoia - the tiny page fragment in
question is OBVIOUS fair use in a encyclopedia, of all places - but thought
it would be appropriate to at least mention it to the Foundation.
Particularly as Clearwater is just down the road from St.Petersburg in
Florida ;-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenuhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Xenuhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Xenu
- d.
Actually, I thought I was obeying MGM's voluntary injunction, and acting in an immaculate manner. I had absolutely no clue whatsoever that the edits I was making could be considered reverts by anyone. I had made two reverts the day before, and thought I had made none the day in question. AFAIK I made 2 reverts in a 24hr period, not 4. I can see how one of my edits may be considered a revert, because I did edit an out of date page, but I also inserted what were said on the talk page to be important edits by andreas, the guy who had reverted me. So mmmaybe 3 revets in 24 hrs, but that last was very dubious, since I inserted content from his edits as well. I tend to think this is less a problem w the wording of the policy than it is a situation of an admin attempting to be overly "fair" in response to an email.
Jack
--- On Wed 12/15, Theresa Knott < theresaknott(a)gmail.com > wrote:
From: Theresa Knott [mailto: theresaknott(a)gmail.com]
To: jacklynch(a)excite.com, wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 12:56:51 +0000
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Wrongful Block
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 07:49:04 -0500 (EST), Jack Lynch<br><jacklynch(a)excite.com> wrote:<br>> <br>> I did reinsert those words, but I also made other substantive edits. This has nothing to do w reversion. If I had reinserted thoise terms, and made other, non-substantive edits, i could understand, but thats not the case here. I went way out of my way to obey the policy, and have been blocked. I insist this is a violation of proper blocking procedure.<br><br>Hmm I'm not sure. Did you not think that you might be blocked for<br>doing this? It looks to me as if you were trying to sneak a revert of<br>the words into the edits. What I am saying is that you appear not to<br>be editing in good faith. Since it was clear that the god --> God etcs<br>were likely to be contentious, why didn't you make the substantive<br>edits without them? then you could have gone back tomorrow and tried<br>again or whatever?<br><br><br>Theresa<br>
_______________________________________________
Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com
The most personalized portal on the Web!
I did reinsert those words, but I also made other substantive edits. This has nothing to do w reversion. If I had reinserted thoise terms, and made other, non-substantive edits, i could understand, but thats not the case here. I went way out of my way to obey the policy, and have been blocked. I insist this is a violation of proper blocking procedure.
Jack
_______________________________________________
Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com
The most personalized portal on the Web!